HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/09/2010 - LAND USE CODE REVIEW RELATING TO NATURAL RESOURCES DATE: March 9, 2010
STAFF: Dana Leavitt WORK SESSION ITEM
Mark Sears FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/c/erWagendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Land Use Code Review Relating To Natural Resources Protection.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has raised concerns regarding the protection of natural resources found within the city.
Protecting natural resources in the city is highly valued by the community, which translates into
being a driver during the design process for many new developments. Protection measures for
natural resources can be found in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code(LUC). Within Section 3.4.1,
there are two specific standards that pertain to protection measures, which are at the heart of
protecting natural resources. The Land Use Code contains four more standards found in Section
2.9.4 Text&Map Amendment Procedures,Section 3.2.4 Sight Lighting,and Section 3.5.1 Building
and Project Compatibility that provide direction for the protection of natural resources.
Staff has identified one area that can be improved to ensure the integration of protection measures
for natural resources into a project development plan(PDP)in a more timely fashion. An Ecological
Characterization Study(ECS)can be required to be submitted at the time of a development submittal
per Section 2.2.3(C) Development Application Contents, but at this time staff cannot require it to
be submitted prior to the official submittal. Establishing a chronology for a submittal would ensure
that the findings and recommendations of the ECS form the basis of a development plan that is
responsive to and protects the natural resources found on or in vicinity to the proposed development.
Note that this would not be a new regulation but a shift in the timing of submitting a report.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is Council reassured that the standards in Section 3.4.1—Natural Habitats and Features of the
Land Use Code (Section 3.4.1) are protecting natural resources in Fort Collins?
2. Are there are areas of concern that staff has not addressed in this assessment of Section
3.4.1?
3. Would Council like to see any changes to strengthen the standards and/or improve the
process for protecting natural resources in the city?
4. Should staff build on the conditions of zoning passed in a recent annexation and move
forward with establishing a chronology for submitting an ECS?
March 9, 2010 Page 2
BACKGROUND
During work sessions with the Windsor Town Board for the I-25/SH 392 Intersection Improvement
Project, questions were raised by Council regarding the adequacy of the protection measures set
forth in Section 3.4.1 of-the LUC. Council asked staff for an evaluation of the current regulations
in the LUC.
In the review of the Fossil Creek/392 annexation proposal (27 acres located in the southwest
quadrant of the I-25/SH 392 intersection) in January 2010, Council discussed the effectiveness of
the current process for when an ECS would be prepared and submitted to the City for review. Staff
raised concerns that,at times,a development proposal did not integrate the findings of the ECS into
the development proposal,creating a plan that may not respect the natural resources on the property.
To address these concerns, Council placed a condition on the zoning of the property requiring the
ECS be prepared and submitted to the City in advance of the PDP submittal. This condition ensures
that the findings of the ECS will form the basis of a development proposal that responds to and
protects the natural resources associated with the property.
A multifaceted approach to comprehensively protect natural resources is used in Fort Collins. Three
areas within the City function to protect natural resources:
• Utilities—Managing Floodplain Regulations
• Natural Areas Programs—Land Conservation
• Current Planning—Administering the Land Use Code Regulations
Floodplain management refers to those activities that are implemented with the intent to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare, to minimize public and privates losses due to flood
conditions and to maintain,enhance,and improve the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains.
The Natural Areas Program conserves lands both inside and outside the Growth Management Area.
Protection of natural habitats and features is the highest priority of the program.
Current Planning staff reviews all development projects proposed in the city and administers the
enforcement of the Land Use Code, which contains many regulations designed to protect natural
resources.
Land Use Code Standards
The following sections of the LUC are applied in the establishment of buffer zones on a property
'during.the development review process:
• Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features is the primary section of the LUC that
contains the means for identifying natural resources and establishes protection measures in
the form of buffer zones. Environmental review is triggered if mapped natural resources are
on the site or if City-owned land is involved.
March 9, 2010 Page 3
0 Section 3.4.1 (D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature
Boundary establishes the requirements for an Ecological Characterization Study,
which occurs prior to the establishment of any buffer zones. The ECS is a science
based evaluation based on up-to-date biological data as noted in the June 11, 2007
memo(Attachment 1). The ECS identifies the function and value of natural features,
which is the foundation for establishing a buffer. This section also calls for the
development of mitigation measures to minimize any impacts to natural resources.
o Section 3.4.1(E) Establishment of Buffer Zones includes a table that summarizes
buffer zone dimensional standards, listing such items as the Spring Creek Corridor,
which has a 100-foot buffer. In addition to aquatic resources, the table also
addresses grassland, shrubland, and forest areas, and potential habitat for rare and
endangered species and other selected wildlife. The City establishes buffer widths
based on various conditions such as wetland or stream corridor value, size of
wetland, and location. The buffer zone may be reduced or enlarged from the
prescribed distance, if necessary,to ensure that a series of performance standards are
met. The primary performance measure is that the ecological character or function
is maintained and that foreseeable impacts are eliminated, mitigated or minimized.
There are complementary sections of the LUC that are pertinent to the protection of natural
resources. For example:
• Section 2.9.4 Text & Map Amendment Procedures allows for specific conditions to be
added to a property at time of initial zoning (usually done at the time of annexation).
• Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting contains design standards for the lighting of exterior spaces to
ensure that adjacent properties are not adversely affected.
0 Section 3.2.4(D)(6) states that natural areas and natural features shall be protected
from light spillage from off-site sources.
• Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility allows additional evaluation when there
is a difference between a development proposal and adjacent natural resources.
o Section 3.5.1(H) Land Use Transition is a compatibility standard that is applied
when land uses with significantly different character are proposed in close proximity.
For protection of natural resources this can result in a project being restricted by
limiting the hours of operation,reducing lighting,locating noise generating activities
and other restrictions as deemed necessary.
o Section 3.5.1(.n Operational/Physical Compatibility standards are applied
similarly to 3.5.1(H). For example,impacts can be mitigated by locating loading and
delivery zones, moving off-street parking spaces and placing trash receptacles in
areas that will not have an impact on the natural resources.
March 9, 2010 Page 4
Expected Outcomes
Over the years, Council and the community have emphasized environmental quality as a core
community value. City Plan expands on this value with the following planning principles:
• Principle ENV-6: Natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will
be protected and enhanced within the developed landscape of Fort Collins.
• Policy OL-1.2 Urban Development: The City will conserve and integrate open lands into
the developed landscape by directing development away from natural habitats and features
and by using innovative planning, design, and management practices.
• Policy WC-1.2 Natural Environment and Wildlife: The City will preserve, protect,
enhance, and restore important natural areas, wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and wildlife
corridors within Water Corridors.
Policy WC-1.3 Buffering: The City will continue to maintain and develop standards for
adequate buffers to maintain channel stability, water conveyance, flood protection, and
wildlife habitat values.
In adopting the 2004 Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan, (an element of City Plan),
Council reaffirmed its commitment to protecting community natural resources in the opening
statement of the adopting resolution:
"... for the purpose of conserving and managing local and regional natural areas,
community separators, agricultural lands and scenic vistas..."
Specifically for the protection of natural resources, the purpose of Section 3.4.1 is to ensure that
when property is developed consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the proposed
physical elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site will protect the
natural habitats and features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site.
The general standard to which a development proposal is evaluated is to "the maximum extent
feasible,"the development plan shall be designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect
natural habitats and features and the plants and animals that inhabit them and integrate them within
the developed landscape of the community by:
• Directing development away from sensitive resources
• Minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer zones
• Enhancing existing conditions
• Restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community (either on-site or off-site)
when a development proposal will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features.
March 9, 2010 ' Page 5
Staff implements policy on a project by project basis as each project and site are different. The basis
for implementing policy starts at the Council level, followed by adopted plans and Code, and then
by implementing the Land Use Code on individual sites.
How Section 3.4.1 Fits into the Project Development Plan (PDP) Process
All projects that are submitted for a Conceptual Review and/or a Preliminary Design Review are
subject to the standards found in Section 3.4.1. Based upon a review of the City's Natural Habitats
and Features Inventory map,GIS aerial maps and site visits, specific review comments are provided
that explain that an ECS is a required component of the PDP submittal.
With the requirement for an ECS as part of the PDP submittal, it is up to the applicant to schedule
a scoping meeting to determine the requirements for the ECS. Typically, a site visit is conducted
to evaluate the field conditions and set the parameters of the study. Following these meetings, the
applicant has the ECS prepared for review by staff. A draft copy of the ECS is often submitted for
review as a courtesy to staff. Though this is not a required element, a draft report provides an
opportunity for staff and the applicant to agree on the findings of the report, assuring acceptance of
the ECS at the time of submittal.
The submittal of the ECS occurs at the time of the submittal of the PDP application. The review
period is tied to the review period for the PDT application. The review determines if the findings
and recommendations of the ECS have been integrated into the development plans. Staff comments
are prepared addressing deficiencies with the ECS and/or the development plans. Staff continues
to respond to revised plans until the comments have been addressed and the plans meet the standards
of Section 3.4.1.
Staff recommends approval of PDP plans and documents (or subsequent revisions) after plans
comply with Section 3.4.1 requirements. If the PDP submittal fails to meet the requirements of
Section 3.4.1, the project will be recommended for denial by staff.
What is missing from the process is a defined schedule that would allow the findings and
recommendations of the ECS to be integrated into the development at the beginning of the design
phase,reducing and in some cases,eliminating a change to the plans during staff review of the PDP
plans.
Assessment of Effectiveness of Section 3.4.1
• Staff finds that the standards employed for protecting natural resources are strong standards
and have been applied to development proposals since 1997, protecting natural resources
found in the community.
• The findings and recommendations of the ECS form the basis of a good plan that responds
to the natural features on the property through a design that allows for protecting the natural
resources while accommodating the needs for development. This is far more preferable than
trying to fit a development on a site and then figure out how protection of the natural
resources will be addressed.
March 9, 2010 Page 6
• An ECS is a study that is first-among-equals when it comes to designing a site for
development. The ECS is higher in value (than a soils report) and should be moved up in
the development review flowchart to have an impact on the design process.
• At the time of development, the zoning map amendment process, if so conditioned, can be
used as a measure to ensure that annexations prioritize natural resources values associated
with the property at the beginning of the PDP process.
• All decisions pertaining to the established buffers are based on up-to-date biological data
rather than the subjective judgment of staff, and are subject to review by either an
Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board as noted in the memo
dated June 11, 2007.
• In the book Nature-Friendly Communities, authors Chris Duerkson and Cara Snyder cited
the City's Land Use Code in one of the book's case studies:
"Fort Collins is a city with strong regulations and leading the region on several fronts
—habitat protection via acquisition on a regional scale as well as tough regulations."
• In the book, Duerkson and Snyder also note that:
"There is growing evidence that illustrates that nature-friendly communities can
realize substantial economic benefits. From attracting and retaining employers and
employees to bringing in potentially millions of tourist dollars, an investment in
nature can provide measurable payoffs in the short and long term. The beauty in
investing in biodiversity protection is that it provided long-lasting benefits and
returns—it is not just a one-shot deal."
• .The physical environment is the primary benefactor of the protection measures found in
Section 3.4.1. The current standards of the LUC ensure that natural resources are protected
during the development review and construction process.
• The health, safety and welfare of the community are not adversely impacted by the
protection measures found in the Land Use Code. There is a positive effect on the
community with the protection of the community's natural resources as can be seen in the
fact that various species of plants and animals serve to protect human health.
• The LUC standards by themselves, may or may not cause direct economic impacts. It can
be argued that imposing the requirement for preparing an ECS causes an economic impact
on the applicant. However,the requirement for an ECS is an existing standard that is a cost
that the applicant already incurs in the preparation'of a PDP application. If the ECS is
prepared prior to designing the project and the results of the ECS are integrated into the site
design, the applicant has the potential to reduce review time and costs associated with
responding to staff review comments and revising the plans by consultants to meet the LUC
standards.
March 9, 2010 Page 7
Summary
• At this time, staff finds that the LUC standards provide appropriate natural resource
protection and do not need to be changed.
• The City has some of the most effective protection measures for natural resources. Some
examples include:
0 On the Fire Station Four Project located on approximately 3 acres at the southeast
corner of West Drake Road and South Taft Hill Road,development was kept outside
of the 100-foot buffer for Spring Creek with enhancement to the buffer zone,
preserving the natural character of the wildlife corridor.
o At an affordable housing project on East Harmony Road, on approximately 2 acres,
the 50-foot buffer for Mail Creek was preserved and native plantings were used to
enhance the buffer zone providing additional wildlife habitat.
• When new and innovative methods are developed in this field,there is a continuous process
for amending the LUC so that the city maintains up-to-date protection measures.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the chronology of submitting the ECS and starting the process to define
buffers and protection measures be established prior to the submittal of a PDP application.
• A submittal process for the ECS should be developed that addresses the following items:
1. Development of a submittal checklist that allows for tailoring the ECS on a project
by project basis
2. A schedule to meet the submittal requirement,allowing the applicant to integrate the
ECS into the overall project schedule
3. Integrate the ECS into the Development Review Flowchart diagram so that the
process is transparent to an applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo, Dated June 11, 2007 on Wetland Protection: Fort Collins versus Boulder
2. Power Point Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
MVr_ ft_ _
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
FROM: Cameron Gloss,Planning and Zoning Director j0a
Joe Frank, Planning,Development and Trans ortation Interim Directo �-�-S�.
DATE: June l 1,2007
SUBJECT: Wetland Protection: Fort Collins versus Boulder
The following is staff's response to a request for a comparison of the City of Fort Collins
and City of Boulder Wetland Mapping and Protection Programs.
Back rg ound
Fort Collins and Boulder regulate wetlands through their land use regulations and utilize
buffers around wetland areas to protect habitat and other natural resources. Also,
common to many other jurisdictions, both cities employ a fixed-width buffer approach.
Both land use codes are stronger than the federal regulations, Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act,partly because of these required buffer areas.
Fort Collins Natural Habitat and Features Protection
Fort Collins adopted the natural habitat and features ordinance in 1998. The Natural
Habitat and Features Inventory was developed from the April 1999 aerial photography
used for the land use planning program. The map provides the overall framework for
applying the environmental standards when new development is considered. In addition
to wetland resources, the inventory includes aquatic,grassland,shrubland, and forest
areas,and potential habitat for rare and endangered species and other selected wildlife.
These areas are delineated on the Natural Habitat and Features Inventory map, but the
boundaries may be subject to evaluation under more detailed analysis,provided by
property owners, with what is referred to as an"Ecological Characterization Study".
Environmental review is triggered if mapped natural features are on the site or if City-
owned land is involved. Part of the City's process includes an ecological characterization
study if deemed to be required by the environmental planner during the pre-application
phase(either Conceptual Review or Preliminary Design Review) of the review process.
This same staff person acts as an expert for the City,but occasionally obtains comments
1
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
from the Colorado Division of Wildlife or other experts. Environmental review is
completed as a component of development plan approval process and does not include a
separate"wetland"or"environmental"permit.
The Land Use Code includes a table that summarizes buffer zone dimensional standards,
listing such items as "wetlands less than 1/3 acre in size", in this case, 50 feet. The City
establishes buffer widths based on various conditions such as wetland or stream corridor
value, size of wetland, and location. The buffer zone may be reduced or enlarged from
the prescribed distance, if necessary, to ensure that a series of performance standards are
met. The primary performance measure is that the ecological character or function of the
wetland is maintained and that foreseeable impacts are minimized.
The Fort Collins buffer zone standards have undergone two changes of significance since
their initial adoption. In the spring of 2004, the buffer standards were reduced for Red-
tail and Swainson's hawks to 900' where 1,320' (1/4 mile) was previously required. A
developer could further reduce the 900' buffer to 450' if, in turn, he provided land
mitigation at a 1:1 ratio or paid the City $10,000 per acre for land developed within the
buffer zone. The hawk buffer zone changes were criticized for a variety of reasons, The
solution was a subsequent code change in the fall of 2004 that eliminated the Red-tail and
Swainson 's hawk buffer standards and the mitigation requirements. Under this last code
change, a provision was added to protect hawk nest sites through at least one nesting
season.
Boulder Wetlands Ordinance
Boulder's Wetlands Protection Ordinance was first adopted in 1992. The ordinance
adopted a wetlands map as the official determination of wetland boundaries within the
city limits. The wetlands areas shown on this map and a buffer area outside each wetland
are the areas regulated under the ordinance. Boulder applies two fixed-width buffer areas
(25 and 50 feet)to wetlands and streams based on their significance. Certain activities
within either the wetland or the buffer area require a wetland permit.
The original mapping completed in the late 1980's was conducted on a coarse level in that
wetlands were largely identified and mapped through aerial photography interpretation
with limited field verification. Wetland boundaries were typically exaggerated along the
creeks to compensate for the difficulty in interpreting the aerial photography. Due to a
limited budget,the city was unable to provide field-verified accuracy in the map that was
adopted in 1992. Wetland maps were amended in 1996 to add a few new wetlands to the
inventory-otherwise, the wetland boundaries as shown on the current adopted map are
more than a dozen years old.
Each mapped wetland area includes an accompanying general analysis of the wetland and
its ability to provide wildlife habitat,flood control mitigation,water quality
improvement,runoff stabilization and a host of other factors.
2
Over the years, the administration of the wetlands protection ordinance has proven
somewhat difficult because of the conceptual mapping approach used to define wetland
boundaries. To address this issue,the City of Boulder was awarded a$71,600 grant in
2003 from the EPA for the purpose of updating the city's wetlands regulatory maps.
With continued concern over the wetland program,the City of Boulder is currently
evaluating the effectiveness of the ordinance. In response to public concerns that the
wetland ordinance is both unclear and too restrictive, the City staff is
postponing adoption of the newly created maps and is conducting research on the current
science and application of buffer areas in stream and wetland protection. The City of Fort
Collins ordinance is one that Boulder has cited as a benchmark.
Which Approach is Better?
Permitting Predictability Scientific Basis Flexibility Cost
Fort Wetland Natural Habitats and Ecological Environmental Additional
Collins impacts are Features Map shows Characterization Planner costs to
evaluated as general location of Studies required authorized to developer if
part of the wetlands alerting under most average buffer Ecological
development owners of resource situations&must width&reduce Study is
review sensitivity be prepared by a /waive the Study triggered.
process. qualified if warranted by
professional. local conditions.
Boulder Separate *Generalized Biological Fixed buffer More up-
wetland Wetland Mapping information widths of 25 and front cost
permit shows wetland associated with 50 feet cannot for the City
required. location/baseline each wetland area take into account to provide
resource information is very general local site up-to-date
(*more detailed and difficult to conditions. mapping,
mapping has recently keep up-to-date. but cheaper
been completed,but for
not approved) developer.
From staffs perspective, Fort Collins' approach to wetland conservation seems to be
more manageable yet still preserves wetland values. As the comparison above shows,the
Fort Collins ordinance is predictable but can also provider greater flexibility. Although
one could argue that the Fort Collins development community bears a higher cost by
providing independent biological survey information(Ecological Characterization
Study),decisions to modify buffer dimensions or allow encroachments are based on up-
to-date biological data,rather than the subjective judgment of staff, and are subject to
review by either an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board.
Incorporation of wetland evaluation as part of the development review process,rather
than through a separate wetland permit,also represents a time savings for developers
without diminishing the level of wetland resource protection.
3
ATTACHMENT 2
LAND USE CODE REVS r V 1
RELATING TO NAT
RESOURCE
For ollins
bin ;;91
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
• Is Council reassured that the standards in Section
3 . 4 . 1 — Natural Habitats and Features of the Land Use
Code ( Section 3 . 4 . 1 ) are protecting natural resources
in Fort Collins?
• Are there are areas of concern that staff has not
addressed in this assessment of Section 3 . 4 . 1 ?
Fort Collins
1
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
• Would Council like to see any changes to strengthen
the standards and /or improve the process for
protecting natural resources in the City?
• Should staff build on the conditions of zoning passed
in a recent annexation and move forward with
establishing a chronology for submitting an ECS ?
F�t`
Collins
OVERVIEW
• 125/SH392 Intersection Improvement Project
• Fossil Creek/392 Annexation
City of
Fort Collins
2
OVERVIEW
Multi - Faceted Approach to Protecting Natural
Resources
— Utilities Flood Plains Management
— Natural Areas Program
— Current Planning & Land Use Code
Implementation
F�t`
Cottins
ift� I
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS
Primary Standards
• Section 3 . 4 . 1 Natural Habitats & Features
— Section 3 . 4 . 1 ( D ) Ecological Characterization
— Section 3 . 4 . 1 ( E ) Establishment of Buffer Zones
City of
Fort Collins
3
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS
Complementary Standards
• Section 2 . 9 .4 Text & Map Amendment Procedures
• Section 3 . 2 .4 Site Lighting
• Section 3 . 5 . 1 Building and Project Compatability
�'.F�tf
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
• City Plan Principles
• 2004 Land Conservation and Stewardship Master
Plan
• Purpose of Section 3 .4 . 1
• General Standard of Section 3 . 4 . 1
_ Fort Collins
_`y f
4
Section 3 . 4 . 1 & the Project Development
Plan Process
• Conceptual Review/ Preliminary Design Review
Comments
• Requirements for an ECS
• ECS Submittal
• Staff Review
• Staff Recommendation
F�t` o ins
Assessment of Effectiveness = Section 3 . 4 . 1
• Strong standards
• ECS a science- based evaluation
• ECS forms basis of good planning
• ECS is first among equals of reports
• City is recognized for having tough regulations
• Timing of ECS submittal
City of
Fort Collins
5
Development Review Flowchart
•Reports
Conceptual PDP Staff T affic Public Final Sign/
Review Application Review •soils Hearing Plans Record
Drainage
EXISTING
•Reports Public Final Sign/
Conceptual PDP Staff Traffic
Review ECis Application Review D0alinage Hearing Plans Record
I I I I I
PROPOSED
- r of ttins
RECOMMENDATION
• Establish a timeline for submittal of ECS addressing :
. Specific time prior to PDP submittal
. Integrate into Development Review Flowchart
Y Fort Collins
6