HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/21/2017 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 021, 2017, AMENDINAgenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 21, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2017, Amending Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and
Features.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 7, 2017, amends various Land Use Code
requirements related to the protection and mitigation of impacts to prairie dog colonies, sensitive and specially
valued species, and other natural habitats and features on development sites.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, February 7, 2017 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 021, 2017 (PDF)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2017, Amending Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and
Features.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider potential changes to various Land Use Code requirements related to
the protection and mitigation of impacts to prairie dog colonies, sensitive and specially valued species, and
other natural habitats and features on development sites.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since the original Land Use Code (LUC) provisions regarding prairie dog colonies were adopted in 1997, there
has been considerable change in the size and characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth
Management Area, best practices for fumigation and relocation, and citywide development patterns. Based on
the latest research on the ecosystem value of prairie dog colonies and current best management practices,
staff proposes a number of LUC updates regarding prairie dog management and the protection of natural
habitats and features on development sites.
CURRENT LAND USE CODE REQUIREMENTS
Development activities that have the potential to impact natural habitats and features are regulated by Section
3.4.1 of the LUC. In some cases, prairie dog colonies are considered a special habitat feature that warrants
protection or mitigation, but provisions for prairie dog management vary depending on the site:
For colonies over 50 acres in size, the developer must either protect and buffer the colony or, if the colony
will be removed, replace the resource value lost to the community through some form of mitigation.
Mitigation requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis, and may include the creation of
grassland habitat, relocation of prairie dogs, donation of euthanized prairies dogs to support black-footed
ferret or raptor recovery programs, or payment-in-lieu to fund grassland restoration or prairie dog
management elsewhere in the community.
For colonies less than 50 acres in size, no protection or mitigation of impacts to prairie dogs is required. If
prairie dogs will be left on-site, and depending on the nature of the project, fencing, underground barriers,
or other mechanisms may be required to reduce conflicts between wildlife and the development project.
Before the commencement of grading or other construction on the development site, any prairie dogs
inhabiting the site must be relocated or eradicated by the developer using City-approved methods.
If prairie dogs will be removed from the site, they must be humanely relocated or eradicated using City-
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
approved methods and, in some cases, methods approved by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and/or the
Humane Society. Fumigation may be used to eradicate prairie dogs, but only by an exterminator or
fumigator that is properly licensed by the State of Colorado. Trapping of prairie dogs is permitted, provided
that any animals trapped are released or disposed of in the manner required by the Humane Society and
the Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES
Prairie Dog Management
Since the original LUC provisions regarding prairie dog colonies were adopted, there has been a considerable
reduction in the size and change in characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area
and citywide development patterns. The proposed LUC changes include:
1. Size threshold - Reduce the size threshold for protection and/or mitigation of prairie dog colonies from 50
acres to 1 acre to better align with the current scale and distribution of prairie dog colonies within the
Growth Management Area. Prairie dog colonies greater than 1 acre in size would be considered special
features during the development review process and therefore treated similarly to other significant
resources. The 1-acre threshold would include the majority of remaining prairie dog colonies on private
land throughout the City, but would allow for flexibility for smaller areas of prairie dog encroachment on a
site. See Attachment 1 (Colony Size Threshold Options) for additional analysis. Attachment 2 illustrates
the differences between the current and proposed development review process for sites containing prairie
dogs.
2. Mitigation - Continue to determine mitigation requirements (on-site improvements, off-site improvements,
relocation, trap and donate, or payment-in-lieu) on a case-by-case basis for development projects, but for
prairie dog colonies greater than 1 acre in size. The significance and ecological value of a prairie dog
colony would be determined by staff and/or the Director during the development review process. Staff
would rely on the general standard in 3.4.1(C) to determine mitigation requirements, and requirements
would be applied consistently to applicable development projects.
3. Reporting - Require a report that documents the timing and methods used for prairie dog relocation or
eradication for all prairie dog removal activities on development sites.
4. Fumigation (Lethal Control) of Prairie Dogs: Local regulation of the use of fumigants and other
pesticides on private property is specifically preempted by state law. As such, no changes to the allowable
methods for fumigation are proposed at this time. However, staff will encourage applicants to use carbon
monoxide-based methods for lethal management on development sites because it is considered more
humane than other fumigants (e.g., aluminum phosphide). This is consistent with the management
practices utilized by the Natural Areas Department, and carbon monoxide fumigation services are offered
by multiple Northern Colorado exterminators.
Sensitive and Specially Valued Species
Sections 3.4.1(F)(1) and 3.4.1(N)(4) of the Land Use Code speak to Sensitive and Specially Valued Species.
These sections currently reference an outdated list of “Species of Concern” in LUC section 5.1.2 (Definitions).
The definition for “sensitive and specially valued species” references a document published by the State of
Colorado in 1996, which has subsequently been updated numerous times and includes a number of species
without any legal protection by the state or federal government. This document is updated by Colorado Parks
and Wildlife staff administratively, rather than by the State legislature, and relates to the state as a whole and
in some cases is not directly relevant to the habitats found in and around Fort Collins. The Fort Collins Natural
Areas Department maintains a more relevant list of species that warrant local consideration or protection
(Attachment 3).
Additionally, LUC 3.4.1(F)(1) mandates protection not only for species with state and federal legal protections
(threatened or endangered species), but also for those identified as “species of concern” or “sensitive natural
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 3
communit[ies].” As a result, there is little to no flexibility for a developer if such a species is identified on their
property, even if there are no other local, state or federal legal protections for that species. A more current list
of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species may include species such as black-tailed prairie dogs, which are
considered valuable native species but for which protection may not always make sense in an urban context;
in some cases mitigation may be a more appropriate option.
Staff proposes the following updates related to Sensitive and Specially Valued Species:
1. Definition of Threatened or Endangered Species - Add a new definition that specifically addresses plant
and wildlife species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state or federal government.
Species that are included in this definition are subject to additional state and federal protections.
2. Definition of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species - Update the definition for "Sensitive and Specially
Valued Species" to reflect the current City of Fort Collins Species of Interest list, which is maintained and
updated by the Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. See Attachment 3 - Species of Interest list.
3. Protection of Threatened or Endangered Species - Create a separate standard in 3.4.1(F) that
specifically addresses threatened or endangered species, which generally warrant additional protection
than sensitive or specially valued species. Habitat for such species shall not be disturbed or diminished.
4. Protection of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species - Update the standard in 3.4.1(F) that describes
protections for sensitive and specially valued species. The development plan shall protect, enhance or
mitigate impacts to sensitive and specially valued species to the extent reasonably feasible. This would
allow for some flexibility and/or mitigation of impacts to species of interest, including prairie dogs, rather
than mandating protection in all cases. This is consistent with the Natural Areas Department's wildlife
management practices on City-owned properties.
Miscellaneous Code Changes
A number of other minor updates to Code language throughout LUC section 3.4.1 are proposed to clarify
wording, accurately refer to City departments and outside agencies, and reflect current practices.
1. Natural Habitats and Features - Natural resources, habitats and features that warrant protection under
LUC section 3.4.1 have been clarified in 3.4.1(A) - Applicability.
2. Colorado Parks and Wildlife - All references to the Colorado Division of Wildlife have been updated to
reflect the current name of the agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
3. Natural Areas Policy Plan - The Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP) is no longer a relevant guidance
document for the City of Fort Collins. References to this document have been updated to more generally
reference the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD).
4. Wetlands - There is language in LUC section 3.4.1(E)(1)(d) regarding the protection of wetlands that
conflicts with other sections of 3.4.1. This language has been updated to clarify that wetlands of any size
warrant consideration as a natural habitat or feature.
5. Definitions - various definitions in LUC section 5.1.2 have been updated for consistency with the other
proposed updates described in this staff report.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
If the proposed changes are adopted, additional staff time may be required to review ecological reports,
determine appropriate mitigation requirements, and work with developers to meet the new standards.
Additional staff time may also be needed to research, set, and periodically update the fee for payment-in-lieu
mitigation. This is already within the typical duties for the City’s environmental planners, so no additional
staffing would be needed.
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 4
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board have reviewed the
proposed LUC changes:
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed LUC changes at its January 12, 2017,
hearing. The board unanimously recommended adoption of the Code changes related to sensitive and
specially valued species, as well as the miscellaneous Code changes (Attachment 4). However, in a
split vote (2-4), the Board did not recommend adoption of the prairie dog code changes. The
perspective from some board members was that the Code changes did not create sufficient protection
for prairie dogs, others expressed a concern that the changes would result in additional costs and
processing for developers, and two board members were supportive of the changes. (Opposed:
Carpenter, Schneider, Hansen, Rollins; Supportive: Hobbs, Whitley; Absent: Heinz).
The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board discussed the proposed changes at its July 13, 2016,
meeting. The board was generally supportive of the changes, including the reduced colony size
threshold and reporting requirement. The Board did not take a vote, but Board members generally
expressed support for removing the 50-acre threshold for protection and/or mitigation (Attachment 5).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff in Community Development & Neighborhood Services and the Natural Areas Department conducted
outreach to community members and affected stakeholders throughout 2016 and early 2017, including the
following:
Professional workshop with representatives from other Colorado communities to discuss best practices
and lessons learned related to prairie dog regulation and management (March 22, 2016)
Open house and meetings with prairie dog advocates regarding the relocation of prairie dogs from a
development site to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (April 19, 2016)
Discussion of proposed changes at three Planning & Zoning Board work sessions (May and December
2016, January 2017)
Discussion of proposed changes with the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (July 13, 2016)
Open house and panel discussion related to potential Land Use Code changes, relocation considerations,
and prairie dog management on Natural Areas properties (July 28, 2016)
Memo to City Council in lieu of a work session (September 2016)
One-on-one conversations with developers, property owners, and prairie dog relocation advocates
(ongoing)
The results of the community engagement activities are summarized in Attachments 6 and 7.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Colony Size Threshold Options and Map (PDF)
2. Prairie Dog Management Flow Charts (PDF)
3. City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (PDF)
4. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (PDF)
5. Land Conservation Stewardship Board Minutes, July 13, 2016 (PDF)
6. Public Comment Received To-Date (PDF)
7. Public Engagement Results Summary (PDF)
8. Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (PDF)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 021, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1, NATURAL
HABITATS AND FEATURES
WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 1.2.2, Purpose, states that the purpose of the Land
Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by, among other means,
minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development and ensuring that development
proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features; and
WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(B), Natural Habitats and Features, further
states the purpose of ensuring that when property is developed, the proposed physical elements
of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site to protect the natural habitats and
features on both the site and in the vicinity of the site; and
WHEREAS, changes in prairie dog colony size and characteristics, best practices, and
development patterns within the City have necessitated changes to the existing regulations
protecting prairie dogs to continue to fulfill the purposes of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, concurrent with the changes to update the prairie dog regulations, changes
to Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 to update general provisions for the protection of natural habitats
and features are also necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has considered these text amendments to the
Land Use Code and made recommendations to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 set forth by this Ordinance are
in the best interests of the citizens of the City and advance the purposes of the Land Use Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.4.1 - Natural Habitats and Features
(A) Applicability. This Section applies if any portion of the development site is within
five hundred (500) feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on
the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or if any portion of the
development site contains natural habitats or features that have significant ecological
value, and such natural habitats or features are discovered during site evaluation and/or
-2-
reconnaissance associated with the development review process. Natural habitats and
features considered to have significant ecological value, are as follows:
(1) Natural Communities or Habitats:
(a) Aquatic (e.g., rivers, streams, lakes, ponds);
(b) Wetland and wet meadow;
(c) Native grassland;
(d) Riparian forest;
(e) Urban plains forest;
(f) Riparian shrubland;
(g) Foothills shrubland; and
(hg) Foothills forest.
(2) Special Features:
(a) Significant remnants of native plant communities;
(b) Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened or
endangered species of plants;
(c) Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened or
endangered species of wildlife;
. . .
(j) Prairie dog colonies one acre or greater in size;
. . .
(E) Establishment of Buffer Zones. Buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and
features shall be shown on the project development plan for any development that is
subject to this Division. The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the ecological
character of natural habitats and features from the impacts of the ongoing activity
associated with the development.
(1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker shall determine
the buffer zones for each natural habitat or feature contained in the project
site. The buffer zones may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general
buffer zone distance is established according to the buffer zone table
-3-
below, but the decision maker shall reduce or enlarge any portion of the
general buffer zone distance, if necessary in order to ensure that the
performance standards set forth below are achieved. The buffer zone
performance standards are as follows:
(a) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the ecological
character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or
feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable
impacts of development.
(b) The project, including, by way of example and not by way of
limitation, its fencing, pedestrian/bicycle paths and roadways, shall
be designed to preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife
movement corridors between natural habitats and features, both
within and adjacent to the site.
(c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees
and other significant existing vegetation on the site.
(d) The project shall be designed to protect from adverse impact
species utilizing special habitat features such as key raptor habitat
features, including nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as
identified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division (“CPW”)
or the Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (“NAD”); key
production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for
waterfowl; heron rookeries; key use areas for wading birds and
shorebirds; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas
for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter
concentration areas as identified by the CPW or NAD; prairie dog
colonies one acre or greater in size; key areas for rare, migrant or
resident butterflies as identified by the NAD; areas of high
terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified by the NAD;
remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothill
ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and
wetlands of any size.
. . .
-4-
BUFFER ZONE TABLE FOR
FORT COLLINS NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES 1, 2
Natural Habitat or Feature Buffer Zone Standard
3
. . .
Special Habitat Features/Resources of Special Concern
. . . . . .
Prairie Dog Colonies site analysis
. . .
(F) Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character.
(1) Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species. If the ecological characterization
report required pursuant to subsection (D)(1) above shows the existence in a
natural habitat or feature of a rare, threatened or endangered species of plant or
wildlife, then the development plan shall include provisions to ensure that any
habitat contained in any such natural habitat or feature or in the adjacent buffer
zone which is of importance to the use or survival of any such species shall not be
disturbed or diminished and, to the maximum extent feasible, such habitat shall be
enhanced. (NOTE: Some studies, e.g., rare plant surveys, are time-limited and can
only be performed during certain seasons.)
(2) Sensitive or Specially Valued Species. If the ecological characterization report
required pursuant to subsection (D)(1) above shows the existence in a natural
habitat or feature of a plant or wildlife species identified by the City as a sensitive
or specially valued species, excluding threatened or endangered species, then the
development plan shall include provisions to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts
to any such natural habitat or feature or in the adjacent buffer zone which is of
importance to the use or survival of any such species to the extent reasonably
feasible.
(3) Connections. If the development site contains existing natural habitats or
features that connect to other off-site natural habitats or features, to the maximum
extent feasible the development plan shall preserve such natural connections. If
natural habitats or features lie adjacent to (meaning in the region immediately
round about) the development site, but such natural habitats or features are not
presently connected across the development site, then the development plan shall,
to the extent reasonably feasible, provide such connection. Such connections shall
be designed and constructed to allow for the continuance of existing wildlife
-5-
movement between natural habitats or features and to enhance the opportunity for
the establishment of new connections between areas for the movement of wildlife.
(4) Wildlife Conflicts. If wildlife that may create conflicts for the future
occupants of the development (including, but not limited to, prairie dogs, beaver,
deer and rattlesnakes) are known to exist in areas adjacent to or on the
development site, then the development plan must, to the extent reasonably
feasible, include provisions such as barriers, protection mechanisms for
landscaping and other site features to minimize conflicts that might otherwise
exist between such wildlife and the developed portion of the site.
. . .
(N) Standards for Protection During Construction. For every development subject to
this Division, the applicant shall propose, and the Director shall establish,
measures to be implemented during the actual construction phase of the project to
ensure protection of natural habitats and features and their associated buffer
zones, as follows.
. . .
(6) Prairie Dog Removal. Before the commencement of grading or other
construction on the development site, any prairie dogs inhabiting portions
of the site within the LOD shall be relocated or eradicated by the
developer. Prairie dog relocation shall be accomplished using methods
reviewed and approved by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division.
Following relocation or eradication activities, a report shall be provided to
the City that documents when prairie dog removal occurred, the method(s)
that were used to remove prairie dogs, measures taken to ensure that
prairie dogs will not re-inhabit the site, and confirmation that no
threatened or endangered species were harmed by removal activities.
. . .
Section 3. That the definition of “Natural area” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Natural area shall mean all areas shown as "natural areas" on the City's Parks
and Natural Areas Map or the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Any land
that qualifies as a "wetland" pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act shall also be
deemed a natural area, in addition to the areas designated as wetlands on the
City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Any land area that possesses
such characteristics as would have supported its inclusion on the Natural Habitats and
Features Inventory Map, or contains natural habitats or features which have significant
ecological value listed in subparagraph 3.4.1(A), if such area is discovered during site
-6-
evaluation and/or reconnaissance associated with the development review process, shall
also be deemed a natural area.
Section 4. That the definition of “Natural area buffer” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Natural area buffer zone shall mean any area described and established pursuant to
subsection 3.4.1(E).
Section 5. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Rare, threatened or endangered species” which reads in its
entirety as follows:
Rare, threatened or endangered species shall mean those species of wildlife and plants
listed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, the Colorado Natural Heritage
Program, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as rare, threatened or endangered.
Section 6. That the definition of “Sensitive or Specially Valued Species” contained in
Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sensitive or specially valued species shall mean species included on the City of Fort
Collins Species of Interest List, as developed and updated by the Natural Areas
Department.
Section 7. That the definition of “Special habitat features” contained in Section 5.1.2
of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Special habitat features shall mean specially valued and sensitive habitat features
including key raptor habitat features, including nest sites, night roosts and key feeding
areas as identified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division (“CPW”) or the Fort
Collins Natural Areas Department (“NAD”); key production areas, wintering areas and
migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds;
heron rookeries; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland
birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the
CPW or NAD; prairie dog colonies one acre or greater in size; key areas for rare,
migrant or resident butterflies as identified by the NAD; areas of high terrestrial or
aquatic insect diversity as identified by the NAD; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed
foothill shrubland; foothills ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian
woodlands; and wetlands of any size.
-7-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
February, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of February, A.D.
2016.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 21st day of February, A.D. 2016.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk