HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED-USE (ENCOMPASS) - PDP - PDP120020 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (5)6,4
z�
POUDRE
RNER
vi
RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT a'
"',: .�yW *' '.� v', !• s,�,�l ECa ii� twin
: r �tvtu+ee.
a�' alfiS
ism..
1111,
R1� ; 11
vI
...�,• .e°"""`gym °" �.f4 � .r � ' �."� .-
r p. e
A
Em
m
IF
OW
which states: "Land use planners should strive to establish 100-meter wide riparian
buffers to enhance water quality and wildlife protection." page 20).
Therefore the Block One PDP violates the land use code and should be denied or require
a modification of standard.
Conclusion: In 2011, 1 met with the real estate broker who represents the landowner of Block
One at the site. During our conversation, the broker told me that the Block One design team
had met with several restauranteurs, asking advice for how they could design a restaurant so
that customers would come. The advice was that the restaurant had to purposely be tall
enough, and close enough to the river, so that people could look down into and see the river
from the restaurant. Otherwise, the restaurant would not serve as "destination restaurant"
and not attract customers. Further, he said that there were already dozens and dozens of
restaurants in Fort Collins, and in order for this one to be successful, it had to be unique and
use the view of the river as the draw that brought in customers.
Save The Poudre contends that the proposed Block One PDP purposely exploits and degrades
the sensitive Poudre River corridor, and violates five sections of the City of Fort Collins land use
code. Further, this project is aptly named because it effectively "blocks" the Poudre River
corridor, including wildlife migration and natural processes. This project needs to be completely
redesigned with an adequate setback (recommended 300 feet) buffered by a dense stand of
trees and natural vegetation. The Block One PDP should be either denied or require five
separate modifications of standard.
(a) Separation and screening with plant material: planting dense stands of
evergreen trees, canopy shade trees, ornamental trees or shrubs;
Save The Poudre contends that rather than separate these two incompatible land uses —
1) the dense building structure with 24/7 housing and a late -night restaurant with lots of
people, and 2) the sensitive Poudre River ecological corridor —the Block One proposal
purposely exploits and degrades the river corridor by cutting down the tree screening
that is currently there, and making sure that people in the building can see down into
the river (See Exhibit 1). Doing so will create a completely unnatural riparian corridor.
Scientific literature supports Save The Poudre's contention. (See Environmental Law
Institute. (2003) "Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners. Washington D.C.,
which states: "Land use planners should strive to establish 100-meter wide riparian
buffers to enhance water quality and wildlife protection." page 20).
Therefore the Block One PDP violates the land use code and should be denied or require
a modification of standard.
5. The Block One PDP violates section 3.4.1(L) "Compatibility with Public Natural Areas or
Conserved Land."
Section 3.4.1(L) states:
"If the project contains or abuts a publicly owned natural area or conserved land,
the development plan shall be designed so that it will be compatible with the
management of such natural area or conserved land. In order to achieve this, the
development plan shall include measures such as barriers or landscaping
measures to minimize wildlife conflicts, setbacks or open space tracts to provide
a transition between the development and the publicly owned natural area or
conserved land, and educational signage or printed information regarding the
natural values, management needs and potential conflicts associated with living
in close proximity to such natural area or conserved land."
Save The Poudre contends that the proposed Block One PDP does the exact opposite as
required by the land use code, in that the PDP cuts down the barriers between the
buildings and the river, exploits the natural area, and purposely increases the conflicts
(see Exhibit 1). This project completely fails to meet this section 3.4.1(L). Specifically,
the development plan does not include measures such as barriers or landscaping to
minimize wildlife conflicts. Instead, the close proximity of the parking garage and
restaurant will maximize wildlife conflicts. There are no effective barriers separating the
incompatible land use types whatsoever.
The setback and the so-called "landscape buffer" are completely insufficient in width
and landscaping materials to provide any transition between the development and the
natural area or conserved land. The unpaved walkway/bike path adds even more
encroachment of human activity on the wildlife area and ensures that wildlife adjacent
to the project will likely migrate away from the area causing a net loss of habitat.
Scientific literature supports Save The Poudre's contention. (See Environmental Law
Institute. (2003) "Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners. Washington D.C.,
in the New West. Bioscience, 52:151-162.
14. Radeloff VC, et al. (2005) The wildland-urban interface in the United States.
Ecological Applications, 15:799-805.
15. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005) Rural and suburban sprawl in the US
Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conservation
Biology, 19:793-805.
16. Crooks KR, Soule ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a
fragmented system. Nature, 400:563-566.
17. Pidgeon AM, et al. (2007) Associations of forest bird species richness with housing
and landscape patterns across the USA. Ecological Applications,17:1989-2010.
18. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization.
Conservation Biology, 127:247-260.
19. Scott 1M, et al. (2001) Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America's
biological diversity? Ecological Applications, 11:999-1007.
20. http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.18/development-near-national-parks-impacts-park-
ecology
21. Volker C. Radeloff, Susan I. Stewart, Todd J. Hawbaker, Urs Gimmi, Anna M.
Pidgeon, Curtis H. Flather, Roger B. Hammer, and David P. Helmers (2009) "Housing
growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. 107:2, 940-945.
22. Environmental Law Institute. (2003) "Conservation Thresholds for Land Use
Planners. Washington D.C.
Therefore the Block One PDP violates the land use code and should be denied or require
a modification of standard.
3. The Block One PDP violates section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) concerning "Massing and Placement""
Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) states "massing shall be terraced back from the River
and from streets as follows: (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to
one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage;"
Save The Poudre contends that the building is 3 stories high abutting the river. The first
floor is the parking garage, the second floor is the restaurant, and the third floor is the
balcony that will be used by people (See Exhibits 1, 2, and 3).
Therefore the Block One PDP violates the land use code and should be denied or require
a modification of standard.
4. The Block One PDP violates section 3.2.1(E)(1)(a) concerning `Buffering Between
Incompatible Uses And Activities":
Section 3.2.1(E)(1)(a) states that "Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and
Activities" requires:
Save The Poudre contends that the ECS provides no scientific justification whatsoever
that Block One "would result in relatively minor additional impacts." Additionally, the
statement that Block One "would create a minor increase in building density and human
presence" is outrageous. Block One adds 41,000 square feet of buildings, twelve
apartments, dramatically increased density, people, cars, 24-7 living, and after -dark and
late night restaurant activity just feet from the Poudre River.
Save The Poudre contends that the ECS is "substantially false" and provides the
following summary of evidence, and scientific articles supporting our contention, below:
• Native bird species decrease as housing density and housing encroachment
into habitat increases.
• Abundance of mammals decreases as housing density and housing
encroachment into habitat increases.
• As both housing density and quantity increases, nearby wildlife habitat is
degraded.
1. Beier P., (1993) Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for
cougars. Conservation Biology, 7:94-108.
2. Theobald DM, Miller JR, Hobbs NT, (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of
development on wildlife habitat. Landscape Urban Planning, 39:25-36.
3. Lawrence A. Baschak, Robert D. Brown, (1995) An ecological framework for the
planning, design and management of urban river greenways. Landscape and Urban
Planning 3: 211-225.
4. Hansen, AJ, Rotella, JJ, (2002) Biophysical factors, land use, and species viability in and
around nature reserves. Conservation Biology, 16: 4, 1112-1122.
5. Eric A. Odell, Richard L. Knight (2001) Songbird and Medium -Sized Mammal
Communities Associated with Exurban Development in Pitkin County, Colorado.
Conservation Biology, 15:4, 1143-1150.
6. Robert B. Blair (1996) Land Use and Avian Species Diversity Along an Urban Gradient.
Ecological Applications 6:2, 506-519.
7. Stephen S. Germaine, Steven S Rosenstock, Raymond E. Schweinsburg, W. Scott
Richardson (1998) Relationships Among Breeding Birds, Habitat, and Residential
Development in Greater Tucson, Arizona. Ecological Applications, 8:3, 680-691.
8. Steven T. Knick, John T Rotinberry (1995) Landscape Characteristics of Fragmented
Shrubsteppe Habitats and Breeding Passerine Birds. Conservation Biology, 9:5, 1059-
1071.
9. Ralph G. Mancke, Thomas A. Gavin (2000) Breeding Bird Density in Woodlots: Effects
of Depth and Buildings At The Edges. Ecological Applications, 10: 2, 598-61.
10. Gaston KJ, Jackson SE, Cantu -Salazar L, Cruz-Pinon G (2008) The ecological
performance of protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
39:93-113.
11. Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL (2008) On the protection of "protected areas".
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105:6673-6678.
12. Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, da Fonseca GAB (2001) Effectiveness of parks in
protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125-128.
13. Hansen AJ, et al. (2002) Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. f the development site contains, or is
within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is
determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the site
likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics
in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the City an ecological
characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of
ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. At least ten (10) working
days prior to the submittal of a project development plan application for all or
any portion of a property, a comprehensive ecological characterization study of
the entire property must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to
the City for review. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements
of this requirement if the City already possesses adequate information required
by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in subsection (E)
below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N)
below. The ecological characterization study shall describe, without limitation,
the following:
(a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the
area, the times or seasons that the area is used by those species and the
"value" (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, perching)
that the area provides for such wildlife species;
(b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the
ecological functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands;
(c) any prominent views from or across the site;
(d) the pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and
other native site vegetation;
(e) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial
stream or body of water on the site;
(f) areas inhabited by or frequently utilized by Sensitive and Specially
Valued Species;
(g) special habitat features;
(h) wildlife movement corridors;
(i) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features;
0) any issues regarding the timing of development -related activities
stemming from the ecological character of the area; and
(k) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of
the development project on natural habitats and features.
Save The Poudre contends that the ECS is completely inadequate and fails to provide
any scientific justification for its conclusion. Specifically, the ECS concludes:
"Development of the Block One parcel would result in relatively minor additional
impacts to the Poudre River corridor beyond those that have already occurred
from existing disturbance and development." And, "The proposed development
would create a minor increase in building density and human presence near the
Cache la Poudre River corridor."
Save The Poudre Comments on Encompass Block One PDP #120020
"Block One Blocks The Poudre River Corridor"
Gary Wockner, Director
Save The Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
garv.wockner@savethepoudre.org
http://savethepoud re.org
Type 1 Hearing Date: 3-12-2013
Summary: The Block One proposal violates five sections of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
Because of these violations, the applicant should have been required to ask for a "modification
of standard" in each case. In fact, as it's currently designed, "Block One" does just that,
effectively blocks the Poudre River corridor, stopping wildlife migration and negatively
impacting the natural areas along the river. Therefore, we request that the Hearing Officer
either deny the project outright, or send it back to staff to rework the application with five
requests for modifications of standard.
1. The Block One PDP violates section 4.17(D)(1)(a).
(a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in
Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of
"natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a
continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of a transition
between development and the River.
Save The Poudre contends that the proposed landscape buffer presented in the PDP is not an
adequate buffer between the development and the river. (See Exhibit 1) Specifically, the buffer
is basically nonexistent, fails to protect the sensitive ecological corridor and wildlife habitat, and
neither the applicant (nor the City) provide any scientific justification that this proposed buffer
protects the river. The removal of trees does not improve but in fact destroys the existing
landscape buffer, and the distance to the river is as close as thirty-two feet which is completely
insufficient when it is considered that the City requires up to 300 feet of buffer from the river
for other zones and developments nearby. Scientific literature supports Save The Poudre's
contention. (See Environmental Law Institute. (2003) "Conservation Thresholds for Land Use
Planners. Washington D.C., which states: "Land use planners should strive to establish 100-
meter wide riparian buffers to enhance water quality and wildlife protection." page 20).
Therefore the Block One PDP violates the land use code and should be denied or require a
modification of standard.
2. The Block One PDP violates section 3.4.1(C)(1) requiring an "Ecological Characterization
Study"
Section 3.4.1(C)(1) states: