Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout912 WOOD ST. (PATEROS CREEK) - MOD - MOD120004 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (13)Pateros Creek — Modification of Standard June 19, 2012 Page 8 References: Berris, Catherin R. 1987. Interactions of elk and residential development: Planning, design, and attitudinal considerations. Landscape Journal. 6(1)31-41. Fraterrigo, Jennifer M. and John A. Wiens. 2005. Bird communities of the Colorado Rocky Mountains along a gradient of exurban development. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2005(71): 263-275. Jacob, John S. and Ricardo Lopez. 2009. Is denser greener? An evaluation of higher density development as an urban stormwater quality best management practice. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 45(3): 687-701. Lenth, Buffy A., Richard L. Knight, and Wendell C. Gilgert. 2006. Conservation value of clustered housing developments. Conservation Biology. 20(5)1445-1456. Miller, James R., John A. Wiens, N. Thompson Hobbs, and David M. Theobald. 2003. Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecological Applications. 13(4) 1041-1059. Odell, Eric A. and Richard L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology. 15(4)1143-1150. Schmidt, Eric and Carl E. Bock. 2004. Habitat associations and population trends of two hawks in an urbanizing grassland region in Colorado. Landscape Ecology. 20:469-478. Smith, Courtland M. and Douglas G. Wachob. 2006. Trends associated with residential development in riparian breeding bird habitat along the Snake River in Jackson Hole, WY, USA: Implications for conservation planning. Biological Conservation. 128(431-446). Pateros Creek — Modification of Standard June 19, 2012 Page 7 Table 2: Trail counter data from 2006-2011 obtained from the Parks Department. 24 o pe• 'o ' ored y 2U06 2008 2030 Hickory Spur Confluence Martinez 26-Jan 264 15-May 220 7-Apr 316 27-Jan 304 16-May 368 8-Apr 661 17-May 299 9-Apr 762 Martinez 6-Sep 633 Confluence Confluence 7-Sep 692 1-Aug 322 2-Aug 291 16 Sep 243 3-Aug 365 27-Sep 736 20U9 Martinez Martinez 19-Sep 416 2UO7 17-Jan 813 20-Sep 952 Hickory Spur Martinez 18-Jan 415 21-Sep 472 20-Sep 596 22-Sep 472 13-Feb 132 21-Sep 555 Confluence 14-Feb 177 22-Sep 406 25-Apr 250 2U11 15-Feb 199 23-Sep 392 26-Apr 276 Martinez 24-Sep 946 27-Apr 323 15-Jan 385 Confluence 16-Jan 363 Martinez Martinez 17-Jan 470 28-Jul 745 16-Nov 426 1-Aug 1113 29-Jul 839 17-Nov 416 2-Aug 1374 Martinez 18-Nov 637 23-Apr 321 Martinez 24-Apr 412 23-Oct 475 Martinez 12-Feb 577 3-Feb 847 -7- Pateros Creek — Modification of Standard June 19, 2012 Page 6 Authors Publication Development Density Ecological Impacts Notes y I Studied* Odell and Knight Schmidt and Bock Smith and Wachob 2001 Compared high density (0.42 du/acre) to low density (1 du/26 acres or 0.023 du/acre) with undeveloped areas 2005 Compared urban and suburban areas(>0.1 du/acre) with exurban (0.024-0.1 du/acre) with rural (<0.024 du/acre) idy 2006 Compared high density (0.26-0.59 du/acre) to medium density (0.08-0.26) to low density (0.05- 0.08) with 14 undeveloped sites in the Park Jacob and 2009 Lopez Compared high density (8 du/acre) to low density (3-5 du/acre) -Six bird species had higher densities in higher development densities and eight had reduced densities -Fox and coyote populations in developed areas were statistically different from undeveloped areas but not from each other -Rough-legged hawks decreased nearly 75% -Red-tailed hawk populations more than tripled -May have been a critical population density threshold in the early 1980s -May be a 10% landscape urbanization threshold for species "with strong affinities for open grasslands" —Considerably less variation was explained by macro- and microhabitat variables. This indicates the more important influences of development on birds were at the matrix (i.e., landscape) level rather than the microhabitat structure." -Higher density had lower per capita loadings and runoff -higher density can result in lower total loadings -Study in Pitkin County -up to 180 m zone of influence of a home regardless of density -Scale of the study includes 10 counties along the Front Range -"establishment of a suburban open space system approaching 40,000 ha has done nothing to halt or reverse this trend locally" -Building density was measured within 500 m of the patch (194 acres in area) -Study conducted outside of Jackson Hole, Wyoming and included sites in Grand Teton National Park -Stormwater paper included for a broader perspective Pateros Creek — Modification of Standard June 19, 2012 Page 5 Table 1: Development densities and ecological impact findings associated with six research studies conducted in Colorado. *Note: all densities converted from hectares and are approximate. Authors Publication Development Density Ecological Impacts Notes Year Studied* Colorado Studies Berris 1987 Compared densities -With lots smaller than 4 -Study in Estes Park with elk sightings du/acre, 5% of respondents didn't see elk; with lots greater than 0.4 du/acre, all respondents saw elk -Sightings reported did not relate to the presence of dogs Fraterrigo 2005 Compared densities -bird abundance increased -Study is consistent with and Wiens ranging from 0.04 to with development density the intermediate 0.44 buildings/acre -vegetation had less of an disturbance hypothesis effect on bird populations in (some development this study increases species diversity) Lenth et 2006 Compared six "Plant and wildlife species -Study in Boulder County al. clustered housing composition of clustered The two issues that developments with housing developments ... in contributed to low six dispersed more similar to that of conservation values in the development sites dispersed housing than to clustered developments and six undeveloped that of undeveloped areas" were plant community areas. Average composition (non-native density was one vegetation) and the small house per 25 acres. areas of the outlots. Miller et 2003 Looked at distances -The best measure for -One of their sites "Shields" al. to buildings and community composition is the is located on the Poudre buildings per hectare density of buildings within River just west of the within a given 1500 m of transects, which Pateros Creek site. distance, e.g., 1500 m would include almost a one -Of the sixteen study sites, from a transect. mile radius from the site. the Shields Site was listed -Found that with increased as the 51h most urban (just density, the native shrubs, under where the Poudre ground cover, and number of River crosses Lemay). native tree species decreased -"...certainly no species that -Trails adjacent to riparian I would consider to be of corridors affect species that conservation concern" at forage for insects and seeds the Shields site or nest in shrubs or on the (correspondence with the ground. These species are also primary author) affected by homes even at low densities. -5- Pateros Creek — Modification of Standard June 19, 2012 Page 4 project achieves the clustering goals of the Urban Estate Zone District, which is the most critical aspect of the Urban Estate zone district for this area. Long -Range Planning staff did not find that the increase in density would be detrimental to the public good. Additional correspondence from the applicant's ecological consultant Attached to this memo is additional correspondence from the applicant's ecological consultant regarding Save the Poudre's concerns. Bottom -line: Based on a review of the literature, meetings with senior staff from the Natural Areas Department and additional correspondence received since the Work Session, staff does not find that the Modification of Standard (Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code) is detrimental to the public good. The research conducted illustrates development at any density has impacts on species but the increase in density associated with this modification does not negatively impact the Poudre River corridor in a substantial manner given the same development footprint the standard would allow. -4- Pateros Creek — Modification of Standard June 19, 2012 Page 3 addition of six units will not be detrimental to the public good and are nominal and inconsequential when viewed from the perspective of the entire development. For a detailed summary of the studies reviewed in this effort, please see Table 1. Trail Counter Data: Staff obtained trail use data on the Poudre River trail from 2006-2011. At Lee Martinez Park, the data at Lee Martinez Park ranged from a low of 220 individuals on May 15th, 2010 to a high of 1374 individuals on August 2nd, 2009. The average number of users (based on 29, 24-hour periods) was 567.7 individuals and the median number of users was 472. See Table 2 for the full dataset. Met with the Senior Staff from Natural Areas On June 18, 2012, staff met with the Senior Staff from Natural Areas who agreed that six additional homes do not make a difference on the ecological integrity of the Poudre River corridor. They determined there would be no net degradation to the site that does not already occur from 35 housing units, which is consistent with the research cited above. However, the Natural Areas staff expressed several concerns with the overall project. First, they would prefer that the orchard be removed from the river buffer area, as orchards typically require fencing and high levels of water and pesticide use. Instead, they would recommend funds spent on developing and managing the orchard is better spent on habitat restoration. They did acknowledge the community goals associated with the plans, notably the goal for local food production, but felt that the overall river buffer would perform at a higher level if the orchard wasn't present. However, they did note that if the orchard remained, they would recommend management restrictions on the orchard, e.g., no spraying, no fencing (except in the initial establishment years) which would likely affect fruit production levels of the orchard. Natural Areas staff did reiterate their concerns with lighting at the site and were interested in alternatives to the City's standard street lighting designs. In addition, they would like to see only one trail access point into the Poudre River trail regardless of which density standard is applied. Finally, they would request that no green ash be planted in this close of proximity to the river. Because of the numerous ideas and concerns expressed during this discussion, planning staff has offered to coordinate a joint meeting between the applicant and the Natural Areas Senior Staff to discuss these issues in one group prior to the PDP coming forward to the Board. It is anticipated this meeting will occur in July. Met with the Long -Range Planning Staff I also met with Long -Range Planning staff on June 191h to assess whether there were any City Plan policies associated with the parcel and whether the increase in density would be detrimental to the public good from a City Plan perspective. The staff informed me the most critical City Plan objective related to the Urban Estate Zone is Policy LIV 27.5 — Cluster Development, which states the following: Use cluster development patterns to preserve scenic view corridors or natural features, provide open space for the common use and enjoyment of residents and the broader community; preserve cohesive blocks of agricultural land; and/or create transitions between more intense urban development and rural or open lands. Based on this discussion, and the prior findings related to the Northwest Subarea Plan which specifically calls out this area as Urban Estate — Clustered Preferred, it was the opinion of the Long -Range Planning staff that this -3- Pateros Creek — Modification of Standard June 19, 2012 Page 2 ecological impacts of residential development?" Almost 400 peer -reviewed journal articles were reviewed by the team and 28 of these papers related to the ecological responses of housing density and 8 of these papers conducted their research in Colorado. I excluded two papers: (1) Mitchell et al. (2002), as it focused solely on ranch -scale development and (2) Bhandary and Muller (2009), as it focused solely on the effects of wildfire. From an ecological perspective, the difference in species composition in the six studies was significant when comparing development versus no development, but not higher density versus lower density development. Odell and Knight (2001) compared high density (0.42 du/acre) to low density (1 du/26 acres or 0.023 du/acre) with undeveloped lands and found songbird populations were similar across the development site but statistically different from undeveloped lands. Another study found clustering residential units did not have a significant effect on the wildlife use of the area and there were significant differences in the wildlife use and plant community composition between developed, regardless of the pattern, and undeveloped areas (tenth et al. 2006). Miller et al. (2003) examined sixteen study sites in Larimer and Boulder counties and found that density within 1500 m (or 4921.26 feet) was the best measure for bird species composition in riparian areas. This study also found that development in close proximity to the river affected some bird species, even at lower densities, though these species were also the highest species affected by heavy trail use (see trail data below). As one of this study's sites was located on the Poudre River just west of the Pateros Creek site, I contacted this study's primary author to ask him if he had any concerns with the ecological integrity of the river as a result of the increase in density. He made the following statement: Original Response - "The Shields site was one of my more developed sites, at the top of the 'medium' category (see the figure in the paper). I have attached a list of species that 1 observed during the course of the study — it's an average abundance over the three years. As you'll see, mostly urban or suburban species — certainly no species that 1 would consider to be of conservation concern. " I then asked if he thought there was any effect specifically related to density: "I assume that development won't necessarily occur closer to the riparian area, but just at elevated densities? If so, 1 doubt that this level of increase would negatively affect the riparian bird community, assuming that species composition is similar to what I observed." (Miller, personal correspondence on June 18, 2012). I also pulled one study from the literature review conducted in Wyoming which found that "landscape -level variables were the most common and best predictor of avian community metrics..." though "...the direct effects of residential development are difficult to separate from other habitat alterations" (Smith and Wachob 2006). This study also found that species compositions and other metrics were significantly different in the undeveloped areas versus developed areas, though several trends, e.g., species richness and diversity, did correlate with development density. Finally, as the question regarding the public good is not restricted to ecological health alone, I read a paper regarding development density and stormwater impacts that found increased density decreased total per capita loading and could have a decreased impact on area water quality (Jacob. and Lopez 2009). In summary, while the studies cited generally use lower densities figures than those presented in the Modification of Standard request before the Board, there is a consistent pattern that significant differences occur between whether development is present, regardless of the density, or whether development is absent. However, I must reiterate the lack of consistent findings at the level of density proposed by this project, but if the trends associated with the densities studied in the cited examples, then there is a clear pattern that the -2- Planning, Development& Transportation Services City of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Fort Collins Foy North ° nCollege CO 8Avenue 80 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DT: June 19, 2012 TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board TH: Laurie Kadrich, Interim Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services FM: Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner RE: Read -Before Memo: Pateros Creek Modification of Standard and whether the modification of standard is detrimental to the public good Background: Save the Poudre provided comments to staff and the applicant during the June 12th neighborhood meeting for the Pateros Creek project. The statement is as follows: "1. Pateros Creek is requesting a "modification" to the zoning laws to allow more homes at a higher density than the land use code allows. Save the Poudre opposes this modification. We need to protect the sensitive ecological corridor of the Poudre River— high density development will create even more negative impacts in the surrounding natural areas and river." During the June 15th Work Session with the Planning and Zoning Board, several board members requested additional information from staff outlining whether this modification is detrimental to the public good or not, as per the Land Use Code requirement in Section 2.8.2(H). Research: Since the Work Session, staff has conducted the following efforts, which are discussed in this memo: • Researched the scientific literature on the topic; • Obtained trail counter data from the Parks Department for the Poudre River Trail; • Met with the senior staff from the Natural Areas Department; • Met with Long -Range Planning*staff; and • Received additional correspondence from the applicant's ecological consultant. Scientific literature — How does development densitv affect the ecoloafcal intearity of riparian areas? Before diving into these findings, it is important to note there are no papers in the literature that state going from 2.0 to 2.36 dwelling units/acre is or is not detrimental to the public good. Additionally, it is well documented that any development is not good for ecological corridors, e.g., decreases habitat availability for sensitive species, disturbs nesting areas, etc. However, since 2011, 1 have been collaborating with scientists from Colorado State University in an interdisciplinary literature review to assess the following question: "What are the social, economic, and