Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK ESTATES REZONING - 50 92E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES® PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 31, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The January 31, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Sharon Winfree. Members Fontane and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rob Wilkinson, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda. . Approval of December 16, 1993, minutes. Member Cottier moved the December 16, 1993 minutes be approved. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Item 16. Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93; Recommendation to City Council: Item 19. Fossil Creek Estates Rezoning, #50-92E; Item 20. Annexation and Development Review Scheduling. Item 16, Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary. #80-93, Planner Ted Shepard read the staff report and recommendations to the Board. Mr. Jim Sell, of Jim Sell Design, representing Jim McCory of Colorado Land Source and also J. R. Engineering, Dick Kellog, Steve Jenkins and Matt Delich, traffic engineer. He made his presentation with the recommendation to approve the proposal. He showed with slides the • boundaries and setting of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to pay what would be the City's share of improvements to Harmony Road and Crest Road. Numerous Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 19 difficult hill and winter conditions to the north. He argued with all of the issues of preservation presented tonight and suggested that there will be a remand on the decision. He was not opposed to there being a development if it is done properly with great care and planning for impacts. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED, Chair Clements addressed the question of inadequate notification to staff. She was aware of the City redesigning the signs. Ms. Whetstone said changes have been implemented from the Neighborhood Compatibility Study and LDGS, PUDs, and zonings with specific requirements for notification. Those requirements were met. The code requires the "old sign" for the rezoning. There was also concern about notification. The requirement for rezoning is the adjacent property owner is to be notified. In this case, everyone (within 500 feet) on the mailing list for the PUD were notified, which is more than required by code. Member Cottier said a number of neighbors have mentioned management plans for the Cathy Fromme Natural Area. When will that occur? Mr. Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resource Division, stated that the plan is being looked at and currently being discussed. Karen Manci is also working on it. The plan should be done by this summer. A lot of issues need to be addressed. Member Cottier asked Ms. Whetstone if the surrounding neighborhood zoning is RLP? Planner Whetstone said that is correct. She described in detail the surrounding zoning which is primarily RLP with PUD conditions. Member Winfree asked for clarification of the T-transition zone. Mr. Eckman said in the T-transition District, Section 329.423 of the Code: The owner of any property in the T-District may, at any time, petition the City to remove the property from this zoning district and place it in another zoning district. Any such petition shall be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board to be considered at the next regular meeting of such Board which is scheduled at least 15 days from the date the petition is filed with the City Clerk. Within 60 days from the date. The matter is considered by the Board, the City Council shall change the zoning for the property in question to another zoning district authorized under this chapter. Mr. Eckman said the City Council has no option but to change the zoning under this code within 60 days of this meeting. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 20 Member Strom made the motion to approve the RLP Zoning with a PUD condition. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Strom commented on the specific findings noted in the staff report on page 4, as key points. The Board does not have an option to delay. We don't have to zone it RLP necessarily, but have to provide some other zone. The key is the PUD condition on the motion. In response to Mr. Kulovaney's comments about the policies and criteria that the Board is directed to operate under, as well as the rest of the City, this is unique to the LDGS, i.e., the PUD condition. Without the PUD condition, there is no option to apply these regulations and criteria to deal with mandating conditions. Environmental issues will be addressed under this condition with 3-units per acre. If there is evidence presented in the context of reviewing a particular PUD, lower or, for that matter, higher densities would be considered on this particular piece of ground. He agreed with the comment that everything is not "on the table" at this time. The reality is the Board will deal with the development proposal. Member Strom further stated in response to Mr. Young's comments he felt frankly in sympathy over the concern of dealing with the land that is developed and use of herbicides. There are real hazards but not necessarily germane to the question of density. This is an issue needing a different approach. In terms of the Cathy Fromme area and the runoff, hazards associated with runoff. Raises questions and those issues will be looked at in the preliminary and will continue to do so as the development goes through the review process. Member Strom made a particular point with regard to the staff report from the Natural Resources Department and backed up by the Resource Advisory Board. Basically they have negotiated the Cathy Fromme Natural Area and have related to the Board it was purchased at sufficient size to provide sufficient buffering to the urban development. Whether that is agreed by the audience, this advisory board made the boundary decisions. If there is not enough space, then perhaps the City should look at buying a larger area. Member Winfree said she supported the things that Mr. Strom has said and would like to thank the people who took the time and energy to attend tonight's meeting that the motion for RLP does not mean that we have not heard your comments, but I never heard a comment for a suggestion for another type of zoning to place this property in. It cannot be placed in T- transition. The RLP is the most protective one for the neighbors in the surrounding area for input when the PUD comes before the Board. Member Cottier said she would be supporting the motion as well. The applicant has the right to get a zoning designation placed on the property and the RLP zone is consistent with other zoning in the area. She could understand the audience may feel frustrated because the Board is not addressing each issue tonight. But these comments need to be directed in response to a specific development proposal and we will be hearing those again from you. Some of the information may be new that was not presented at the earlier stages. Your objections to density Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 21 have to be in relation to a specific development proposal and that is not the decision made tonight. Member Strom also stated two additional things to the five findings in the staff report, one is Land Use Policy Plan #12; urban density residential development which usually encourages 3- units to the acre in the urban growth area. And the other is Land Use Policy #13; lesser densities should not be allowed in the urban growth area. The Board and staff know that I am a strong proponent for citizen involvement in these processes. He objects to issues raised about notification. If a person who has not been notified is present, they do have the opportunity to speak before the Board. Motion passed 5-0. Item 20. Annexation and Development Review SchedulinE. Mr. Phillips read the staff report and recommendations to City Council. The order in which the City has accepted for property has been discussed at December 7 and December 21, where clear direction was given to staff that the majority of Council did not want future development proposals reviewed or considered until the annexation and zoning process for the property under consideration is complete. The administrative policy was issued by the Planning Department and implemented. It is staff s opinion and City Attorney's Office it is appropriate for the City Council for formalizing the policy by amending the City Code. Member Cottier asked regarding land zoned T that "no development applications will be accepted until final Council approval is given." Is that consistent with the existing code which says if someone wants to do something in T if it is an extension of the existing use, they have to submit a development plan? Mr. Eckman said if they want to do something in T, they have to submit an application to get it out of T. Member Cottier clarified point IA, under T, Uses Permit, it says "the owner of a property prior to meeting at which the zoning or rezoning is to be heard, shall submit a site plan showing, in reasonable detail, a site plan of the existing or proposed use of such property." She thought that was talking about the allowable things that could be done in a T. It is in the context of permitting an expansion of an existing use in a T. Mr. Eckman read from the Uses Permit section and made comment that it refers to expansion and that the Board is talking about actual development. If the Board is approving an actual PUD, or some development beyond just expanding the use beyond the use that was in the district when it first came in, the Board would need to change the zoning to another district. Member Cottier asked if an expansion would be considered for development? r Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 11 a fine presentation with solutions, and complimented the applicant who had a good attitude in the process. The Board will continue to see issues like this where the City meets the County. She said hopefully the process will go as smoothly as this. She will support the motion. Mr. Phillips stated that we have made a commitment to Council for "Findings of Fact" and requested to make reference to the recommendation to page 8. That would be helpful to be included in the minutes. Member Strom read the recommendation on page 8 and moved that it was acceptable to add this to the motion. Mr. Phillips suggested if there were some that the Board did not agree to, that they be eliminated. Member Strom said that the only question he had was the suggestion of the "criterion of compatibility". Because it is a straight subdivision under the code, and the zoning provisions in the code, that the Board is not addressing the compatibility issue. Mr. Phillips agreed. Member Strom moved to eliminate No. 2. Member Cottier said she agreed. Motion passed 5-0. Item 18 - Fossil Creek Estates Rezoning - #50-92E. Ms. Whetstone, Planner, read the staff report and recommended approval. Ms. Lucia Liley, representing the petitioner, Fossil Creek Partners. commented on the petition. She said it was unusual to have been placed in, and then have to petition out of, the T-transition zone, as the petitioner had previously petitioned for an RLP zone. It is important to point out that the Council has not made a decision on the ultimate zone for this property. It is not rezoning in the traditional sense, since the T-transition zone is, as Ms. Whetstone indicated, a holding zone for properties in the transitional stage and have no real development plans. (She explained the how and why she was present.) Ms. Liley stated in August a petition was submitted to annex and zone the property RLP, and went to Council in October. It was, in fact, annexed and proposed to be zoned RLP, with a PUD condition. In November, it was placed on the consent agenda and pulled off and on second reading, was zoned T-transition, which it is for properties that have not identified a use. That clearly was not the case here where a PUD was pending. In fact, under review, we asked Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 12 Council to reconsider the zoning of this property into T-transition. The Council did vote to reconsider that, but instead of putting it on the November as requested, it was placed on a December 21 Council agenda. At that meeting, then, it was placed again back into the T- transition zone. We found ourselves in a rather ironic position of having requested a procedure to save time, having in effect that procedure creating additional delays. Really, the only effect that had to put it into a T-transition was to delay it for an additional 60-day period, because a petitioner has an absolute right to petition out of this zone, and to receive, in 60 days after Planning and Zoning Board makes a recommendation, some development zone. Ms. Liley said we are back full circle of where we need to be in terms of the zoning for this property. From a zoning standpoint, it is hard to understand what other zone might be appropriate. As Ms. Whetstone indicated, RLP is one of the most restrictive zones in the City with even more control with a PUD. This zoning would be compatible with the zoning of the property immediately to the east, which is going to be combined with this property for one development in three phases. The Board could consider an RE Zone, an estate lot zone, which would give larger lots, or RLP, RL zone, and condition density. You could say it cannot have more than 3 units per acre. It is difficult to understand what the Council would accomplish, if that is the recommendation, it seems to be inconsistent with City's adopted policies and regulations, and inconsistent with a number of planning efforts underway, air quality and congestion management, which seems to suggest a higher utilization of land within the city rather than lower densities. The only other consideration with regard to zoning and density has to do with the Cathy Fromme area to the north of this property. It has been suggested that a different zone or a lower density condition within a zone would be appropriate to protect that property from adverse environmental impacts. Ms. Liley asked for consideration of the impact of this density of three units per acre in this area. The Natural Resources staff advised the Council at the December 21 reconsideration of the zoning of T-transition, that the Natural Resources Advisory Board at its December meeting discussed density and how it impacted the natural area. While in some areas density is a factor, that's not the case of this particular site and development. In fact, they suggested thought be given to whether the density should be increased so that the land within the city is not consumed at such a rapid rate. The staff also advised the Council that at the time the matter was brought to the Council and recommended Natural Resources Advisory Board purchase of the natural area, they recognized, in fact, it was an urban area and it would be adjacent to urban level development and they had contemplated the buffering necessary. This property was not considered as needing additional required buffering for the natural area. This is not to presuppose any design, they will come back on final and will address the natural areas and environmental impacts. In terms of the appropriate zoning, density as it relates to the natural area, ought not to be a factor. We would ask that you would recommend what staff has asked the Board to recommended to Council and that is the RLP zone with the PUD condition, that remains satisfactory with the petitioner. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 13 Chair Clements asked the audience to keep comments to the rezoning only. Phase I has been appealed and if the audience would like to address the P.U.D. Plan issue, it will be heard February 1, 1994 at the Council meeting at 6:15 p.m. CITIZEN INPUT. Jim Robbins - individual and an agricultural landowner, President of Trilby Lateral Ditch Company. His property joins the development on the south side. He does not oppose development if it is within keeping of the environment, eco-systems, wildlife habitat, conservation, water quality of irrigation water, and compatibility of the land with the surroundings. The proposed Seven Springs PUD, in the county to the west of the proposal, is a plan that the residents like very much. It has 80 acres with 54 lots, it will try to give natural area to coincide with the Fromme Natural Area. The developer has communicated with the Trilby Lateral Ditch, wildlife habitat, agricultural transitions and other concerns. This county development appears to be very compatible with our neighborhood. We are concerned about the compatibility and the transition between agricultural lands and the Fromme Natural Area. The proposed connection of the Fossil Creek Estates PUD, Phase III, and the Seven Springs Ranch is on my property. He saw this in a drawing in September and December meetings. He said he has not been approached to sell the land and quite frankly plans on keeping their farm in its entirety, to hand down to his children, preserving it as an agricultural land and as a wildlife habitat. We have been involved in planting many trees for raptures to roost. There are no transitional lands at all in the Fossil Creek proposal. He pointed out a potential problem of irrigation run-off that may be addressed in the final. He wondered about what new residents in this development thought about dogs barking, and about horses, cattle, and sheep being dangerous and smelly. Where will people go? He suggested they would go to the Fromme Natural Area and his property. He did not want this to happen. The Trilby Lateral Company sets up its irrigation plans for the season and discussed several ideas for drainage. He said that plans will need to be brought before the stockholders. Trilby Lateral has been in existence since 1897 and one with history. His concerns included: grass clippings, commercial fertilizers, filling up the wetlands and the drainage system. The natural environment needs to be conserved. The density was an issue of concern with regard to the ditch. Chair Clements said she understood and emphasized with the concerns he had, but what she needed was his input on the RLP zone or another recommendation. Mr. Robbins is opposed to 3-units per acre. Mr. Robert Musselman - Fromme Prairie Neighborhood Association - He indicated they are a new association with a number of neighborhoods and individuals from around the Fromme Prairie. He recommended at this time that the T-transition zone be maintained and not changed Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 14 to RLP. His concerns were density. Because of the uniqueness of the area no other city has, we need to be careful about the development around it. It needs to be studied and examined. We need in place, a management plan for the Fromme Prairie before any land from the T- transition. There is also a Fort Collins -Loveland Corridor study examining the entire area of Fort Collins and Loveland and how it is to be developed. He felt this study needed to be complete before developing in the area. Mr. Musselman differed with the Natural Resources statement that density should possibly be higher. All his resources indicate and the staff report states there will be a negative effect on the Fromme Prairie area. Air quality is an issue along the drainage area and 3-units per acre is high density in his view, in this unique area. There needs to be a transition from the existing 1-acre units. Sandra Robbins - a neighbor in the area and Frame Prairie neighborhood Association - She was in opposition to the proposed RLP zone. There needs to be a transition to the area. She showed many slides of the natural roosting sites of eagles which could only be photographed on horseback or tractor because of the birds being frightened by pedestrians walking through the area. The purpose of the Frame Prairie Area is for the public, for their enjoyment and education about the fast disappearing of the short grass prairie habitat which is a part of our community's natural history. She went into great detail in her presentation about the habits of the raptures and endangered species in the area. Mrs. Robbins referred to the Fromme Prairie Management Issues Report dated November 18, 1993, draft, regarding endangered species and pointed out the intent of preserving this area for shelter and preservation. She believed 3-5 units per acre was encroaching upon this shelter. She referred to the Natural Resources staff stated that adjacent areas may have some impact, but did not state how many units per acre compared to no development. What kind of responsible planning can approve densities such as proposed by rezoning, when no complete studies are available? What if the impact should proved to be negative after the fact of development at the level of this density when it is too late to do anything about it and our valuable resource is lost to future generations? What would make better sense than to provide the least amount of disturbance of development? Bob Kulovaney - President of the Ridge Homeowners Association, referred to Ms. Liley's comments that the area is compatible with zoning immediately to the east. He pointed out that this is under appeal and will be before City Council tomorrow. He made the following comments in regard to inappropriateness of the zoning based on city codes, ordinances and resolutions. He stated that he will demonstrate that the Planning and Natural Resources staff has ignored their own policies. He said the core issues are: 1. Understanding the uniqueness of the Cathy Fromme Natural Area and its direct relationship to zoning. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 15 2. Understanding the intent of the natural area preservation. 3. Determining aspects of city ordinances, standards, etc. which are applicable, but if applied preclude this type of what will be come a development. 4. Is the 3 dwelling units mandate paramount to all other consideration including disregarding existing code and important elements of the LDGS. Mr. Kulovaney referred to a memorandum from Sherry Albertson -Clark who was chief planner at the time (he did not indicate a date). Community wide criteria in the LDGS--the first ten --are all community -wide criteria, if one is violated, it is not an appropriate development. It states: If the site contains an area which serves as a habitat, natural food source, nesting place, wintering place, or source of water for wildlife, identified by the Colorado Division Wildlife, as significant and in particular need of attention, special precautions have been implemented into the Plan to prevent the creation of environmental influences adverse to the preservation of these areas. The other community -wide criteria relating to ecologically sensitive areas and he requested that be fully explored. Mr. Kulovaney said regarding Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria states: Do the physical elements of the site plan adapt well to the physical characteristics of the site and minimize the disturbance of the topography, water body, streams, wetlands, wildlife, vegetation and other natural features. He referred to the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan, which has been finalized by City Council: ...to review and revise existing City goals and objectives in policies to guide future programs for the protection, conservation, enhancement, and management of natural areas within Fort Collins... to insure that the impacts of development so that future development will be accomplished so as to create the least degradation to the environment. Direct growth away from environmental unique lands which can be shown to have special value to people; i.e., Natural Resources. Investigate the Open Space Plan to include appropriate, newly acquired natural areas where such open space will provide relief from the adverse affects of urban intensities (referring to population densities). The City should prepare and utilize an environmental management plan, which will include the following measures: Identification of environmentally scarce and valuable land, such as wildlife habitats, requiring development to mitigate negative impacts and environmentally scarce and valuable lands. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 16 Mr. Kulovaney referred to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 1988 which identifies natural areas of significant recreation resources and wildlife habitat for passive recreation uses. It clearly states open space acquisition criteria were modified to place greater emphasis on ecological factors, values of natural area and natural area protection. Mr. Kulovaney referred to the Technical Memorandum #1 to the Natural Areas Policy Plan. It is not included in the plan for general public perusal; however, it is a part of the Natural Areas Policy Plan: Encourage City and County officials to consider environmental impacts on new development as a significate factor in project evaluation as land use decisions are made. Restrict growth which will encroach on designated open space area and will interfere with access to these areas. Development in the urban growth area should be consistent with development policies set forth in this plan. Require development to mitigate negative impacts on environmentally scarce and valuable lands. Mr. Kulovaney referred to a resolution in 1988 of the Planning and Zoning Board: The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins has worked with the Natural Resource Advisory Board of the City to identify and categorize wetlands and wildlife habitats within the urban growth area (utilizing a map)... It is the goal and objective of the City to insure the development will have minimum impact on said wetlands and wildlife area. Set plan should identify environmentally scarce and valuable lands, develop mitigation measures to limit actions that negatively impact on such lands and promote preservation of environmentally valuable lands. Mr. Kulovaney had other references: 1992 Resolution 9253 of City Council, Purchase and Protect Open Space Natural Areas; Parks and Boards, a statement of preserving open space. He went on to say that he heard Mr. Wilkinson state before the Board the negative impacts of RLP. He referred to a document from Karen Manci who works with Mr. Wilkinson "Restoration, Creation and Management of Wetland and Repairing Ecosystems in the American West" compiled by the Rocky Mountain Chapter of Society of Wetland Scientists. He read from the report which supported his position on drainage and did not know what development impacts would be on wetlands. He referred to Technical Memorandum #2 Natural Areas Policy Plan which discussed natural wildlife, trees and relationship to human activities. There will be a report out regarding Bald Eagles, an endangered species since 1976, which supports this specific wetland area complex. These, he stated, are a core issue. Mr. Kulovaney said that the Board may not see that as a core issue as it relates to zoning, but he was confidant that you will at a later point in time. He referenced the Cathy Fromme Prairie Management Issues Report and read supporting material for his presentation for endangered species. He referenced a memorandum from Steve Burkett, which relates to the Natural Area Sales Tax Initiative... used for preservation of wildlife habitat and expanding the trail system. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 17 Mr. Kulovaney differed from the staff support of RLP. He said that he has spoke to Jerry Craig, Division of Wildlife expert; Judy Sherpulse, Head of the Regional Rapture Society; and Andre Duvall and used their expertise to support his position regarding bird population. (He indicated he would be happy to have a written support to submit to the Board.) In conclusion, Natural Areas Design Guidelines and Mitigation Manual, was due June 1993 but has yet to be finalized to date which recommends a minimum of 300 buffer feet to protect high quality wild habitat. In Mr. Kulovaney's closing comments addressed to the Board, he asked if they valued the Cathy Fromme Prairie and the citizens who support with taxes the protection of these areas, that RLP zoning is not at this time in order. At some point in time, if an agreement can be made with the developer to include a variance that is compatible with the Cathy Fromme Natural Area and when the final management plan is out in June, the Board will be able to effectively make a decision. To decide tonight would be in error. Need to look at the greater good in this area, and is aware of increased density needs of the community, but this is a unique 600-acre site, the only one in or around Fort Collins 20 years from now for short grass prairie. Mr. Mark Schultheiss - 5419 Paradise Lane in Applewood Estates representing the Fromme Prairie Neighborhood Association. His comments were regarding the pattern of development of the area. It is not too late to preserve lower densities around the Cathy Fromme Area and preserve the surrounding area. The RLP zoning will stand out like a "sore thumb" and will damage the area. It is a significant site. He described the uniqueness of the area topography and scenic value and cited various developments that are from 2.3 to 4.6 acres up to 5-10 acre parcels. He cited the mitigation of density along the surrounding areas adjoining Clarendon Hills, are one-third acre lots. He said it was a left -over of the UGA. Without the Cathy Fromme, there is a remnant on the south side; with future county developments with much lower density. He urged to defer a decision until further studies can be done, so impacts are known, or a creative way to zone for lower density and mitigate from there. Sue Bodoh - 816 Hilldale Drive - She stated she is opposed to the RLP zoning. Her main objection, as well as all the ones to preserve the wildlife, is the traffic on Shields. She believed after the development, it would be impossible for her to continue to ride her bike to work in Loveland. She finds left turns onto Shields take up to 5 minutes and feels it is a dangerous situation. The development will only increase the traffic onto Shields. In the winter, the road is steep and icy causing many accidents, the proposed location is right at the bottom of the hill. Signalization at the bottom of the hill will prevent easy traction for motorists up the hill. She recommended to the Board not to approve RLP Zoning and let the T-transition zoning remain in effect. Ann Young - resident of Applewood - She has lived there for three years. In addition to the concerns presented tonight and opposition to RLP zoning, she said, in her four minute talk, there was inadequate notification and communication regarding this zoning request. She believed not all residents of the surrounding areas near the Cathy Fromme Natural Area were notified, and Planning & Zoning Board Minutes January 31, 1994 Page 18 the signage on the property was difficult to read. She noted that because of its location, people could read it. Only last week was it moved, when the hearing had already been held in December. Because of inadequate notification and communication, she asked that the RLP zoning be denied. Mr. Raymond S. H. Youngee - resident of Applewood Estates - He is a professor and chairman of the Department of Environmental Health at Colorado State University. A year ago, he was appointed by Governor Romer to serve as a science advisory board member to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, and serves as an expert witness and scientific advisor to the Denver Hearing on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Pollution issues. For the record, he said he was against the RLP zoning. He is not against development. There are two points he wanted to emphasize: 1. The Development Impact - Rural area is beautiful and undeveloped. His concern was the use of fertilizers and herbicides for lawns and damage to the eco-system, and water purification. He mentioned research of dogs with cancer and the relationship to herbicides. Before his career at CSU, he was with the National Toxicology Program, Natural Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park. In his own study, verifies his colleagues research. 2. Lower Density - He lived in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and served on the Board of Adjustment, similar to the Planning and Zoning Board. He observed tonight that the Board appeals to the applicant to do certain things that would mitigate development. He would like to see some changes in policy and wanted to know how to go about that process. Mr. Youngee in closing, sought wisdom of the Board in the decision -making process and the need for innovative ideas to be able to leave a legacy for the next generation, respecting the unique gift in natural environment Fort Collins has in this area. Mr. Fred Nittman - 1000 Scenic Drive, located across the street from the proposed development. He reflected on his children's comments about the increase of housing density. The children have concerns about crossing Shields to play with their friends and how they are going to get to school safely, because there is no sidewalk or crossing. There is not enough information to warrant RLP zoning. He said he wrote a letter to the editor and received calls from the public regarding location and density, documenting them. Before a decision is made, voter's opinion needs to be polled as to what their opinion is. He proposed that the decision be delayed for RLP and allow the City Council to essentially take the issue before the voters, create a task force of a broad range of individuals, within a short period of time --get the voters involved in the process. He was opposed to the RLP zoning. Mr. Fred Oldham - 1109 Hepplewhite Ct. in The Ridge - He opposed the RLP zoning. He was concerned about traffic generation to a dangerous intersection and a blind spot to the south, and