HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK ESTATES PUD FIRST FILING FINAL 6/27/94 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 50 92F - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES. PLANNING i ZONING BOARD
XNETING XINUTHS
Juno 27, 1994
Garry Horak, Council Liaison
Ron Phillips, Staff support Liaison
The June, 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, Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, Member
Fontane, James Klataske, Lloyd Walker and Sharon Winfree. Member
Bernie Strom was absent.
Staff members present included Planning Director Ron Phillips,
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Joe Frank, Bob Blanchard, Mike
Herzig, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Tom Shoemaker, Tom Vosburg,
Kirsten Whetstone, Rob Wilkinson and Carolyn Worden.
AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Ron Phillips, Planning Director read the agenda review items.
Consent Agenda: Item 1. Minutes of the April 4 and April 25,
1994, P & Z Board Meetings; Item 2. Oakridge, Blk. 1, 3rd Filing
PAD, Courtyard by Marriott - Preliminary, #13-82BG; Stone ridge
PUD, 4th Filing - Final, 421-92I, Item 4. Oak Hill Apartments PUD
. - Final, #54-87V; Item 5. Courtyards @ Miramont, 2nd Filing -
Final, #54-87U; Item 6. Centre for Advanced Technology PUD
Amended overall Development Plan, #53-85AH; Item 7. Windtrail
Apartments PUD - Preliminary, #66-93D; Item S. Raintree PUD,
Schlotzsky's - Final, #146-79Q; Item 9. The Cottages at Miramont
PUD - Preliminary, #54-87Q; Item 10 Resolution PZ94-8 - Easement
Vacation; Item 11. Resolution PZ94-9 - Easement Vacation; Item
12 Resolution PZ94-10 Easement Vacation; Item 13. Modifications
of Conditions of Final Approval. Discussion Agenda: item 14.
Amendment to Section 29-526 (Land Development Guidance System) of
the City Code - Residential Density/Phasing, #35-94; Item 15.
Fossil Creek Estates PUD - Final, #50-92F; Item 16. Overland
Trail Annexation and Zoning, #9-94, A; Item 17. Willow Springs
PUD - Preliminary; Item 18. Ridgewood Hills Overall Development
Plan, Amendment to the Del Webb Master Plan, #55-84B; Item 19.
Ridgewood Hills PUD - Preliminary, #55-84C; Item 20. Dakota
Ridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #60-91K; Item 21.
Lindenmeier Estates PUD - Preliminary, #24-94.
Mr. Phillips had a point of clarification on the Agenda Review,
the Item 20. - Dakota Ridge PAD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #60-
91K, that has been brought out by Chair Clements. The agendas
that are provided at the table at the back of the room do not
show this as being continued. The agendas that the Board has
does --he wanted to notify the audience that it has been postponed
until July 25, 1994.
C
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 22
River and foothills. Properties to the west of Fromme Prairie
are being investigated, the management plan will determine the
proper location of access through the area.
Chair Clements pointed out this was a final and land use has been
determined at preliminary. This was approved at 3.0 units per
acre, it was appealed, went to City Council and the P & Z Board's
decision was upheld, but reduced the units per acre.
Ms. Whetstone said there were actually two separate items before
Council. One was the appeal of the preliminary and the Council
upheld the Board's decision on the preliminary plan. The second
meeting was to determine the zoning of Phases II and III.
Council voted to put a cap of 2 units per acre on those Phases.
The density issue for Phase I was resolved at preliminary.
Chair Clements asked what the Board should be looking at in
making a decision for the Final?
Mr. Eckman said the layout and densities are established at
preliminary according to the LDGS, so the Board cannot change the
layout and density at final. Any other criteria of the LDGS you
can still use to evaluate the development, all development
criteria.
Mr. Eckman said that there should not be any thought in mind
about purchasing this property. Their decision should be for the
land use process only. He is not aware of the City's interest
(there may be other boards or committees) but it certainly should
not go into the equation that the Board uses to calculate whether
this project should be approved or disapproved.
Member Cottier recalled from materials received from the past,
that the Cathy Fromme area was purchased to include its own
buffer area. The large size, it was determined, buffers itself.
It seems some new issue comes up every other week and of
particular concern is the Natural Resources Board's desire to
purchase more land. Do they follow a guideline of expanding
existing holdings or plan of equitably distributing natural areas
throughout the city or is it purely based on what is considered
most sensitive and most under pressure at the time.
Mr. Wilkinson said the Natural Resources Board does play a role
in reviewing, supporting or motion to acquisition to staff. The
Board is referred to get a sense of community concern. There is
also direction from Council with other factors. The
recommendation came out of the concern for the roost, a piece of
information that arose late in the process. He believed that
this was not the time to talk about acquisition. Regulatory
criteria should be used to evaluate Phases II and III only.
There is not enough evidence to recommend denial on Phase I,
regarding it being a detriment to the eagle roost site.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 23
Chair Clements stated there have been four reports from four
agencies that this development would not affect the eagle's
roost. Can you site what those authorities are?
Mr. Wilkinson said staff would be one authority, the Army Corps
of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado
Division of Wildlife and also Shalkey-Walker Associates. He
stated the roost site was the critical point in determining these
findings and Phase I would not have an impact on it. That is
their best judgment.
Member Fontane asked for history of this property. Are both the
Fromme Prairie and this property part of the Urban Growth Area?
Ms. Whetstone said she didn't have the exact date, but this
property was annexed in 1992. The Cathy Fromme area and The
Ridge were brought in as an enclave annexation. Maybe five or
six years ago. A T-zone was put on the Prairie because there
were no immediate developments. She made comments on density of
the surrounding properties.
Member Cottier asked about Condition 10, added by Member Strom at
Preliminary, concerning the trees, which we thought were on the
Robbins property, but really are on this property? Those trees
will remain?
Ms. Whetstone said that was correct, the trees will remain.
Member Walker asked about the rationale behind the landscaped
entry to the Cathy Fromme Prairie.
Ms. Whetstone said it was her understanding the landscaped area
on the north side was to be removed from the plans. The
developer affirmed this to be true.
Member Walker commented that the Cathy Fromme Prairie natural
area is, if you will, "self buffering". This area is being
preserved in an urbanizing community and one can always argue
there is not enough buffering. This is where boundaries are set
and, it is enough given the context.
Chair Clements commented on a work session discussion about 28-
foot wide streets with parking on one side, and asked that 28'
streets be included in the motion. It is a fact she wishes no
impacts on the natural area but there is growth and existing
neighbors. The policies and guidelines set by City Council are
what the Board upholds regarding this proposal.
Member Dinfree made the notion that the Board approve Fossil
Creek Estates First PUD - Final with the condition as stated in
the staff report.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 24
Member Rlataske seconded the notion. He commented that he didn't
understand that under this setting, why there was a need for a
boulevard type entrance going into this property. This should be
a narrower street going into the area and would not impact the
natural area as much. He suggested perhaps a landscaped median
contributing to the natural area setting.
Ms. Whetstone said there is a fire code regulation determining
the width of the road for the two points of entry requirement and
consideration for the future of Phases II and III.
Chair Clements agreed it was a standard but may be negotiable.
Mr. Sell said there was no objection to having less than 28 feet
of paving on the boulevard, if there is no need for parking on
the street.
Member Hlataske said that a condition needs to be added that
there not be parking on the boulevard and it be a maximum of 28
feet.
Ms. Whetstone said there would need to be a minimum of 20 feet on
each side of the boulevard. The plan shows 28 feet and is the
current standard the Fire Department requests, with parking for
the Fromme Prairie.
Member Fontane asked if the boulevard consideration is necessary
to extend the road to the west, to Taft Hill Road?
Ms. Whetstone said that part of the layout requires the boulevard
configuration that was approved at preliminary.
Member Elataske vithdrev his condition. This parking would be
used for viewing the natural area and part of what we want to do
is provide a point where people can appreciate the area.
Motion passed 6-0.
Chair Clements closed the meeting and postponed the remaining
agenda items to July 11, 1994.
There will be a special work session July 14 of the Board to
consider presentations of the Water and Waste Water Department
and Storm Water Department, and also to discuss the memo Member
Cottier prepared.
Meeting adjourned 10:35 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 14
Member walker made a motion recommending to City Council to adopt
the Amendment to Section 29-526 (Land Development Guidance
System) of the City Code - Residential Density/Phasing, #35-94.
Member Walker commented that the LDGS has been a dynamic planning
tool and has seen the document evolve. One of the things
accomplished is that the Board follows the LDGS. He emphasized
that growth management is a critical issue.
Member Winfree seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-2. with Members Cottier and Klataske voting in
the negative.
ITEM 15. FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES PUD - FINAL.#50-92F.
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, read the staff report to the
Board. The conditions of preliminary approval have been
satisfied. The Board received a letter from Fossil Creek
Partners and also a memo from Tom Shoemaker, the Natural
Resources Director. He attached the input from the Natural
Resources Advisory Board meeting; a memo from Bill Miller, June
3, 1994; and a letter from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
stating that the findings of Federal Review --basically concluded
that phase one of the project will not affect the bald eagle
habitat.
Mr. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, represented the applicant. Mr.
Sell gave a brief presentation to be followed by a presentation
from Lucia Liley. He requested a time of rebuttal after citizen
input if he has not addressed an issue during this presentation.
He referred to Jerry Craig, the State of Colorado raptors expert,
who has been quoted many times regarding this project, that Phase
I does not involve issues related to raptures. He gave a brief
slide presentation for Phase I.
He reported 2.9 units per acre for density, open space was
doubled from the previous plan, the lot size average is 11,000
square feet with patio homes along Shield Street. He talked
about the cotton woods along the ditch, and negotiations going on
between the applicant and the ditch company to work out an
agreement for the disposition and maintenance of that ditch. He
addressed the street plans and landscaping with buffering. A
naturalized landscape rendering was presented to show the
entrance feature and how it incorporates the texture and feel of
the Cathy Fromme Prairie.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing Fossil Creek Partners - the
owner and applicant of the project - submitted a packet of
information to the Board for the record and briefly summarized
what it contained. The comments are only about the Final PUD for
Phase I. It is independent and stands on its own, separate from
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 15
Phases II and III. There have been nine hearings to date. She
talked about environmental impact issues, prior to the 9th
hearing, the Natural Resources Department sent a memo to City
Council, dated February 18, 1994. They had findings about the
"night roost site" (on the Robbin's property). The memo advised
staff to take the following two steps to determine whether or not
the project meets the City's criteria: (1) the Colorado Division
of Wildlife should conduct a formal review, (2) Natural Resources
would hire an individual consulting firm to review the previous
analysis. These steps are to insure this development is
sensitive to the special environment to the Cathy Fromme Prairie.
A letter was sent from the Natural Resources Department to the
Partnership indicating that the City's Consultants, Shalkey-
Walker, had special expertise in this area and that they were
very familiar with the Fort Collins habitat and the planning
system. She read from materials submitted to the Board. The
conclusions of the impact study were there is no impact on the
2.25 acre wetland area and it is not likely to impact the "night
roost site", a quarter of a mile away.
The study recommended a buffer area and the topographic break at
the ridgeline. Potential options were mentioned: (1) allow
Phase I to proceed forward (2) not to approve Phases II and III,
and (3) Phase I would be an "observation site" for the City of
Fort Collins for viewing the Cathy Fromme Prairie. She referred
to a memo from Tom Shoemaker dated March 28, 1994, indicating
that Phase I was not affected and the focus of view should be on
Phases II and III where the issues lie. The May hearing was
postponed to June 6, 1994. Staff was recommending approval of
the Phase I for meeting all criteria. Federal 404 permit process
was mentioned. Phase I is in conformance with those
requirements.
Ms. Liley reported that on June 1, 1994, the Natural Resources
Advisory Board had a special meeting. The Partnership was
advised of the meeting at 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting and
was unable to attend, as he was in Denver and had other
commitments. The memo, summarizing the meeting, reflected denial
of Phase I. and acquisition of all three phases of this project.
The applicant was then asked to table the item, as the previous
Staff condition was not sufficient and Natural Resources Staff
wanted the applicant to go through a whole Federal process to
insure that there wasn't a problem with the permit and the
Federal Endangered Species Act. There was an objection by the
Partnership to continue, but they reached an agreement to
continue the item to this meeting.
The last item Ms. Liley presented was reports from the Federal
Agencies stating they have reviewed this and find no affect on
Bald Eagles as a result of the Phase I development.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 16
Ms. Liley concluded that all reviewing agencies have come to
agreement that Phase I does not negatively impact the Bald
Eagles. Another issue is intertwined regarding the City's desire
to acquire all or part of the property comprising the three
phases of this development. The timing of that proposal, in
conjunction with review of the final PUD is inappropriate. This
should be an independent land use process. Fair market value has
a direct tie between land use approval. She urged the Board to
view the evidence for Phase I and to note that there is no
evidence that this project should be turned down on the basis of
environmental impacts. An independent consultant was present who
would address any of these issues, if the Board desired.
CITIZEN INPUT
Mark Schulteis- Mr. Schulteis said he was a member of the Fromme
Neighborhood Association, an organization of individuals and
homeowner's associations in the area, and stated they were
ordinary citizens and not members of the City in any way. This
development is, in fact, about bald eagles and wildlife. It will
have impacts in a few different ways that could affect whether or
not these bald eagles stay in the area and also will impact other
wildlife. You are all aware of the fact that the Fromme Prairie
is adjacent to this particular development. The City has a
substantial investment in that property of around $657.00 that is
actually, the tax payers. It is important that the City work to
protect its interest in that property. The Fromme area is
designated as the highest sensitive area as it exists. The
intention is to leave it as a natural area. He discussed the
buffer not being enough, impacts of the development on the
prairie, and that Natural Resources staff has brought out the
issue of 50-100 feet eradication of prairie dogs in buffer zones
(plagues/relocation). These items need mitigation from the side
of the prairie.
He discussed lowering densities to its minimum of 1.5 per acre
rather than the maximum of 3 units per acre to allow a buffer
area on the development side of Fromme Prairie. He suggested
moving the road so as to not pave the prairie area. He believed
there were things that could be done to preserve substantial
investment that the taxpayers have made in the area and allow
development to proceed.
Mrs. Sandra Robbins - 5801 S. Shields - She read a prepared
statement regarding raptures roosting sites and gave a slide
presentation of existing land which is undeveloped and outside
the urban growth area. She suggested that density does have
impact on the wildlife. She cited the surrounding areas having a
lesser density than the proposed development which is heavily
loaded and suggested lowering it to 1.5 units per acre. She
showed several slides supporting the "night roost" of bald eagles
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 17
or hawks through different seasons at the southwest corner of the
development. She brought out the issue of building height of 40
feet. She quoted the LDGS page 11 regarding neighborhood
compatibility criteria to support less density and some impacts
of the development. She also referred to the Natural Resources
Department's report supporting her position of preserving these
roosting sites. She also quoted Jerry Craig's comments regarding
the bald eagles and density impacts. Aside from the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, he was unaware of other roosting sites for bald
eagles in the area.
Mrs. Ann Yang - 420 Apple Blossom Lane - Vice President of the
Applewood Homeowner's Association - She read from a prepared
statement. She urged the Board to disapprove the Phase I of
Fossil Creek Estates. She believed the plan is in violation of
the LDGS Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria 8-23, Natural
Features. She spoke to the issue of the density and buffering
and entrance to the Fromme Prairie. She quoted a report from the
Natural Resources Department regarding the access to the prairie.
She addressed the paved trail along the southern boundary and the
desirability of locating it to the north because of hawks
perching in the southern part of the Prairie. She believed
buffering of Phase I, to the sensitive wildlife area, is
inadequate.
Mrs. Yang also said the development was in violation of LDGS
Neighborhood Criteria A-2.13, Landscape. The integration and
buffering are inadequate citing the road and irrigated blue
grass. She referred to the consultant's report for a 25-foot
buffer for a transition zone. She was opposed to the formal
landscaped entrance, as it is offensive and incompatible with
other neighborhood entrances.
Mrs. Yang was in disagreement with the drainage plan with respect
not only to seepage into the Fromme area but the drainage to
Fossil Creek without any on -site detention or treatment.
Mrs. Yang also brought out the issues of the prairie dogs. She
quoted an article in the Triangle Review newspaper, that Walt
Graw, Regional Manager of the Division of Wildlife, and a letter
of February 28, 1994, to Natural Resources. The letter stated the
natural area is for the habitat of the species in the Cathy
Fromme Prairie.
Mrs. Yang urged the Board to not accept Phase I of Fossil Creek
Estates at this time.
Jim Robbins - 5801 South Shields - He represented farm and
agricultural use and is a member of the Larimer County Corridor
Task Force. He referred to the transition to the Fromme area but
pointed out the need for transitions to the agricultural areas.
He reported the complaints of the neighbors concerning livestock
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 18
odors, ditch burning, and he quoted John Barnett May 16, 1994
article about this issue of agriculture uses adjacent to
residential areas. He brought out the issues of drainage and
irrigation, and homeowner's association liability. Homeowners
were told that there would be a Veterinary Clinic on Phase I, but
that changed last fall. June 28, 1994, is the last night of the
REA meeting of the Larimer County Corridor Task Force. He
affirmed the City and County are working together on issues of
concern. He quoted Jim News (sp?) who addressed one of the Task
Force meetings and stated it was expensive to back up after you
have made mistakes on land use. He cautioned making mistakes
that will affect future generations.
He stated the boundaries of the corridor and the purpose of the
corridor planning project extending into urban growth areas, and
goals of preserving the natural beauty and character of the area,
preserving open space, etc. He urged disapproval of the project.
Robert Musselman - 717 Scenic Drive - President of Scenic Knolls
Water Association and a member of the Trilby Lateral Ditch
Company - Mr. Musselman stated he would like this development to
maintain the integrity of the ditch. The ditch has been present
since the 18601s. The Ditch Company wants to maintain water flow
in the ditch. He brought out issues concerning the possibilities
of lining the ditch, providing access to the right-of-way to
maintain the flow, restricting access for safety and liability,
and homeowner association liability for possible accidents along
the ditch. There is no written agreement that any of this will
be mitigated, it has only been discussed, and accommodations to
the ditch company have not been made for these needs. He brought
out the issues of the equestrian trail along the ditch and stated
the size and the pitch of the ditch would not be compatible for
use by horses. He felt it important to keep livestock away from
the ditch by fencing, restricting also pets and human access for
safety and liability issues. A written agreement of the
developer is needed to maintain the integrity of the ditch and
ditch company signing off on the plat. He explained that the
ditch company is not a utility company, but privately owned by
stockholders. He concluded that the water flow must be
maintained and preserved for the ownership by the stockholders.
Bill Miller - 322 Scott Avenue - Chair of the Natural Resources
Advisory Board - He stated that this issue has been worked on for
over a year. He had ambivalent feelings concerning it, however,
there was not "just cause" to deny the application by the
developer. The new issue of the roost site of hawks and eagles
this last winter have been entered into consideration, including
concerns of the State of Colorado. He stated that the
development will cause a visual barrier for the birds and prevent
utilization of the Prairie. Management plans for these natural
areas have not been developed and control and guidance for
development along peripheries of these areas have not been
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 19
determined. This is a learning process, to be fair to all
parties, the developer and the taxpayers are opposing answers.
To set precedence, there is a road encroachment into the natural
area and he hoped it would not become the way for future open
space with development in surrounding areas. There are safety
considerations to evaluate, though.
Frank Oldham - 1109 Hepplewhite Court - He is a property owner of
land that is on the northern edge of the Cathy Fromme Prairie.
He pointed out this is a sensitive area that should exist as it
originally had in nature and desired to minimize the
development's impact. He was opposed to the density. He said
that the density the City desires to have is in relation to
shopping, schools and parks and there is none in this
development, it is creating sprawl. He believed this would
negatively impact the area. He asked the Board not to approve
the project and to re-evaluate the 1.5 du/acre as originally
presented under Phase I.
Fred Nittman - 1000 Scenic Drive - Mr. Nittman stated he lived
across the street `rom the proposal. He supported the comments
of the neighbors. -e asked if safety issues of the development
had been addressed, such as, the traffic issue of cresting over
the hill to the intersection for the development. He believed
that within the last eighteen months there have been over 30
accidents in this specific area. He was not satisfied with the
school issue. He believed the issue of busing and how the
children will get to school has not been addressed. He pointed
out the lack of sidewalks and was very concerned that these
issues be taken care of before approval of the project.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED.
Chair Clements summarized concerns from the citizens. The first
was the ditch, its water flow, lining the ditch, restricting
homeowner's access, no existing agreement, etc. She asked the
applicant how these concerns will be mitigated.
Mr. Sell said there are negotiations on -going and Ms. Liley,
legal counsel. She has said all of the rights of the ditch
company since 1860 are valid to date and would remain. The City
of Fort Collins could impose'additional rights on the developer
if it chose to, but they have not. It is a legal issue outside
this arena that the developer is currently working on.
Chair Clements asked Kirsten Whetstone if the equestrian trail
along the ditch being pursued?
Ms. Whetstone said a trail was proposed by the applicant and the
City thought it a good idea for alternative transportation, and a
recreational amenity, it is not a requirement. This was to be an
amenity for people in the area who have horses.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 20
Mr. Carter Ewing said he would like to address this issue, as the
applicant. The originally proposed plan had bike trails,
pedestrian access, equestrian trails, etc. The thought process
was that the area be incorporated into Fromme Prairie City's
system. It was found out very quickly that it was not desired by
the neighborhood or the Natural Resources Department to provide
these connections. The current position regarding the equestrian
trail is that it is not desired. It encroaches into the access
and maintenance is a factor. It is not planned at this time.
Chair Clements asked how school children can access the schools
without sidewalks. Will there be a traffic light?
Ms. Whetstone said there is currently a sidewalk on the east side
of Shields, to Harmony. The School District will decide where
the children will go to school. They may decide that they attend
schools elsewhere in the District. The School District
determines where the children go to school, year by year. She
pointed out that there is an underpass under Shields Street from
the Fromme Prairie to Clarendon Hills Subdivision and the east
sidewalk. There is no access to that at this time. Shields will
be widened eventually and will involve the Fromme Prairie
property. There will be a 5' detached sidewalk on the west side
of the street, at the time Shields is widened to a full 4-lane
arterial, along the frontage of the Fromme Prairie.
Chair Clements asked why the City didn't act to purchase the land
that is now being developed or Phase II and III, when the Fromme
natural area was originally purchased?
Mr. Rob Wilkinson said the answer is complicated. This property
was being sold for development when Fromme Prairie was being
acquired. The initial move to purchase took place before the
sales tax initiative, so funding was not adequate at that time.
They also were not fully aware of the value of the trees to the
south of the property for bald eagles and hawks.
Chair Clements asked if this property was owned by the Robbins?
Mr. Wilkinson said yes.
Chair Clements asked the applicant if they were considering 28
foot streets with parking on one side?
Mr. Sell said yes, it has been done in other projects and the
applicant is willing to do it here. The project has been
designed with 36' wide streets to meet City street standards.
Member Walker asked about the prairie dog buffer strip and asked
how the City normally reacts with the prairie dog issue.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 21
In terms of purchasing the Fromme Prairie, management of the
prairie dogs would occur within the boundaries of the prairie
area. The buffering would control the prairie dogs, however, no
specific guidelines have been set. The science is very
experimental and little is known that is 100% effective. The
City has the responsibility to control prairie dogs on City
property.
Member Winfree restated the City's responsibility of controlling
the population in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural area, not only
adjacent to the proposed development, but also to the existing
properties?
Mr. Wilkinson said if staff felt there was a complaint from the
owners of adjacent property, the City would put stronger controls
along the boundaries.
Member Winfree asked about the purchase of roughly 600 acres for
the Cathy Fromme Prairie Area, if it were 400 or 1,000 acres
would we still be responsible for buffering the adjacent
properties? What determines what the natural area is, and where
it starts.
Mr. Wilkinson said yes. There are a variety of factors of how
the ecology of the site develops and the range of the prairie
dogs. He said that prairie dogs have been seen to the south and
west of this property.
Member Winfree said if we are looking at the undeveloped property
around the Cathy Fromme Prairie Area to buffer that natural area,
what determines whether to extend the area to 600 acres?
Mr. Wilkinson said they look at key habitat components, including
vegetation and species. He pointed out that the eagles use the
Fossil Creek Reservoir to the east and areas of the foothills, as
well.
Member Winfree asked how long they stay in an area? Is it their
habit to stay in one area.
Mr. Wilkinson stated he wasn't an expert and they don't know how
long eagles have been using this area, nor how long they will
continue. It has only really been observed last winter. The
patterns are unknown at this time.
Member Winfree asked about the management plan for the area and
how are people going to view the area if the access to the
prairie is only through the proposed development?
Mr. Wilkinson stated there is no current management plan. There
was mention of a trail/bikepath that would connect the Fossil
Creek Trail System to the east and west to ultimately the Poudre