Loading...
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