SITE DATA
Location Description:
located northwest of the Mulberry and Lemay intersection and portions of the Poudre Intake Pipeline. The pipeline alignment travels generally east and south from the proposed Poudre River Intake Diversion Structure and the traversed land varies between unincorporated Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Sign Number:
617
GENERAL
Subdivision Plat:
Without Plat
DATES
Conceptual Review:
03/04/2021
Conceptual Review Meeting:
Yes
Project Submittal Date:
05/21/2021
Planning and Zoning Recommendation:
Denied
P and Z Recommendation Date:
06/30/2021
Conditions of Approval:
Vice Chair Shepard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hogestad, that the Fort Collins Planning
and Zoning Commission deny the Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA210001, that has been presented based
on the lack of compliance with Land Use Code Section 2.16.2(H)(2), which is identified in the staff report as
the location, character, and extent criteria, as well as City Plan Principles and Polices ENV 1.1, ENV 1.2,
ENV 1.3, ENV 1.6, ENV 6.4, and ENV 7, East Mulberry Corridor Plan ONL-1, ONL 1.1, ONL 1.2, and item
numbers 1-4 listed in the Staff Analysis on page 8 of the Staff Report. Additionally, he moved the site
development plan does not comply with the character and extent criteria of the Land Use Code in Section
2.16.2(H). This motion is based on the content of the findings of fact in the staff report, the testimony heard
tonight from the public, applicant and staff, the written materials, the supplemental materials, and the entire
record made available to Commissioners.
Commissioner Schneider stated he respects Vice Chair Shepard's opinion, but as the project will ultimately happen
one way or the other, he would like Northern Water to continue working with staff collaboratively to result in the best
outcome for everyone and in maintaining the most water for the recreational uses in the upstream flows. He stated
he would oppose the motion.
Commissioner Hansen noted the application and staff report were the only items the Commission had to review
going into this hearing, and he had some strong reservations about the project based on those items. He stated
the applicant's presentation, and the discussion are also to be used to make a decision and he stated he now feels
better about supporting the project based on those items. He stated the applicants' past project experience has
given him faith in their ability to property mitigate concerns and restore natural areas.
Commissioner Hogestad expressed concern about the construction activity and the large construction easement.
He stated what happens during constructfon may forever impact wildlife patterns regardless of restoration efforts.
He stated he would support the motion.
Chair Haefele stated she would support the motion as the project could have been more well developed prior to
coming before the Commission. She stated construction impacts. potential for flooding, and the potential loss
already restored habitat have not been properly mediated.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Shepard, Haefele and Hogestad. Nays: Hansen and
Schneider.
THE MOTION CARRIED.