The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/14/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - P&Z Supp DocsSt. Elizabeth Ann Seton – Citizen Email 1 From: HAROLD J [mailto:pbirk33@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:37 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Ms. Tatman-Burruss, Thanks for returning my phone call in regards to the development proposal to Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church in our neighborhood. I think I can speak for most of my neighbors along Fairway II at Southridge, in that we are mainly concerned that the Church not be allowed to increase the height of their structure during this redevelopment. Our property has a nice view of the front range, and we would be disappointed if that were impacted negatively. Please express my concerns at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on September 14th. Thank you. H.J. Birkhofer 1463 Front Nine Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 970 226-3198 pbirk33@comcast.net September 7, 2017 Willow Springs Neighbor Pete Wray – City of Fort Collins Re: Hansen Farm O.D.P. Thank you for taking your time to read this and digest what is here. The whole Hansen Farm Overall Development Plan, ODP170003, is 244 pages. I have to admit confusion and frustration with this process with the reasons as follow. I hope you are able to attend this meeting and express your concerns as well. Below, I have summarized the 244 page summary. Chris McElroy, 21-year resident of Willow Springs. 1. What is the final number of housing types and range of lot sizes and can this change? The O.D.P., as proposed with Tract A and Tract B, includes the following range of residential units that meet density standards of the respective zone districts: • L-M-N: 46.4 acres (Tract A) - 185-417 dwelling units. • M-M-N: 16.7 acres (Tract B) - 200-255 multi-family dwelling units. In the L-M-N district, the required overall minimum average density is 4.00 dwelling units per net acre. The maximum is 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. The proposed O.D.P. includes a potential for 185 to 417 dwelling units, within the required density range, thus complying with the standard. At the O.D.P. level, within the L-M-N zone, the range of lot sizes and the final number of housing types has not yet been determined. 2. Are the buffer zones 50’ or 30’? The O.D.P. identifies 50 foot buffers along the Mail Creek Ditch and wetlands along the north boundary and along the Irrigation Ditch Lateral on the south boundary of the O.D.P. A small potential wetland is also located in Tract A. A minimum of 50’ buffers will be maintained along ditches. Pete Wray and Suzanne Bassinger explained that the Mill Creek Ditch runs along the south side of Willow Springs. The ditch has a 30 foot easement that would create open space between the existing lots and proposed lots. The City is proposing a regional trail connection along the ditch. 3. What is the proposed spacing between the new residential buildings on these smaller lots? Applicant indicated that their building plans would meet all city requirements for setbacks. The minimum side yard setback is 5’ from the property line to the building. 4. Can you make lot sizes more in balance with the Willow Springs lots to the north? Developer explained that there is a sizable landscape buffer off of the Mail Creek Ditch along the north property boundary, and as a result, this is the plan they are putting forth consistent with existing zoning, and they do not intend to change lot sizes. Comment: The Fossil Creek Plan states: FC-LUF-5 Relationships and Transitions at Edges of Neighborhood Development. Where a new neighborhood develops next to existing lower- density residential development, the neighborhood design and layout should COMPLEMENT the established patterns of buildings and outdoor spaces along the edge, with no drastic and abrupt increase in the size of buildings or intensity of building coverage. Comment: The dictionary definition of complements: it completes it, enhances it, or makes it perfect. The proposed lots are 55 X 110 (6050 square feet) and 60 X 110 (6600 square feet) that back up against Willow Springs. Willow Springs lots that back to Mail Creek Ditch average 10,000 square feet. Residents who previously assisted in drafting the Fossil Creek plan brought up density in the area, indicating Willow Springs density is just over 3 dwelling units/acre. The proposed density is almost double for this proposed development. Comment: This does not match with Fossil Creek Plan (Pg. 16 Ch. 2) regarding transitions at neighborhoods. Applicant responded that the higher density multi-family units are not adjacent to the 3 dwelling units/acre found, and the zoning for the MMN requires a minimum of 12 dwelling units/acre. The largest lots are along the ditch backing up to Willow Springs and density is feathered in the middle. This is a phased project with the LMN zone district going in first, with the multi-family residential and commercial to be developed later as part of separate development applications. 5. What is the traffic plan for Timberline? Where does widening occur? What is the Timeline? Nicole Hahn explained that planning and design to widen Timberline to its 4-lane capacity is underway and is funded. A detailed timeline would be considered once preliminary designs are complete Comment: This appears to be a ‘flagpole’ development allowing the interior to develop prior to the road improvement. The road improvements which impact traffic should be made prior to the development. 6. A Timberline Street traffic study was submitted in August to determine growth impact. How do you assume density without more specific plans to determine traffic needs? Nicole Hahn explained that with a development proposal of this size, the developer is required to submit a traffic study with density and other parameters set. If parameters change, then a new traffic study is required. Multi-family residential is included in density. Nicole Hahn explained that the traffic study that is required with plan submittal would help the city determine which intersections may become signaled, and that Zephyr is an important connection in the area. She explained that crash data from the area indicates the majority of collisions are rear ends and that the short lights on side streets keeps traffic moving. Comment: This traffic study was completed in July, during the low season of traffic. CSU Students were not in town, school was not in session, residents were on vacation. The report was released in August, a bit misleading. 7. What is the description of rational behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant? The purpose of the ODP is to achieve the following: 1. Define the anticipated phasing. 2. Define the anticipated density. 3. Locate a potential City Neighborhood Park site. Comment: Note phasing, density, and City Neighborhood Park – all seem to be determined after the O.D.P. X X 12" W 12" W X ST T GAS C T B M X X TELE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M F.O. MM G AS M F.O. 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 2 1 4 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST DETENTION POND 1 ±11.0 AC-FT ±1.7 CFS RELEASE DETENTION POND 3 ±0.8 AC-FT ±1.3 CFS RELEASE MMN PRIMARY AND/OR SECONDARY USES ±16.69 ACRES NC PRIMARY AND/OR X X 12" W 12" W X ST T GAS C T B M X X TELE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M F.O. MM G AS M F.O. 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S 1 Overall Drainage Report Date: August 29, 2017 Project: Hansen Overall Development Plan Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Mr. Wes Lamarque Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Mr. Lamarque: This letter report accompanies the submittal for the Hansen Overall Development Plan (ODP). Specifically, this letter report serves to document the overall drainage impacts associated with the proposed Hansen Development. The proposed development site is located south of the Willow Springs residential development in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is situated south of Kechter Road, north of Zephyr Road and, west of Timberline Road. The Hansen property is bordered on the northy by the Mail Creek Ditch, on the south by an irrigation lateral, on the west by the private property and the Union Pacific Railroad, and on the east by Timberline Road. The overall Hansen site is roughly 70 acres in size. Zoning across the site includes Low-Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN). The proposed development site is in the City of Fort Collins Fossil Creek Master Drainage Basin. Detention requirements for this basin are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. An 18” RCP storm drain was stubbed to the site from The Timbers project. This stub is located just west of Timberline Road at Zephyr Road. The drainage report for The Timbers indicated a flow of 8 cfs allowable from the Hansen property. This is generally less than the 2-year historic for the Fossil Creek Basin. As this is the only drainage outfall for the site that does not require a drainage easement from an adjacent property, this outfall is planned to be utilized for the majority of the site. 2 This master drainage plan delineates the site into 4 basins. Approximate detention volumes are shown on the Master Drainage Plan. These volumes were calculated utilizing the Percent Imperviousness Relationship to Land Use (Table RO-14, Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual) and an EPA Stormwater Management Model. These detention volumes will be adjusted as the site further develops and proposed percent impervious are further refined with Project Development Plan submittals. Percent Impervious calculation and detention volume calculations are provided in the Appendix. Basins 1, 2, and 3 will drain into on-site detention ponds which will release into the existing 18” RCP. Basin 4 will be detained in an on-site detention pond that will release to the historic drainage route. This route will require a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner. All water quality treatment requirements and LID requirements will be satisfied with the proposed development. Means of providing for these requirements will be worked through with each respective Project Development Plan submittal. No floodplains are located on this site. In summary, this Overall Drainage Report letter adequately addresses any potential stormwater changes associated with the proposed Overall Development Plan Amendment. In general, there are no significant changes proposed at a major drainage level. The ODP complies with the governing City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plans, and the previously approved drainage plans specific for the subject property. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely NORTHERN ENGINEERING Stephanie Thomas, PE Project Engineer Enc APPENDIX Hansen Development CHARACTER OF SURFACE 1 : Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project: Hansen LMN Zoning 0.55 60% Calculations By: S. Thomas MMN Zoning 0.65 70% Date: August 29, 2017 NC Zoning 0.95 90% Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………………………………………….0.95 100% . Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………………………………….0.95 90% . Gravel (packed) ……….…………………….….…………………………..………………………………………….0.50 40% . Roofs …….…….………………..……………….……………………………………………………………………… 0.95 90% Pavers…………………………...………………..……………………………………………………………………… 0.40 22% Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.10 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….0.15 0% . Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Clayey Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….0.25 0% . Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.35 0% 2-year Cf = 1.00 10-year Cf = 1.00 100-year Cf = 1.25 Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Table RO-11 Sub-Basin ID Sub- BasinBasin Area (ac) Area of LMN Area of MMN Area of NC 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient Composite % Imperv. 1 46.77 42.50 4.28 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.70 61% 2 16.65 4.03 11.97 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.80 68% 3 3.29 0.00 0.07 3.22 0.94 0.94 1.00 90% 4 3.10 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 1. Table RO-11 | Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis Composite Runoff Coefficient with Adjustment PROPOSED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 8/29/2017 12:44 PM D:\Projects\911-015\Drainage\Hydrology\911-015_MP_Rational_Calcs.xlsx\Composite C SUB1 SUB2B SUB3 SUB4 SUB2A EXPIPE OUT4 OUT1 OUT2 OUT3 OUT2A J1 O1 O2 POND1 POND2B POND3 POND4 POND2A FORTCOLLINS 03/15/2016 00:15:00 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 hansen Concept Drainage.inp [TITLE] ;;Project Title/Notes [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW_UNITS CFS INFILTRATION HORTON FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH MIN_SLOPE 0 ALLOW_PONDING NO SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO START_DATE 03/15/2016 START_TIME 00:00:00 REPORT_START_DATE 03/15/2016 REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00 END_DATE 03/20/2016 END_TIME 06:00:00 SWEEP_START 01/01 SWEEP_END 12/31 DRY_DAYS 0 REPORT_STEP 00:15:00 WET_STEP 00:05:00 DRY_STEP 01:00:00 ROUTING_STEP 0:00:30 INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W VARIABLE_STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP 0 MIN_SURFAREA 12.557 MAX_TRIALS 8 HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS_FLOW_TOL 5 LAT_FLOW_TOL 5 MINIMUM_STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data Source Parameters ;;-------------- ---------------- CONSTANT 0.0 DRY_ONLY NO Page 1 hansen Concept Drainage.inp [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source ;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ---------- FORTCOLLINS INTENSITY 0:05 1.0 TIMESERIES 100-YR [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- SUB1 FORTCOLLINS POND1 46.77 61 19000 0.5 0 SUB2B FORTCOLLINS POND2B 11.55 71 5000 0.5 0 SUB3 FORTCOLLINS POND3 3.29 90 2900 0.5 0 SUB4 FORTCOLLINS POND4 3.1 90 2700 0.5 0 SUB2A FORTCOLLINS POND2A 5.10 62 2000 0.5 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- SUB1 .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB2B .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB3 .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB4 .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB2A .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment MaxRate MinRate Decay DryTime MaxInfil ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- SUB1 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB2B 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB3 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB4 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB2A 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 [JUNCTIONS] ;;Name Elevation MaxDepth InitDepth SurDepth Aponded ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- J1 51.2 5 0 0 0 [OUTFALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- O1 50.5 FREE NO O2 0 FREE NO [STORAGE] ;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Ksat IMD ;;-------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Page 2 hansen Concept Drainage.inp POND1 54 5 0 TABULAR POND1 0 0 POND2B 52 5 0 TABULAR POND2 0 0 POND3 53 5 0 TABULAR POND3 0 0 POND4 57 5 0 TABULAR POND4 0 0 POND2A 53 5 0 TABULAR POND2 0 0 [CONDUITS] ;;Name From Node To Node Length Roughness InOffset OutOffset InitFlow MaxFlow ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EXPIPE J1 O1 200 .012 0 0 0 0 [OUTLETS] ;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------- -------- OUT4 POND4 O2 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT4 NO OUT1 POND1 J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT1 NO OUT2 POND2B J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT2B NO OUT3 POND3 J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT3 NO OUT2A POND2A J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT2A NO [XSECTIONS] ;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels Culvert ;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EXPIPE CIRCULAR 2 0 0 0 1 [CURVES] ;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- OUT1 Rating 0 0 OUT1 5 2 ; OUT2B Rating 0 0 OUT2B 5 6.5 ; OUT3 Rating 0 0 OUT3 5 1.5 ; OUT4 Rating 0 0 OUT4 5 .68 ; OUT2A Rating 0 0 OUT2A 5 1.3 ; POND1 Storage 0 278.25 POND1 0.2 1292.99 POND1 0.4 3071.68 Page 3 hansen Concept Drainage.inp POND1 0.6 5602.1 POND1 0.8 8928.84 POND1 1 13162.03 POND1 1.2 18831.61 POND1 1.4 34985.77 POND1 1.6 48136.39 POND1 1.8 63298.51 POND1 2 80505.54 POND1 2.2 99123.33 POND1 2.4 118549.42 POND1 2.6 139269.76 POND1 2.8 160198.93 POND1 3 179905.38 POND1 3.2 198141.5 POND1 3.4 215087.17 POND1 3.6 230516.53 POND1 3.8 244234.25 POND1 4 255383.52 POND1 4.2 264964.63 POND1 4.4 273632.33 POND1 4.6 281815.59 POND1 4.8 289299.76 POND1 5 296213.49 ; POND2 Storage 0 0 POND2 1 35000 POND2 2 35000 POND2 3 35000 POND2 4 35000 POND2 5 35000 ; POND3 Storage 0 0 POND3 1 9000 POND3 2 9000 POND3 3 9000 POND3 4 9000 POND3 5 9000 ; POND4 Storage 0 0 POND4 1 9000 POND4 2 9000 POND4 3 9000 POND4 4 9000 POND4 5 9000 [TIMESERIES] Page 4 hansen Concept Drainage.inp ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 100-YR 0:05 1 100-YR 0:10 1.14 100-YR 0:15 1.33 100-YR 0:20 2.23 100-YR 0:25 2.84 100-YR 0:30 5.49 100-YR 0:35 9.95 100-YR 0:40 4.12 100-YR 0:45 2.48 100-YR 0:50 1.46 100-YR 0:55 1.22 100-YR 1:00 1.06 100-YR 1:05 1 100-YR 1:10 .95 100-YR 1:15 .91 100-YR 1:20 .87 100-YR 1:25 .84 100-YR 1:30 .81 100-YR 1:35 .78 100-YR 1:40 .75 100-YR 1:45 .73 100-YR 1:50 .71 100-YR 1:55 .69 100-YR 2:00 .67 ; 5-YR 0:05 .40 5-YR 0:10 .45 5-YR 0:15 .53 5-YR 0:20 .89 5-YR 0:25 1.13 5-YR 0:30 2.19 5-YR 0:35 3.97 5-YR 0:40 1.64 5-YR 0:45 .99 5-YR 0:50 .58 5-YR 0:55 .49 5-YR 1:00 .42 5-YR 1:05 .28 5-YR 1:10 .27 5-YR 1:15 .25 5-YR 1:20 .24 5-YR 1:25 .23 5-YR 1:30 .22 5-YR 1:35 .21 Page 5 hansen Concept Drainage.inp 5-YR 1:40 .20 5-YR 1:45 .19 5-YR 1:50 .19 5-YR 1:55 .18 5-YR 2:00 .18 [REPORT] ;;Reporting Options INPUT NO CONTROLS NO SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS -1395.210 0.000 11395.210 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ J1 5853.316 3213.455 O1 6794.467 3158.453 O2 4304.290 2369.043 POND1 3838.323 5592.814 POND2B 5926.652 3739.033 POND3 6103.882 2645.097 POND4 4820.359 2395.210 POND2A 6089.820 4838.323 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ OUT1 4736.527 3748.503 OUT1 5383.234 3221.557 OUT2A 7071.856 4143.713 [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ SUB1 640.719 8275.449 SUB1 640.719 7916.168 SUB1 772.455 7269.461 SUB1 832.335 6143.713 Page 6 hansen Concept Drainage.inp SUB1 1263.473 6095.808 SUB1 1946.108 5604.790 SUB1 2664.671 4934.132 SUB1 3299.401 4299.401 SUB1 3970.060 3760.479 SUB1 4353.293 3568.862 SUB1 4616.766 4000.000 SUB1 4616.766 4275.449 SUB1 5275.449 5221.557 SUB1 5646.707 5293.413 SUB1 5826.347 5556.886 SUB1 6089.820 5820.359 SUB1 5610.778 6143.713 SUB1 5455.090 6251.497 SUB1 4868.263 6502.994 SUB1 4233.533 6718.563 SUB1 4005.988 6898.204 SUB1 3658.683 7089.820 SUB1 3059.880 7221.557 SUB1 2568.862 7389.222 SUB1 2544.910 7520.958 SUB1 2568.862 7700.599 SUB1 2365.269 7952.096 SUB1 2161.677 8191.617 SUB1 1910.180 8263.473 SUB1 628.743 8263.473 SUB2B 4892.216 3239.060 SUB2B 5179.641 2855.826 SUB2B 5383.233 3263.012 SUB2B 5862.275 3059.419 SUB2B 6257.485 3023.491 SUB2B 6257.485 4424.689 SUB2B 6113.773 4460.617 SUB2B 5838.323 4472.593 SUB2B 5395.210 4616.306 SUB2B 5347.305 5263.012 SUB2B 4652.695 4328.880 SUB2B 4628.742 4005.527 SUB2B 4329.341 3586.365 SUB3 5347.305 3245.509 SUB3 5826.347 3065.868 SUB3 6281.437 2994.012 SUB3 6281.437 2035.928 SUB3 6005.988 2047.904 SUB3 5838.323 2143.713 SUB3 5610.778 2479.042 Page 7 hansen Concept Drainage.inp SUB3 5143.713 2874.251 SUB4 4544.910 2203.593 SUB4 5215.569 2215.569 SUB4 5395.210 2059.880 SUB4 5994.012 1844.311 SUB4 6257.485 1844.311 SUB4 6269.461 2023.952 SUB4 5970.060 2035.928 SUB4 5646.707 2479.042 SUB4 5167.665 2886.228 SUB4 5083.832 2802.395 SUB4 4748.503 2838.323 SUB2A 5646.707 5293.413 SUB2A 5766.467 5473.054 SUB2A 6089.820 5820.359 SUB2A 6269.461 5712.575 SUB2A 6245.509 4443.114 SUB2A 5802.395 4467.066 SUB2A 5407.186 4622.754 SUB2A 5347.305 5233.533 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ FORTCOLLINS 5047.904 7868.264 [BACKDROP] FILE "D:\Projects\911-015\Drainage\Modeling\911-015 Hansen ODP Page 001.jpg" DIMENSIONS -1395.210 736.527 11395.210 9263.473 Page 8 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.010) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE Starting Date ............ MAR-15-2016 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. MAR-20-2016 06:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 21.345 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 3.962 0.681 Surface Runoff ........... 17.177 2.953 Final Storage ............ 0.380 0.065 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.813 Page 1 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 17.177 5.597 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 17.174 5.596 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.016 ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 30.00 sec Average Time Step : 30.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 30.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 1.01 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Page 2 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUB1 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.77 2.87 3.64 363.23 0.782 SUB2B 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.56 3.06 0.96 99.57 0.835 SUB3 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.19 3.42 0.31 32.55 0.932 SUB4 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.19 3.42 0.29 30.66 0.932 SUB2A 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.75 2.89 0.40 39.81 0.787 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 0.40 1.06 52.26 0 02:09 1.06 O1 OUTFALL 0.40 1.06 51.56 0 02:09 1.06 O2 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 POND1 STORAGE 2.68 4.29 58.29 0 02:20 4.29 POND2B STORAGE 0.22 3.47 55.47 0 02:08 3.45 POND3 STORAGE 0.30 4.28 57.28 0 02:08 4.25 POND4 STORAGE 0.62 4.42 61.42 0 02:10 4.41 POND2A STORAGE 0.45 1.94 54.94 0 02:14 1.94 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 0.00 8.01 0 02:09 0 5.31 0.000 O1 OUTFALL 0.00 8.01 0 02:09 0 5.31 0.000 O2 OUTFALL 0.00 0.60 0 02:10 0 0.288 0.000 POND1 STORAGE 363.23 363.23 0 00:40 3.64 3.64 0.004 POND2B STORAGE 99.57 99.57 0 00:40 0.961 0.961 0.042 Page 3 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt POND3 STORAGE 32.55 32.55 0 00:40 0.306 0.306 0.038 POND4 STORAGE 30.66 30.66 0 00:40 0.288 0.288 0.019 POND2A STORAGE 39.81 39.81 0 00:40 0.4 0.4 0.009 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 126.00 1.062 3.938 POND1 STORAGE 126.00 4.293 0.707 POND2B STORAGE 126.00 3.473 1.527 POND3 STORAGE 126.00 4.276 0.724 POND4 STORAGE 126.00 4.416 0.584 POND2A STORAGE 126.00 1.942 3.058 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND1 182.984 27 0 0 474.881 70 0 02:19 1.72 POND2B 5.370 3 0 0 104.058 66 0 02:07 4.51 POND3 2.001 5 0 0 33.989 84 0 02:08 1.28 POND4 4.131 10 0 0 35.250 87 0 02:10 0.60 Page 4 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt POND2A 8.669 6 0 0 50.485 32 0 02:14 0.51 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- O1 95.21 1.64 8.01 5.308 O2 37.77 0.22 0.60 0.288 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 66.49 1.87 8.61 5.596 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPIPE CONDUIT 8.01 0 02:09 4.73 0.55 0.53 OUT4 DUMMY 0.60 0 02:10 OUT1 DUMMY 1.72 0 02:20 OUT2 DUMMY 4.51 0 02:08 OUT3 DUMMY 1.28 0 02:08 OUT2A DUMMY 0.51 0 02:14 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Tue Aug 29 11:57:44 2017 Page 5 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt Analysis ended on: Tue Aug 29 11:57:44 2017 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Page 6 4406 Seneca – Citizen Email 1 -----Original Message----- From: Joe Ashcraft [mailto:joe.ashcraft@neenan.com] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 4:27 PM To: Clay Frickey Subject: Seneca House group home Good afternoon Clay, I own the house at 4412 Seneca St directly next door to the house that is up for review as a group home. I am in favor of this project and would like to see it move forward. I believe this type of residential living will enhance the neighborhood. I believe that the residents will be good neighbors and community members. Please let me know if you have any questions for me. Thanks, Joe Ashcraft 4406 Seneca – Citizen Email 2 -----Original Message----- From: Cory Raasch [mailto:cnraasch@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:25 PM To: Clay Frickey Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Re: 4406 Seneca St Group Home PDP 170024 Input Thanks Clay. We understand both your points. We do NOT understand what the justification is to exceed the land use code standard for the lot and allow more than 5 residents. Why is the city acting like it is obligated to do so, especially knowing that the covenants and school concerns are hanging out there? In our minds, it all comes down to allowing the land use code rules to be broken to enable an investor to profit from a business venture. Meanwhile, you are harming neighborhood residents and putting our school children at risk. Please pass these comments on to the board as well. Thanks. Nancy Raasch 4406 Seneca – Citizen Letter 3 From: Gail Wallis [mailto:gail.wallis@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:12 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Cc: Clay Frickey; Lyle Wallis Subject: PDP170024, 4406 Seneca St. Group Home Hello, Although we are unable to attend the September 14 meeting, we are sending this email to voice our strong disapproval of the proposed group home, to be located at 4406 Seneca Street. We have lived in our home in Regency Park since 1991. Regency Park always has been a neighborhood of single-family residences; we strongly believe the neighborhood should remain as such. Very sincerely, Gail and Lyle Wallis -- Gail Wallis 1436 Hilburn Drive 80526 970-225-9703 gail.wallis@gmail.com lyle.wallis@gmail.com Long Pond Wireless – Citizen Email 1 From: Chris Lombardi [mailto:clombardi@velocityrei.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 8:49 AM To: Clay Frickey Cc: 'Tanja Andreas'; nee@naturalverities.com Subject: Hey Clay, Hope you enjoyed the weekend! Here is a quick statement you can include in the P&Z packet for the cell tower meeting: _______________________________________________________ In my experience as a REALTOR in the Fort Collins area, the close proximity of a cell tower affects a certain percentage of buyers to a material degree who would never purchase a home near a tower. Given that this use is not currently allowed in a residential zone in Fort Collins, this change of use is a hardship for those living nearby because they never anticipated that a cell tower would be so close when they purchased their properties. Therefore, their property values, and/or the marketability of their homes, could be negatively affected if this tower is approved. _______________________________________________________ Thanks! Chris Lombardi Velocity Real Estate & Investments, Inc. Phone: (970) 214-5098 Fax: (888) 325-4173 Email: clombardi@velocityrei.com Web: www.velocityrei.com Search the MLS system 24/7 at www.velocityrei.com Long Pond Wireless – Citizen Email 2 From: jason dennison <jasondennison@hotmail.com> Date: September 8, 2017 at 3:44:16 PM MDT To: "statman-burruss@fcgov.com" <statman-burruss@fcgov.com> Subject: Long Pond Wireless Telecom Greetings, Sylvia. My name is Jason Dennison. I currently reside in the Maple Hill neighborhood at 2263 Muir Lane. I will not be able to attend the upcoming public hearing for the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility. The purpose of this email is to submit my support for this much needed project. Like any healthy and vital neighborhood, we MUST have access to telecommunication services. Currently, the service provided in my neighborhood, is nearly non existence. As such, if an emergency situation should arise, how are we to reach emergency services during which time(ing) to emergency services could mean the difference between life and death. Thank you for the consideration and opportunity to provide input. Please approve this project. Respectfully submitted, Jason Dennison 2263 Muir Lane Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Long Pond Wireless – Citizen Email 3 From: marilyna@frii.com [mailto:marilyna@frii.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 11:11 AM To: Clay Frickey Subject: re: proposed "wireless telecommunications facility" on Turnberry Dear Mr. Frickey (and other P&Z Board members), I am very much opposed to the proposed "cell tower" project at 2008 Turnberry Rd. I am a homeowner at 1935 Sherell Drive, which is within 1/4 mile of the proposed development. I think it is irresponsible to build this project so near to residential neighborhoods. Our property values will undoubtedly go down, possibly significantly, since actual saleable property values are based on the PERCEPTIONS of the buyers. I am a senior citizen and the house is my only major asset. I am also concerned with the electromagnetic radiation from the proposed cell tower, since I live very close to it. This will affect me and also my property value. I know the P&Z Board may not be able to take property value and EMF risks into account, but I want to state that these are very important to me, and they are in part why I am against the project. Secondly, I think it sets a very bad precedent for the city to give a variance for this type of construction (and cell tower) in a low density mixed-used neighborhood. Thirdly, I think there are other siting options that Atlas Tower has not fully explored. I just heard today that there are ALREADY cell towers on top of the Budweiser plant, and that Budweiser is potentially amenable to having additional wireless stuff on their rooftop. There are also locations further north on Turnberry, where there are no or fewer people affected. For instance next to that little ELCO installation. Or on the turf farm. Or even further along the northward dirt extension of Turnberry. As a highly-affected homeowner in the area directly affected by the current cell tower proposal, I once again state my very strong opposition to the current proposed location. I will be attending the P&Z meeting tonight. Sincerely, Marilyn Anderson 1935 Sherell Drive Ft. C. 80524 Long Pond Wireless – Citizen Email 4 From: Tanja Andreas [mailto:tanjabluesky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:46 PM To: Clay Frickey Subject: 2008 Turnberry Road WTF response from nearest neighbor for P&Z and City Council packet Thank you, Clay, for compiling these emails for the packet for the P&Z folks, as well as the City Council on the serious issues of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities ("cell towers" or WTFs) being placed in residential areas within the City of Fort Collins....................... To Whom it May Concern, I am the neighbor closest to, and possibly the most negatively affected by, this proposed WTF. It is slated to be placed in a now-residential area, zoned LMN, inside the city limits of Fort Collins. I own 3.31 acres of land with an 1885 house at 1900 Turnberry Road, immediately south of and adjoining the 2008 Turnberry Road property where this WTF is proposed to be built. My property is grandfathered in for livestock in perpetuity, and I currently have a few heirloom chickens, turkeys, geese, llamas, and sheep here on my little homestead farm. I feed, eat, and live as organically as possible on my lovely little agri-urban acreage. VISUALLY IMPOSING AND INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS ZONE: This 60-70' proposed WTF would loom over my entire property. It is truly an understatement to say that this industrial facility would be visually disruptive, could be potentially very noisy and distracting, and would negatively affect the quality of life here on my small farm. A 60-70' silo is simply too tall to be useful, and this proposed tower is too far from the barn to be practical on a working farm. So, no matter what, this proposed silo-style WTF would look entirely fake and out of place, in terms of size and location relative to the other buildings. PROPERTY VALUE AND SALE-ABILITY: I have been advised by an established, local and well-respected real estate broker that this WTF's presence could decrease my property value by as much as 10-20%. It could be similiar to the negative effect on value when a house is located on a busy highway. He also advises me that a sizeable number of potential buyers, including developers, would not consider buying this land if the WTF is built. I bought this property, expecting that homes could be built on my property line, but I NEVER imagined I would be facing a commercial- industrial installation like a huge over-sized WTF on my boundary. I never would have bought this lovely property for my agri-urban farm had the WTF been in place. PRECEDENT: In spite of the clear need for improved cell coverage in this area, I am concerned that the City of Fort Collins would even entertain the thought of an industrial development like this in a residential area. This tower would be a precedent-setting installation in a residential zone for the City of Fort Collins, and I believe this APU must be very carefully considered for this reason alone. As a former city council member once stated in regard to the Short Term Rental issue, neighbors have the right to know what to expect in their neighborhoods. That is what zoning is all about, and I certainly believe that cell towers are completely inappropriate in residential backyards. NEARBY APPROPRIATE-ZONED SITES: In the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan, there are hundreds of acres to the east, many already zoned commercial-industrial . These zones are certainly appropriate for WTFs. To my knowledge, these parcels have not yet been explored by this cell tower company, and we know there are several landowners that may be interested in hosting a WTF under the right conditions. The City Planner involved in this project is now aware of these sites as well, and has the landowners contact information. I would like the City Planner to require the cell tower company to fully explore these appropriately-zoned options for this WTF. If those negotiations fail, I would want the Planner to require official signed letters from these landowners that negotiations for a WTF have been fully explored in good faith by the cell tower company. And I would then ask City Planners to verify the information in these letters with the landowners, as we already have a history with this company that suggests this sort of follow-up would be prudent. THIRD-PARTY EXPERT GUIDANCE: I am very concerned that there has been no third-party expert or RF engineer oversight of this proposed WTF. Of course the tower companies' lawyers/salespeople and RF engineers say this is an appropriate installation---they directly profit from it! And just like statistics can be misrepresented by the parties having a compelling stake in proving their point, it could be easy for a multi-national cell tower company like this to slant information in their favor. And salespeople are charged with selling what they sell, it is how they make their living. I hope we would never take a car dealers' opinion that the vehicle we really need is the 1967 Cadillac they happen to have sitting on their lot. We need to be a more discerning and better-advised consumers, or we might just risk ending up with a huge old gas-guzzling car that may not serve our needs at all. No offense intended to huge old Cadillacs, of course, as Long Pond Wireless – Citizen Email 4 they were lovely in their day. It's just that, in cars like many other matters, we might need to seek qualified third-party opinions to make our best decisions. And those objective opinions rarely come from the salespeople! I have never actually heard the cell tower company say that this tower will provide the cellular coverage that neighborhoods like Maple Hill, Richard's Lake, and Hearthfire so desperately need. And I have never heard from the cell tower company that there is no other way to accomplish the same coverage as this tower might provide with another less- obtrusive installation. And how do we actually know this WTF installation won't soon be obsolete technology? What happens when the cell tower company no longer uses the tower? By contract, must it be removed promptly and in its entirety at the companies' expense? These are key, and to my knowledge, unanswered questions, and questions that a third-party RF engineer could easily answer. I believe the City of Fort Collins must contract with a third-party expert company to provide accurate and objective answers to questions like these for any WTF or cellular installation that is proposed, now and in the future. There may be many ways to provide this needed cellular coverage and, without expert guidance, I am afraid we are left with the proverbial fox designing the chicken coop. Or we might just end up driving that huge old car, wearing a sequined jumpsuit. Oh, wait, that's a different bad dream! And, in all seriousness, thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important matter, which has such potentially far-reaching consequences for our lovely city. It is not a question of whether improved cellular coverage is necessary, as there is already such an obvious need. It is a question of what is truly the best option to provide that coverage, and what precedents are appropriate for the City of Fort Collins to set in doing so. Sincerely, Tanja Andreas Bonnie Farm 1900 Turnberry Road Fort Collins, CO S SS SS SS W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONED PUD LEHMAN PROPERTY LARIMER COUNTY TIMBERLINE ROAD (4-LANE ARTERIAL) PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO 4-LANEARTERIAL STANDARDS CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATERLINE CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATERLINE CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" WATERLINE STUB CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE MMN PRIMARY AND/OR SECONDARY USES ±16.69 ACRES NC PRIMARY AND/OR SECONDARY USES ±6.33 ACRES EXISTING 16" FCLWD WATERLINE PROPOSED WATERLINE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERLINE PROPOSED WATERLINE STUB TO ADJACENT PROPERTY NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE FUTURE GRADE SEPARATED TRAIL CROSSING BY OTHERS INTERIM TRAIL ACCESS 50' NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER 50' NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER A B C These drawings are instruments of service provided by Northern Engineering Services, Inc. and are not to be used for any type of construction unless signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in the employ of Northern Engineering Services, Inc. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 www.northernengineering.com CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what's R MUP 2 LEGEND: ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 1500Feet 150 150 300 450 W W SS SS NOTES: 1. ALL WATER LINES TIE INTO FORT COLLINS LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER LINES TIE INTO SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT. 3. ALL STREET ALIGNMENTS AND PROPOSED UTILITIES SHOWN WITH THE MASTER UTILITY PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH SUBSEQUENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS. 4. REFER TO HANSEN ODP BY THE BIRDSALL GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 5. THE HANSEN FARM PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 440 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY AGREEMENT WITH SFCSD AND SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY. 6. THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF ALL NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF THE SITE'S NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PDP SUBMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONES SHOWN ON THIS ODP MAY BE REDUCED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER DURING THE PDP PROCESS. 7. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALL ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONES. 8. THE ACTUAL ANGLE OF THE ROAD CONNECTION FROM HANSEN FARM TO THE RENNAT PROPERTY TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP). SECONDARY USES ±6.33 ACRES POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONED PUD LEHMAN PROPERTY LARIMER COUNTY TIMBERLINE ROAD (4-LANE ARTERIAL) PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO 4-LANE ARTERIAL STANDARDS EXISTING 18" STUB FOR STORM SEWER TIE-IN. MAX RELEASE 8 CFS PER TIMBERS DRAINAGE REPORT STORMLINE FOR POND RELEASE FUTURE GRADE SEPARATED TRAIL CROSSING BY OTHERS INTERIM TRAIL ACCESS STORMLINE FOR POND RELEASE 50' NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER A B C These drawings are instruments of service provided by Northern Engineering Services, Inc. and are not to be used for any type of construction unless signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in the employ of Northern Engineering Services, Inc. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 www.northernengineering.com CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what's R MDP 1 NOTES: 1. ALL STREET ALIGNMENTS AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN WITH THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH SUBSEQUENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS. 2. REFER TO HANSEN ODP BY THE BIRDSALL GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 3. REFER TO HANSEN ODP DRAINAGE LETTER DATED 08/29/2017 FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN. 4. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 5. DETENTION VOLUMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND WILL BE VERIFIED WITH INDIVIDUAL PDP APPLICATIONS. THE TOTAL VOLUMES FOR DETENTION PONDS 2A AND 2B CAN BE COMBINED OR FURTHER DIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE PONDS AS NECESSARY. 6. THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF ALL NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF THE SITE'S NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PDP SUBMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONES SHOWN ON THIS ODP MAY BE REDUCED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER DURING THE PDP PROCESS. 7. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALL ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONES. 8. THE ACTUAL ANGLE OF THE ROAD CONNECTION FROM HANSEN FARM TO THE RENNAT PROPERTY TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP). LEGEND: 1 1.45 ac ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 1500Feet 150 150 300 450