Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-06From: Kathleen Reavis To: FCI.ENG_NET.DSTRINGER Date: 9/4/97 9:49am Subject: Coordination meetings -Reply -Reply Dave, For future meetings, 2:30 works for me and so does Thursday mornings. By the way, I apologize that I will not be able to make our coordination meeting today, but will be there next week. Mike C. and Fred may want to discuss the Stanton Creek project today regarding my interest in widening the entrance road off Trilby to be a connector with combination parking/bike lanes (either the 11' or 14' option works for me) - at this point, either with or without the bikelanes is fine because I'm just tired of arguing about it. In my opinion these are the reasons it would be a good idea. 1. The projected traffic volumes (800-900 vpd) are just at the threshold of needing a connector level street and since this is the only access to/from the neighborhood out to Trilby - it truly will serve as a funnel in/out of the neighborhood for bikes and cars. 2. We need to keep in mind cyclists of all ages who may be riding with or without their parents to visit friends in adjacent neighborhoods, play at adjacent neighborhood parks, or for a ride up to the nature area and beyond. Many people feel much safer riding in marked bicycle lanes rather than trying to share the road even if the traffic volumes seem relatively low. 3. Even with the park site not continuing to be shown as part of this development (Parks isn't sure yet whether or not they want it), the combination of multi -family units which will very likely use on -street parking, plus the neighborhood activity/retail area (which would be easier to reach by bike along this internal road rather than riding along Lemay), and the rest of the single family homes I think the combination bikelane/parking lane is justified and can be supported by the street standards. 4. If we don't require the additional width now it will prevent us from being able to add bike lanes later without removing on -street parking and we all know how popular that proposition is. As I said, you guys can decide this one. I just hope in the future we can have these discussions and reach a real consensus prior to sending our comments to the developer - I really feel "left out on the limb" with this one. On to the next topic.. Regarding the e-mail from Ron Phillips on the Fossil Lake PUD, what type of improvements did we suggest for County Rd 9 - for example, did it include the bikelanes and detached sidewalks? I thought we mentioned that they should meet our current street standards, but I can't remember exactly. The bikelanes are really important because CR 9 is one of our most used bike routes between Loveland and Fort Collins. The other issue I thought we mentioned was that the internal streets did not provide very good connectivity throughout the development and we had made some recommendations to improve the internal street network from a connectivity/circulation perspective. Another point was potential off -site improvements to provide for traffic traveling to/from 1-25 using County Rd 32. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make Friday's meeting but I'll try to get a copy of the latest plans from Cindy to review. If I have any other comments, I'll let you know before Friday afternoon. I can make Monday's meeting if necessary. Again, sorry I can't make today's meeting - see you next week. Please let me know if you have any questions on any of this - I'll be in the office this morning until 10 30 and back again Friday morning from 8:45 to 10:45 a.m.. Thanks for all of your help with things. Kathleen CC: Develop mentReview DATE: October 23, 1997 TO: Larry Timm, Director of Planning, Latimer County John Fischbach, City Manager, City of Fort Collins FROM: Marc Engemoen, Larimer County Engineer 911 Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Direct r, City of Fort Collins RE: TRANSPORTATION ISSUES INVOLVING REVISIONS TO IGA During the past few weeks, the transportation staffs of the county and city have been meeting to discuss the transportation issues identified during the development of the revised Intergovernmental Agreement for the Growth Management Area. Many of these issues can be resolved, but a few need further direction from the County Commissioners and City Council Members. Below are the items that were discussed and the potential action steps to resolve them. We are seeking your feedback on the reasonableness of these actions. TECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS These standards do not seem to be a major issue, as there is agreement that our two agencies should sit down and review our standards and make the appropriate changes. In fact, the process of developing comprehensive regional standards that could serve as a basis for the City's and County's road standards recently got underway. There is agreement that some Larimer County construction standards exceed the City's, and that some of the City's standards exceed the County's. The revised standards could incorporate the best of both entity's standards, and in some areas upgrade both. STREET CROSS -SECTIONS The City's new street cross -sections are wider than the current County standards, but the initial discussions indicate the County may be able to require developers to dedicate the necessary right-of-way and build the larger street widths. The larger question is the streetscape items, i.e. landscaping in the medians and parkways. The County does not want to become responsible for any additional landscaping maintenance . If the City were to insure the County that the subject development would be annexed right away, there are no maintenance issues. The developments in question are those which may not be annexed for some time, and perhaps the solution to this issue is to develop standards .rtyr' �v which provide for phased streetscape implementation, i.e. low maintenance medians or limited tree plantings in the parkways. Other possibilities discussed, but not resolved, would be to require homeowners' associations to maintain medians and parkways for new developments which cannot be annexed immediately or for the City to assume responsibility for this maintenance. There is also a question whether the County can require the streets be built to the City's new standards without an impact fee structure in place. Further research on this issue will be done. STREET OVERSIZING FEES The County is currently involved in a study of county impact fees for transportation and regional parks. The first phase of the study, to be completed in early 1998 , should provide answers to questions about the legal feasibility of the County implementing impact fees. If the impact fees are indeed feasible, the second phase, which would follow immediately, would identify the appropriate basis for calculating fees, draft ordinances and intergovernmental agreements, etc. IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION The County does not want to take on additional maintenance responsibilities for off -site improvements such as bike paths and sidewalks. If the County and City would look at each development individually, there may be solutions such as not doing any maintenance or the City accepting the responsibility for maintenance. Both staffs need to look more carefully at the projected developments. ACCESS ONTO COUNTY ROADS This is probably a resolvable difference between our agencies. It is important for future developments to have connectivity and porosity; however, some developments which do not have the density or the potential for changing to a urban character in a reasonable timeframe may not need or be allowed as much access as others. The character of each development should be examined carefully. We need to sit down with the urban planners and discuss this concept in more detail. MASTER STREET PLAN It may be possible to identify a master street plan which is mutually acceptable to the City and County. The County will be adopting their Transportation Master Plan soon, and the staffs need to sit down to discuss the differences between the City's adopted Master Street Plan and the County's proposed plan. We need to look at our local ordinances/resolutions and state statutes, we need to examine the impacts on the county with streets inside the Community Growth Management Area that will remain county, and we need to analyze further the potential of regional connectivity, i.e. County Road 32. STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John Munnna, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 b ON OFW For W[lnfe- For People Area 4 Office Northeast Region 317 West Prospect Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Date November 20, 1997 Russell Legg Larimer County Planning Department P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Re: Fossil Lake Proposed PUD Dear Mr. Legg, We have been asked by the Fossil Lake development proponent to review the current Fossil Lake proposal and to suggest possible ideas and techniques that could help mitigate any habitat loss; and minimize wildlife impact that may occur should the development be approved as proposed. The Division of Wildlife has followed and commented on this project on several occasions. Attached is a summary of those comments (See Attachment A). Most recently, a letter was submitted by me dated February 10, 1997. In that letter it was stated that: 1). We are not certain of the significance of an individual roost tree located adjacent to the inlet canal on the southeast portion of the development. 2). The proposed development may lead to the abandonment of this tree by the bald eagles as a night roost. If this should occur, the bald eagles will probably remain in the area and make use of other trees in the apparent mosaic of established night -roost trees in the Fossil Creek Area. It must be emphasized that this increases the importance of the other night -roost trees in the area. These comments are still valid and the following commen_ts should be viewed as ways to minimize and mitigate impact should development occur closer to the sensitive areas. For the purposes of discussion, I would like to divide the general area into five portions: 1)The roost tree adjacent to the inlet on the sout:-_east por`ion of the oropos_;.)the proposed open space between the reservoir and the proposed development ])the grain fields south of county road 32; DFPAAJb1FNT 01: NATURAL RESOURCFS. Jim Lochhcad. Execmive Director EXHIBIT "A" of wILDLIPE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chair • Rebecca Frank. Vice -Chair • Mark LcVallcy. Secrcta ry Fossil Lake Resource Chu,; Lewis, Member • lames R. Long, Memher • John Swlp. Member • Louis Swift, Mcmhcr Management Plan Page 2 November 20, 1997 4)the state school land on the south side of the reservoir, and 5)recreation activity on the reservoir. 1)Roost tree adjacent to inlet canal As you know, there is a roost tree in the southeast portion of the development plan adjacent to an inlet canal which carries treated effluent into the reservoir. The canal brings warm water into the reservoir directly underneath the cottonwood tree that is used by bald eagles. The attraction of this tree is cl6sely related to the warm water that provides a thermal benefit to the roosting eagles and attracts sick and injured waterfowl to the immediate area,.especially when ice is present on the reservoir. The tree may also be appealing to eagles with its large open branch formations. The current proposal shows an approximate distance of five_ hundred fifty feet of setback buffer area between the tree and the nearest lot line. If this project were to be approved, an additional 500-550 feet could be added by adjusting the existing canal towards other mature cottonwood trees to the east. The original set of conditions that provide an attraction to the eagles at this site was artificially created when the canal was dug to bring the treated warm water effluent into the reservoir. It is possible that by adjusting the location of the canal inlet, a more attractive night roosting site can be created while accommodating de-✓el.opment of the proposed PUP. This would also be in accordance with the Colorado Division of Wildlife Mitigation Policy which states the need to recognize "a fair and reasonable balance between the protection of the wildlife resources and the economic growth and development of the State". More specifically, there are numerous mature cottonwood trees in an area that extends several hundred feet to the east on reservoir company property. If the canal were to be routed to the east and into the reservoir adjacent to one of the mature trees, a similar set of conditions would be created while also adding 500-550 feet of additional setback from the proposed development(See attachment B). T',_i_s action would also create an open area of ground where re-rureen and deciduous trees could be planted to provide seal screening for the eagles. The remnant of the old ,.I,nal_ could be partial' mairtained as a wetland seep to n.0 main water to the current roost tree, and to provide ,,nder the present roost tree in winter. Overall setback from new inlet to lot line r;o_ild be approximately i100 feet. It is quite likely that by bringing the warm water inlet into the reservoir next to several mature cottonwood trees instead of the one single tree, a greater attraction for more eagles can be created. Ctis my understanding that the development proponent, Stan Everitt, has had preliminary conversations with the North Page 3 November 20, 1997 Poudre Irrigation Company Representatives who appear to be open to further discussion. I strongly recommend consideration of this strategy due to the importance of the warm water as a thermal benefit to eagles for both night roosting, and perhaps more importantly, as a hunting roost area with numerous trees as opposed to just one. In examining the protection of any portion of wildlife habitat, including the winter eagle use and heron rookery identified in this development proposal, it is important to evaluate the entire Fossil Creek Reservoir area as a functioning system. It is difficult to assess the importance of any particular tree or area in isolation of the rest of the system. Impact sustained to one area may be absorbed by trees around the reservoir. If this.is the case, protection and enhancement of habitat .on a reservoir wide scale would be the best overall wildlife management strategy. With this in mind, I would like to introduce the following additional concepts', which could add to the overall value of Fossil Creek for wildlife and local communities. 2)The proposed open space between the reservoir and the dey-elooment. The development proponent currently has a varied open space buffer between the development and the Reservoir. The heron rookery area has an approximate 900 tc 1100 foot setback from nesting area to proposed lot lines adjacent to the rookery. There is a planned setback of 500- 600 feet from the cottonwood trees in the cove to the north and east of the rookery and a setback of approximately 550 feet from the roost tree area on the southeast portions of the development(See attachment C). If the development proponent were willing to place a conservation easement on these parcels, additional habitat plantings could be done to benefit wildlife, as well as provide cottonwood trees to replace the mature trees that will eventually die out some time in the future. Through cooperation between the homeowners association and holder of the conservation easement, seasonal closures of the area could be put in place to minimize disturbance to herons and eagles, and could work to create wildlife watching opportunity as well. I strongly recommend this strategy as a meaningful mitigation and wildlife education opportunity. 3 Grain fields South of County Road 32. The "sending" porrion of land ir. this PUD that is located south of county c�d - -ounty road 9 also has sign_ficant wildlife value. TClis land is currently under cultivation ;:_rh ;,:Lear and co-;i. Fossil Creek Reservoir is an important wintering/restinc area for tens of thousands of migratory .:a terfowI . Foss-' Creek serves not only to provide a restincr area, but also holds the geese away from the parks and golf courses in Loveland and Fort Collins. An important attraction of a good resting reservoir is close Page 4 November 20, 1997 availability of grain fields. Since a condition of the PUD approval is that this land remain in agricultural or open space use, it can provide a permanent grain source for the ducks and geese as well as providing open space in the corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland. It would also serve to attract geese away from the homes in the PUD. Even though this property is somewhat removed from the development site, it is an important element in the overall ecological dynamics of Fossil Creek. Holding large numbers of waterfowl is a major factor in the presence of eagles and other predators at Fossil Creek Reservoir. 4)State School Land on the South Side of Fossil Creek Reservoir. There is a parcel of State School Land on the south side of Fossil Creek Reservoir. It is approximately one mile wide from east to west, and between one third to one half mile from north to south. This parcel has the potential to provide several, benefits to not only eagles and other wildlife, but to the public as well. Prairie dogs are a valuable food source for eagles as well as other raptors and predators. Currently, there are few_ relocation sites available to both the Fort Collins and Loveland communities for the relocation of displaced prairie dogs. If prairie dogs were introduced into the school sections, it would provide an additional food source for eagles, and would increase the overall attraction of the Fossil Creek area to the eagles. It would also provide a convenient and much needed relocation site for both the Loveland and Fort Collins communities. The prairie dogs could be contained within this area by planting a border of corn or other grain around the perimeter of the colony. A cooperative partnership could be formed between Larimer County , cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, Division of Wildlife and other interested agencies and individuals for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the general area around Fossil Creek Reservoir. The partnership could work to fund purchases of additional parcels available though willing sellers in the Fossil Creek Reservoir area. The county would be able to provide passive recreational activities cn the school parcel. Seasonal closures could be designed during portions of the vear that would benefit eagle use and heron use on the shore to the north. This parcel of land would also serve to increase and enhance the open space buffer bet�:een Loveland and Fort Collins. 5)Recreational Activity on the Reservoir. A private recreation group presently holds a lease on the reservoir. It is our understanding that this lease expires in 2002. Waterskiing and camping around portions of the reservoir are common activities. There is a o.aterski slalom course adjacent to the heron rookery and comes within 75 feet of the nests during the critical nesting periods. There are Page 5 November 20, 1997 campers set up adjacent to the eagle roost tree on the southeast part of the development proposal. These campers range from 50 feet to approximately 400 feet from the tree. There are also campsites set up throughout the many mature cottonwood gees on the south side of the reservoir. During the winter there is eagle night roosting activity in the south shore cottonwoods. Heron rookeries are dynamic over time, and with the proper set of conditions, the trees along the south shore could provide additional rookery sites in the future as well as increased eagle use in the winter months. If the recreation rights were to be acquired from willing. - holders and held by the cooperative partnership, seasonal protection could be created for wintering eagles and. nesting herons. The slalom course could be removed in order to eliminate disturbance to.nesting herons. Public recreational activities could also be coordinated with wildlife factors to provide public recreation as well as wildlife protection. In conclusion, the Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to be included in the review of the Fossil Lake PUD. Furthermore, placing focus on the entire Fossil Creek Reservoir aad how we might combine our efforts to create a magnificent regional resource is exciting. We acknowledge that the developer has made substantial effort to revise and adjust their proposal to take into consideration the impacts it may have on wildlife and habitat. The pursuit of additional management techniques that have been presented in this letter are designed to assure a viable wildlife resource for the northern Colorado region, while at the same time, considering the needs of all interested parties. The Division of Wildlife looks forward to participating in achieving tnat Goal! Sincer ly, Kris Moser Northeast Regional Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife Attachment A March 28, 1994- Letter from AWM Kinney and Biologist Dennis sent to Latimer County. Heronry buffer zone of 250 meters is based on research on issue by Biologist Dennis. Nuisance wildlife problems are discussed. April 18, 1994- Letter to City of Fort Collins regarding Fossil Creek PUD, stating that 5 to 8 bald eagles are using cottonwood trees in the southeast segment of the proposed development and that construction in this area would probably cause the birds to leave. 1994-1995- Bald eagles observed roosting in tree southeast of Fossil Lake PUD. June 24, 1996- Comments sent to Latimer County regarding this proposal by DWM Leslie and Sr. Biologist Schoonveld. This letter states that adequate buffer zones be created for disturbance - sensitive species. The letter further states that the heron rookery and the area where the bald eagles winter be protected as well with adequate buffer zones. January 27, 1997- Jerry Craig writes City of Fort Collins Department of Natural Resources concerning bald eagles nesting in the heron rookery. He states, according to the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, that 1/4 mile buffer (assuming adequate visual buffers) be used in relation to night roosts of bald eagles. January 29, 1997- Cityscape Plat, Fossil Creek Villages, for applicant Everett Companies. February 10, 1997- Letter to Latmer County Planning Department from Kris Moser stating 1) comments presented earlier have been consistent with knowledge of the particular circumstances at the development site by the DOW employees who commented, 2) significance of the hrdividual roost tree is not certain in relation to a "mosaic" of roost trees in the area, 3) the development may lead to abandonment as a night roost by the eagles who use it, 4) a recommended buffer of 300 yards be maintained around the tree to protect it as a hunting roost. No Text ttoc(� Y TO: Greg Byrne Ron Phillips FROM: Bob Blanchard DATE: September 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Fossil Lake PUD Joe Frank, Pete Wray, Clark Mapes, Leanne Harter, Tom Shoemaker, Rob Wilkinson, Karen Manci, Sheri Wamhoff, John Daggett, Tom Vosburg and I met this afternoon to discuss the Fossil Lake PUD in preparation for Monday's meeting with County staff. will E-mail this to everyone in attendance also so they can embellish on my recollection of the meeting. We discussed the following items: WHAT IS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY BY COUNTY REGULATIONS? The northern property is zoned FA-1, the southern property is zoned AP (Airport Zone). While the AP zone allows residential uses, it does not allow PUD's. (How can this property be included in the PUD if the regulations do not allow PUD's within the Airport zone? Secondarily, if it can't be included in the PUD, can units be transferred since there is no adopted TDR program?) Also, properties in the critical zone are required to go through a Special Review. One of the criteria for Special Review approval is that the use is shown to be "compatible." Residential uses are specifically noted as being incompatible in this area. (How can residential units be transferred when they are considered incompatible in the critical zone and would not supposedly be approved for development?) The County's PUD regulation does not make specific reference to a "noncontiguous PUD." The language makes reference to commonly owned property but does not mention contiguity, The use of the southern piece of property for the transfer of units is not compatible with the Corridor Plan The Plan identifies properties that would be appropriate for inclusion in a TDR system/program - the southern parcel is not one of them. The IGA adopting resolution notes that if there is an inconsistency between the IGA Cc: S. Everitt D.Clarkson L. Swift Ciao of F Ccllins D. Rurkli udt MAR-I1-98 WED 15:52 EVERITT COMPANIES FAX NO. 9702234156 P,01/01 TO: Stan fiveritt, Everitt Enterprises Eldon Ward, Cityacapee Urban Design FROM Hatt Delich -71P'/-jY> DATE: lurch S, 1998 SUBJECT. Fossil Lake PUP traffic addendum (File: 9750ME02) The number of dwelling units within the Fooail Lake PUD has been changed recently. The "Fossil Lake Villages Site Access Study," October, 1997, used a dwelling unit count of 408. 2t was assumed that these would all be single family detached dwelling unito. The new plan (1/28/96) shows 568 dwelling units, with 430 described as single family detached' and 136 described as mill ti-family/townhome. The daily trip generation is expected to increase by about 1000 trip ends per day. The morning peak hour trip generation is expected to increase by about 80 trip ends, and the afternoon peak hour trip generation is expected to increase by about 100 trip ends. This increase will not change the conclusions of the cited traffic study. C0-d M7?�3Q I'L$i11tlW as:ee 8662-0[-2iCW . MAR-11-98 WED 13:25 EVED17 " UMIES FAX N0, 97022341FF F101/03 lVJ March 9, 1998 Mr. Russell Lego Larimer County Planning P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Fossil Lake P.L;.D. Dear Mr. Legg. Thank you for meeting with me last Friday afternoon to review the comments you and others have about the Fossil Lake P.U_D. proposal. I offer this letter as a resuonse to the issues raised. One dung that is important to =ogrtizc is that this is a preliminary plat submittal and review. it is our expectation, as we hone in on the details of the plan and particularly the cngincring issues, that we may need to make some minor modifications to the land plan. We are open to these revisions and look forward to working with Rex Bums and other engineering personnel to make certain ail issues are addressed. As i understand it, this will be doer e after preliminary plat approval and a condition of final plat approval. Transportation Issues Off -site improvements. The areas of County Roads 9 and 36, which are adjacent to our property, will be installed to their ultimate design requirement.- on our side of these roads with 3 filll pavement overlay to the existing edge of the tmvcl lanes on the adjoining propc-ty right-of-way. The areas of County Roads 9 and 36 including the intersection of these two roads, which are not adjncent to our property, as well as the extension of County Road 9 northward ro the end of the existing pavement will be paved and improved to accommodate two traffic lanes as well as two bikdpcdestran ways. Since these areas are off -me and it is probable forum developments on adjoining propcities will dedicate additional right-of-way as well as make full improvements in association with the development of the property, we. plan to install a 36' paved surface with two 12' traffic lanes and two 6' bikdpcdestriail lanes. The attached letter from our traffic engineer asserts that he revised plan does not significantly differ from the study of the original plan, particularly as it relates to the impacts on county roads. The proposed "roundabout" is a low -profile landscaped island intondcd to temper traffic traveling in this intersection. It will be sized and designed. including appropriate traffic control signage. in conjunction with the final engineering for the roadway system. There arc no facilities planned within the roundabout. Corpn�a Office, 3000 Sump r;ullc6c nruuue • Fwl Cultim • Culontdo • tl0:'_J Mwl!n; Addmas: P. U. nos 2125 • tort (Mutt • Colorado • 90522 7cic15110ne: (970) Z_16-I NO -FAX: (970) 223"156 • Nnver Line: (303) 6d3-6018 6 similar to credits suggested in a proposed TDU program. Specific approval of the bonuses do not have to be given but are provided for information. Approval of the overall density of the project will be manner in which the density is approved. COMMENTS RELATED TO NATURAL RESOURCES; The Comments for the Division of Wildlife, the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County are attached. In addition, during the hearing these agencies will review the wildlife issues in detail. W. STAFF FINDINGS: I. This proposed noncontiguous PUD is compatible with the proposed Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the proposed surrounding land uses contained in that plan. If the proposed plan is not adopted this finding will require further evaluation and analyze regarding adopted plans that do cover the area. 2. The Larimer Count Heath, Engineering Department and Opens Lands Department, the City of Fort Collins, as well as other reviewing agencies have reviewed this proposal and have stated their recommended conditions of approval of this project. 3. The proposed PUD meets the criteria of the Latimer County Zoning Resolution, the Latimer County Planned Unite Development Resolution and if adopted the Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan. 4. The approval of this subdivision with the certain conditions should not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of existing residents or the natural resources of the area. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approval of the Master Plan for the Fossil Lake PUD for a period of five years and for 566 units. 2. Approval of the preliminary plat of Fossil Lake PUD for 489 total units on the North and South parcel. The revised preliminary plat will be required to be submitted in 90 days from approval by the Board of County Commissioners. a. All dwelling, building envelopes and lots lines will need to be removed from the core conservation area as recommend by the Latimer County Parks Department. This would mean moving the building envelopes, lot lines and units to the west. b. The dwelling unit on the large south parcel must be sited within a lot. c. Final Plat approval will be provided by Latimer County after approval of the final construction plans for all required improvements is given by the City of Fort Collins. d. The conservation easements and rescue management plan must be submitted with the Final Plat application. 1 I City Ma_ .Ager City of Fort Collins April 3, 1998 Mr. Russell Legg Larimer County Planning Department PO Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Russell: This letter is to follow-up and address issues defined by City staff in a letter dated March 6, 1998. City staff met with County staff and the applicant regarding the proposed Fossil Lakes PUD scheduled for the Larimer County Board of Commissioners on April 6, 1998. At that meeting, the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission as well as City staff comments were addressed and discussed. Based on the comments and concerns addressed at that meeting (as well as additional follow-up meetings) it is the opinion of our staff that the issues related to natural areas, storm drainage, planning/land use, and transportation have been addressed or will be addressed prior to final plat approval. Therefore, we support proceeding with the Fossil Lakes PUD Board of County Commissioners hearing. flowcvcr, given the level of our staff s concerns and comments through the preliminary stage of the review process, it is critical that our staff maintain a high level of involvement subsequent to any approval of the project by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. We recommend that a process be clearly defined by City and County staffs to determine our continued level of involvement. This process should include how revisions will be routed/commented upon, our involvement in meetings, and determination of submittal requirements, as well as other issues related to the development review process. A remaining outstanding issue to be addressed is how impact fees, including storm drainage, street- oversizing and parkland fees, will be determined and collected since two jurisdictions are ultimately involved. We recommend that this issue be addressed prior to final plat approval. 100 1IRIT tC A%enuc • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collin, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-0505 • FAX (970) 221-6107 Mr. Russell Legg April 2, 1998 Page 2 Thank you for this opportunity to provide our comments regarding this proposal and for continuing to keep our staff involved and informed of the proposal. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John . Fischbach City Manager xc. Mayor Azari and Members of Council City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission Board of County Commissioners Larimer County Planning Commission Frank Lancaster, County Manager Mr. Stan Everitt, Everitt Companies, 3000 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Greg Byrne, CPES Director Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager Tom Frazier, Multi -Modal Transportation Group Leader Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director Glen Schlueter, Senior Stormwater Engineer Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner Pete Wray, City Planner Leanne Harter, City Planner, Karen Manci, Environmental Planner • COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE TO: Russ Legg, Larimer County Planning Department FROM: Daryl R. Burkhard, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands DATE: April 3, 1998 RE: Fossil Lake PUD PARKS DEPARTMENT 1800 South County Road 31 Loveland, CO 80537 (970) 679-4570 Fax (970) 679-4574 I have reviewed the revised proposal for the Fossil Lake PUD dated Mach 27, 1998. I am very pleased with the effort made by Everitt Companies with regard to the wildlife habitat and natural resources along the north shore of Fossil Creek Reservoir. The Latimer County Parks and Open Lands Department appreciates the patience and cooperative spirit of the applicant in working with the Department, the City of Fort Collins, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. In the revised proposal, all residential lots and the farm storage/equipment building envelop are appropriately placed outside of the core conservation area. In addition, the placement of lots 11-15 with their associated building envelopes provides additional buffer for the sensitive natural resources beyond that required by the core conservation area. This is a very desirable attribute of the plan, since the core conservation area defines the minimum buffer necessary to protect eagle activity along Fossil Creek Reservoir. The Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Department is very pleased with this aspect of the Fossil Lake PUD design. Associated with the design of the core conservation area is the understanding that the applicant will work with the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Department, the City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to establish landscape plans for lots 1I- 15 that will provide appropriate visual screening, thus enhancing the buffer between these lots and the shoreline. To accomplish this task, Everitt Companies has met with the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Department, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the State Forest Service to identify options and desired scenarios. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands feels confident that this process will reach a successful conclusion. Included in this process is the use of large trees, 12-15 feet tall, around the buildim envelops of the residential lots and the planting of smaller trees (seedlings) along the back lot lines that will eventually add to the screening provided by the larger trees. The use of conifers in critical locations to screen winter activity will be supplemented by deciduous trees to aid in summer visual screening. The applicant has agreed that these landscape plans will be incorporated into covenants that enable oversight by the homeowners association, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands, the City of Fort Collins, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. There are only a few additional items that Larimer County Parks and Open Lands would like to comment on: 1) timing of construction the water detention area, lots 11-15, and the farm storage building: 2) the basic terms and conditions of the conservation easement, 3) the use of the non- contiguous parcel: and 4) overall management of the natural resources area. In addition to these EVER 43.DOC EXHIBIT "B" of Fossil Lake Resource Management Plan items, we have provided an attachment that discusses the concepts and information utilized in designing the core conservation area for the benefit of additional reviewers. Construction period of the water detention areas, lots 11-15. and the farm building. Regarding the water detention area, the design should be based upon a natural system utilizing native vegetation whenever possible. In addition, since this area, lots 11-15 and the farm storage building are the closest construction activity to both the heron rookeries and eagle night roosts and hunting perches, construction activity related to these items should be scheduled to avoid impacting wildlife activity as much as possible. For the eagles, this sensitive period is November 15 to March 15. The sensitive period for the heron rookery is mid -February through early August. If it is not possible for construction to occur outside of these months, then the location of the activity should provide guidance as to which months are the most sensitive, recognizing that nesting activity is more sensitive than winter eagle activity. For example, construction activity for lot I I and possibly lot 12 may more appropriately occur outside the sensitive period for heron nesting. Activity on lots 13, 14, and 15 and with regard to the farm building should not disturb heron nesting behavior but may effect winter eagle behavior and would be more appropriate during the summer. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands requests that conditions be placed on these lots requiring owners to work with us in determining appropriate, functional construction periods. Basic terms and conditions of the conservation easement on outlot T. Outlot T includes the core conservation area plus additional buffer. Due to the importance of this lot in protecting sensitive natural resources, it is important for a conservation easement to be placed on this lot that addresses the following conditions: The use of outlot T should be limited to agricultural, horticultural, or grazing production or wildlife habitat and natural area. • No structures other than the farm storage/equipment building should be allowed on the lot including structures such as corrals, equestrian arenas, and feed lots. Outlot T should be closed to non -essential human activity, (activity other than essential land and animal management activity), during the sensitive wintering bald eagle months, November through February, and the sensitive nesting heronry months, February through early August. Non -essential human activity includes walks, trail riding, and equestrian courses. We know that the birds are adapted to crop farming activity and would probably adapt to cattle or horse grazing. However, human recreational activity, particularly within the core protection area delineated on the most recent map provided by the Parks and Open Lands Department could be very disruptive. • If the landowner prefers to plant the open field in woody vegetation, we would like to request that woody plantings within a eighth of a mile of the shoreline be restricted to appropriate native plants so as to prevent problems with aggressive exotics invading the shoreline. The use of the non-contiguous parcel. A wildlife concern expressed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife is the management of a large concentration of Canadian geese that currently use the Fossil Lake PUD area for foraging habitat. The area historically has been a goose closure area, providing a safe haven for the geese. In addition, the area has been in corn production, providing an abundant food supply. These conditions have attracted the geese away from suburban lawns in the Fort Collins and Loveland areas preventing a chronic problem that is familiar to many western cities. The Fossil Lake PUD removes a considerable amount of this foraging area with the possible consequence of the geese becoming pests not only to the Fossil Lake PUD but to Fort Collins and Loveland as well. The continued use of the non-contiguous sending parcel as corn or other grain cropland could be a vital management tool for containing this potential problem. Therefore, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands recommends that the conservation easement placed upon this property provide for corn production on the property. Overall mana-,ement of the natural resources area. The Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Department is very interested in the development of a sound management plan for the Fossil Creek Reservoir area as a whole that involves participation by the City of Fort Collins, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the North Poudre Irrigation Company, and surrounding landowners. The partnership capabilities of developing and implementing such a management plan is very promising. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands would like to recommend that the applicant encourage landowners for lots 11-15 and outlot T to participate in this larger natural resource management effort. If you have any questions regarding these comments please call me at 679-4576. cc. Stan Everitt, Everitt Companies Dave Clarkson, Colorado Division of Wildlife Tom Shoemaker, City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department The Delineation of the Core Conservation Area In the field of nature reserve design, it is necessary to first identify the core conservation area, or the most critical and sensitive areas for the targeted wildlife. Once identified, this core conservation area, or critical zone, would then have additional buffer to increase the probability of the success of maintaining the existing natural values and wildlife activity. In the field of nature reserve design, these buffers are considered very important. It is for this reason that the City of Fort Collins, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Larimer County have worked intensely with the Everitt Companies to: 1) remove all activity from the delineated core conservation area, and 2) establish additional buffer and protection through the placements of lots 11-15. A discussion of the information that was utilized in determining the core conservation area is as follows: • Minimum development setbacks delineating the core conservation area. The most sensitive natural resource values along the north shore of Fossil Creek Reservoir are the winter use of the area by bald eagles and the existing heron rookery. Generally, the recommended setbacks for heron rookeries is 250 meters or 800 feet. For wintering bald eagles, the setback will vary depending on whether the location supports a night roost or is utilized for hunting by the eagles. For night roosts, the standard core conservation area setback is 1/4-1/2 mile depending on whether there are trees or other obstacles that obscure the eagles vision. In wooded areas the smaller setback distance of 1/4 mile is deemed acceptable while in open plains areas the 1/2 mile is recommended. For hunting perches or foraging areas, a 1/8-1/4 mile setback is utilized in the Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Management Plan (1995) and the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (July 1994). The greater setback of 1/4 mile is used for high -use foraging areas and the 1/8-1/4 mile setback is used for perching areas that are separate from primary foraging areas. Again the existence of screening vegetation is considered in establishing the setback distance. The Northern States Bald .Eagle Recovery Plan recommends a 1/4 mile minimum setback for feeding areas. It should be noted that the setbacks addressed in these documents refer to an area with no human encroachment and that these setback areas usually have an additional buffer area associated with them in which some non -disruptive human activity may be tolerated. It should also be noted, however, that these plans refer to eagle behavior in locations where eagles are unaccustomed to human encroachment such as Montana and the Greater Yellowstone Area. After considerable discussions with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, Latimer County Parks and Open Lands recommends utilizing the minimum setback distance as the core conservation area. The reasons for selecting the minimum setback is twofold: 1) while the current condition of the surrounding land does not provide a visual screen for the eagles, the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to work with Larimer County by establishing a visual barrier through tree plantings, and 2) the eagles that have been wintering in the Fort Collins area have demonstrated some tolerance for human activity and may be COREAREA.DOC I and the zoning, PUD, subdivision and mobile home regulations, the provisions of the IGA take precedence. The IGA also has Land Use Policies For The Area Beyond The Urban Growth Area which state: Residential development will only be allowed at a density of 5 acres per dwelling unit unless the proposed development is within a PUD where the density can be increased to 2.29 acres per dwelling unit....... (2.29 appears to be a maximum density for this project per the IGA. Given that PUD's don't seem to be acceptable on the southern portion, the proposed density is far beyond what should be allowed.) One other issue is how the number of units being transferred was calculated. They are transferring 144 units but our calculations came out to 122. Part of this, albeit minor, was the inclusion of the small industrial area in the southern parcel. DENSITY EVALUATION The comparison of the proposed project with the recommended Fossil Creek Plan was completed for this meeting (a comparison with the Structure Plan will be ready for Monday). For this comparison, the definition of developable area from the Land Use Code was used and appropriate areas netted out. This evaluation indicated that the northern tier shown on the Fossil Creek Plan was actually about 1.86 dwelling units per acre (the Plan shows that 3du/acre is preferred); The middle tier calculated out to approximately 1.1 du/acre (the Plan indicates 1 - 2 du/acre is preferred); The southern tier is acceptable according to the Plan except that the Plan recommends clustering away from the lake and wetlands. (The point here is that in combination with later comments, there is room to increase density in both the northern and middle portions of project to avoid development within a preferred setback area around the lake.) OPEN SPACE The PUD regulations state that a minimum of 30% of the developable land must be open space. Calculations were not completed for this meeting but the analysis included trying to identify "functional" open space as being the only appropriate areas to be included in this calculation - and visually, it appears that not much of the designated open space could be considered functional. (Regardless of the final calculation, there are two issues surrounding the inclusion of the southern parcel in open space calculations: 1) There are undevelopable wetland areas that could not be considered "functional" and 2) irregardless of whether this property could be developed or not, the development rights are being transferred off of this property leaving nothing but open space which should not in turn be counted again as an open space benefit. It's being counted twice: once as developable land for the purposes of transferring units and again as open space for purposes adaptable to the smaller setback distance. Therefore, the Latimer County Parks and Open Lands Department recommends that a setback of 1/4 mile (1320 feet) be established around the known night roost sites at Fossil Creek Reservoir and that a 1/8 mile (660 feet) setback be used for other perching and foraging locations. These setback distances should not include backyards or extended lot lines but should be completely free of human activity. Based upon a study conducted by Yackel and Adams (1997) over the winter of 1996- 1997, there is one major night roost site potentially impacted by the Fossil Lake PUD. This night roost is located within the heronry located on the southwest edge of the proposal. This night roosts should receive the fall 1/4 mule setback. This setback will also address the 250 meter (800 foot) setback recommended for the heronry. The study conducted by Yackel and Adams (1997) demonstrates that the eagles are using the entire reservoir for hunting and feeding purposes with several observed perching sites along the north shore line in the proposed development area. Based upon this single season picture of the eagle feeding behavior, Latimer County Parks and Open Lands feels that the entire shoreline should receive the minimum setback of 1/8 mile (660 feet). The setbacks should begin at high water mark or, if located further inland, the locations of known hunting perches. In order for these minimum setbacks to be functional, however, it is critical that a visual screen be created to minimize disturbance of the eagles. This screening effort Should include the planting of coniferous trees that will maintain a visual barrier throughout the critical winter months. Additional plantings of native shrubs could enhance the screening affect. It should be noted that the planted trees will take many years to reach a mature height. Therefore, efforts should be made to minimize human activity along the south side of the development during the winters months. • Development design outside the core conservation area. The minimum setbacks delineate the core conservation area for the eagles and the herons. However, it is desirable that this core area have additional buffer where possible. To accomplish this, the revised Fossil Lake PUD proposal dated March 27, 1998 has established large lots along the periphery of the 1/4 study area except as one approaches the east side of the proposal. It was recognized that this area has already been comprorrsed by an existing dwelling structure and that additional buffer would probably be non- functional. The building envelopes within these large lots area positioned on the north end in order to leave as much distance as possible between the building envelopes and the core conservation area. Additional landscaping in these lots will be utilized to increase the visual screening between the eagles and the development. The location of these large, prestiguous lots along the periphery of the study area will add to the buffer effect by discouraging trespass by the public on to the core conservation area and the adjoining buffer. COREAREA.DOC 2 In addition to the establishment of appropriate buffers for sensitive wildlife habitat, the establishment of a resource management plan is critical to the success of any conservation effort. The Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Department is very interested in the development of a sound management plan for the core conservation area, any proposed "no build" buffers, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir area as a whole. The North Poudre Irrigation Company Board of Directors has passed a resolution reflecting a willingness to work with Larimer County in managing the area for wildlife. The partnership capabilities of developing and implementing a management plan with the cooperative efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the City of Fort Collins is very promising. Nevertheless, it is imperative that a strong, enforceable management plan be in place. This is particularly true if one wishes to maintain the presence of sensitive wildlife in a system where natural processes are restrained and/or disrupted. The management plan should utilize native vegetation and provide for the natural and, if necessary, active establishment of new tree stands of varying ages along the reservoir shore. Essentially, a comprehensive, forward looking management plan that addresses the changing dynamics of wildlife habitat and behavior should be developed. Larimer County, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the City of Fort Collins has considerable interest in participating in this process. COREAREA.DOC 3 Shen Wamhoff - City/County Joint Dev "w Page 1 rl From: Ted Shepard To: Basil Hamdan, Bob Blanchard, Dave Stringer, Eri... Date: Tue, Aug 25, 1998 2:24 PM Subject: City/County Joint Dev.Rev. We met this morning (Tuesday 8/25) with Russ Legg and there are two major items to report: 1. Fossil Lake Final Plat Stan Everitt has submitted a Final Plat for the southern portion of their Fossil Lake Plan. The plans are being routed for first round review. As with our submittals, there will be a set of Utility Plans and a set of Site/Landscape Plans. The Utility Plan set is said to be 80 sheets so make room in your offices! Engineering, Transportation Operations, Transportation Planning, Stormwater and Rob W. will be routed both Utility Plans and Site/Landscape Plans Current and Advance Planning will be routed Site/Landscape Plans. Bring your plans to the next meeting which will be held ONE WEEK from today (not two weeks because we lost one week in August). The meeting will be held at 10:30 a.m. in TO BE ANNOUNCED The County Engineering and Planning Staffs will be on hand so this will truly be a "Joint Review." Stan Everitt will also be on hand to provide background and orientation. 2. Draft Larimer County Land Use Code Russ Legg is very interested in getting our feedback on the Draft Land Use Code. The County will be providing two orientation sessions tomorrow for anyone who is interested: 1. Morning 9:00 a m. to 11:00 a.m. 2. Afternoon 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Obviously our concerns would deal only with the urban section of the Code, not the rural. He is particularly interested in feedback on: * Adequate Public Facilities * Impact Fees * Storm Drainage Requirements including Water Quality Transportation Level of Service Requirements * Air Quality Standards • Street Standards All development in the U.G.A. would have to be rezoned into the "Planned Development" zone. Urban standards would apply. Minor Residential Divisions (M.R.D.'s) in the U.G.A. would be prohibited. All development in the U.G.A. must hook up to public sewer, no more waiver process. The Cooperative Planning Area that is outside the U.G.A. would be eligible for the Rural Standards. The open comment period is September. Early comments are appreciated versus last minute. If you do not have access to a Draft, stop by Current Planning and we can make a copy of the section that interests you. If you have any questions, please call Russ Legg at 498-7711. Russ's Email is leggrn@co.larimer.co.us The web site for the Draft Code is http://www.co.larimer.co.us Sheri Wamhoff - Re: County Road 9 - ;sil Lake Development Page 1 From: Glen Schlueter To: "burnsra@co.larimer.co.us"@FC1.GWIA Date: Tue, Dec 1, 1998 4:27 PM Subject: Re: County Road 9 - Fossil Lake Development I will forward this on to Bob Smith and Susan Hayes. I think it really boils down to how permanent the cross section will be. Susan recently visited the area so I will get her thoughts on the County Rd. 9 crossing. As for the road fill, it would certainly be a new one for Stormwater to participate when we can just wait for a developer to come along and grade it to function with curb and gutter. I would think engineering would have the same opinion but you should check with them. I will include Sheri Wamhoff on this reply as well. More to come, Glen >>> "Rex Burns" <burnsra@co.larimer.co.us> 12/01 11:28 AM >>> Glen - We are sort of waiting to hear from you about your thoughts about County Road 9 relative to the drainage crossing of Mail Creek, and what you might require or want to see as a temporary or permanent culvert. I have a call in to Sears who are representing the folks on the west side. I have discussed this entire issue with the applicant who kind of grumped around and wanted to know who was going to pay for the extra fill (needed if the profile of the street was raised). His attitude struck me as kind of defensive. I am thinking that surely we could find money from somewhere. Anyway, let me know what you find out. Incidentally, I gather we are on a somewhat relaxed time frame. Matbe that will give us time to find some answers. Thanks RAB CC: Bob Smith, Cam McNair, Rick Richter, Sheri Wamh... Sheri Wamhoff - Re: County Road 9 Fossil Lake Development Page 1 From: Sheri Wamhoff To: "burnsra@co.larimer.co.us"@FC1.GWIA, Glen Schluet... Date: Wed, Dec 2, 1998 3:15 PM Subject: Re: County Road 9 - Fossil Lake Development If something needs to be done to the crossing to accommodate the needs of this project then the developer of this project should pay for it. What improvements are needed? Are we talking a full box culvert, a larger pipe, or what? Are these to be the ultimate improvements or will this have to be resized again? I need some more information, before I can say what we would require. Sheri If it is along an area that this developer will eventually be improving, they might all well put the >>> Glen Schlueter 12/01/98 04:27PM >>> I will forward this on to Bob Smith and Susan Hayes. I think it really boils down to how permanent the cross section will be. Susan recently visited the area so I will get her thoughts on the County Rd. 9 crossing. As for the road fill, it would certainly be a new one for Stormwater to participate when we can just wait for a developer to come along and grade it to function with curb and gutter. I would think engineering would have the same opinion but you should check with them. I will include Sheri Wamhoff on this reply as well. More to come, Glen >>> "Rex Burns" <burnsra(a co.larimer.co.us> 12/01 11:28 AM >>> Glen - We are sort of waiting to hear from you about your thoughts about County Road 9 relative to the drainage crossing of Mail Creek, and what you might require or want to see as a temporary or permanent culvert. I have a call in to Sears who are representing the folks on the west side. I have discussed this entire issue with the applicant who kind of grumped around and wanted to know who was going to pay for the extra fill (needed if the profile of the street was raised). His attitude struck me as kind of defensive. I am thinking that surely we could find money from somewhere. Anyway, let me know what you find out. Incidentally, I gather we are on a somewhat relaxed time frame. Maybe that will give us time to find some answers. Thanks. CC: Bob Smith, Cam McNair, Rick Richter, Susan Haye... Sheri Wamhoff - Re: County Road 9 3sil Lake Development Page 1 From: Glen Schlueter To: Sheri Wamhoff Date: Thu, Dec 3, 1998 4:49 PM Subject: Re: County Road 9 - Fossil Lake Development Sheri, The way I remember it the crossing of County Rd. 9 is north of the project and it won't be this developer (unless he buys more ground) that builds it to the ultimate. Now along County Rd. 36 Everitts will build the ultimate cross section with curb and gutter so it may make more sense to up size that crossing of Mail Ck. I will be checking with Susan on her thoughts about these crossings. >>> Sheri Wamhoff 12/02 3:15 PM >>> If something needs to be done to the crossing to accommodate the needs of this project then the developer of this project should pay for it. What improvements are needed? Are we talking a full box culvert, a larger pipe, or what? Are these to be the ultimate improvements or will this have to be resized again? I need some more information, before I can say what we would require. Sheri If it is along an area that this developer will eventually be improving, they might all well put the >>> Glen Schlueter 12/01/98 04:27PM >>> I will forward this on to Bob Smith and Susan Hayes. I think it really boils down to how permanent the cross section will be. Susan recently visited the area so I will get her thoughts on the County Rd. 9 crossing. As for the road fill, it would certainly be a new one for Stormwater to participate when we can just wait for a developer to come along and grade it to function with curb and gutter. I would think engineering would have the same opinion but you should check with them. I will include Sheri Wamhoff on this reply as well. More to come, Glen >>> "Rex Burns" <burnsrana.co.larimer.co.us> 12/01 11:28 AM >>> Glen - We are sort of waiting to hear from you about your thoughts about County Road 9 relative to the drainage crossing of Mail Creek, and what you might require or want to see as a temporary or permanent culvert. I have a call in to Sears who are representing the folks on the west side. I have discussed this entire issue with the applicant who kind of grumped around and wanted to know who was going to pay for the extra fill (needed if the profile of the street was raised). His attitude struck me as kind of defensive. I am thinking that surely we could find money from somewhere. Anyway, let me know what you find out. Incidentally, I gather we are on a somewhat relaxed time frame. Maybe that will give us time to find some answers. Thanks. 'mil:? ENuINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE December 14, 1998 Mr. Stan Everitt c/o Northern Engineering Services 420 South Howes, Suite 202 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Plan Review, Fossil Lake PUD Dear Stan; Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 This letter is sent with regard to plans you have submitted to this office for the proposed Fossil Lake PUD First Filing. This office and representatives of the City of Fort Collins have reviewed the plans and we have prepared redline documents indicating various concerns we have with the plans. Most of the comments relate to street functional classifications and corresponding geometry. In addition to the plan documents, some specific concerns we have identified are as follows: City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Staff members have stated that the geotechnical information you have supplied to this office does not meet their specifications for street design. It is my understanding that the City procedure for geotechnical studies requires that overlot grading be completed before soil samples are taken, so that the material sampled will be representative of the actual material that is to form the subgrade of the street. This represents a significant departure from existing County procedures. I am hoping to be able to identify a process that takes into account overlot grading and identifies the structural section of the pavement at the time and as part of plan approval for the respective phase of the development. We do, however routinely require a proof roll of the subgrade surface before allowing structural materials to be put in place. We would suggest that an alternate specification be provided to obtain stability in the event of a failing proofroll. In our process, quantity takeoffs are normally used as a basis for the development agreement and collateral requirements for the project, and thus precise quantity calculations need to be available at the time of final approval. It is the procedure of this office that we review those building permits adjacent to water features for which grade of first floors is critical. We would propose to continue with that practice and extend it to all lots in this case, since it is to the advantage of all parties that first floor levels meet requirements of the overlot grading plan. As part of this process, we will cause minimum floor elevations to be printed on the face of the building permits, along with relevant information about site grading that is found on the notes that are part of the grading plan. We will also make note on the building permit of requirements for certification of house foundation grades after completion of construction. We will also provide to the Building Department the amount of the drainage fee that is to be assessed for each of the respective lots. By agreement with the City Department of Utilities, we propose to use City of Fort Collins Standards as a basis for the design of storm sewers. As you are aware, I have expressed concern regarding the design you have provided for the paving of County Road 9 north of County Road 36. The design indicates a flat spot of about 800 feet in length with a longitudinal slope of 0.06%. I have met with representatives of the City Engineering Department previously about this matter, and I intend to review a proposed solution with them at a meeting scheduled for Wednesday 16 December. At that time I will discuss with them an option which would not require future removal of the street surface at the time the street is widened, and which causes no additional expense to you than the proposed plan. This option would consist of designing a lov, point or sump in the longitudinal profile of —oad 9 at your station 80+00. To achieve drainage of the pavement surface, this would necessitate placing a storm sewer pipe under the roadway for a distance of about 600 feet to convey stormwater to Mail Creek. It is my understanding that development of the adjacent (west side) property and reconstruction of County Road 9 would occur during the calendar year 2000. 1 would think that removal of the street at that time for reconstruction would be disruptive to your marketing activities, and that construction of the street as I have suggested would be less expensive for future developers than removal of the materials over the length of concern. A second concern 1 have centers around the existing crossing of Mail Creek. I am hoping to identify funds for an improved crossing. Stormwater utility staff members of the City of Fort Collins have identified a number of concerns centering around their request for a SWMM type hydrologic analysis of the tributary and internal basins. I believe that such an analysis might provide significant insight for stormwater planning purposes for the overall development. This completes the comments I have at this time regarding the referenced project. As I continue to develop information from City and other reviewers, I will keep you informed as to additional concerns that might develop. Please feel free to call me at any time at 498-5721. Thank you. t erely, Rex A. Burns, P.E. cc: Cam McNair City Engineer, City of Fort Collins --� Russell Legg, Larimer County Planning Department Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineer Cam McNair - Fossil Lake PUD Page From: Gary Diede To: Bob Blanchard, Craig Foreman, Dave Stringer, GI... Date: Wed, Apr 28, 1999 12:20 PM Subject: Fossil Lake PUD The Development Review folks had an emgergency review of the county's Fossil Lake PUD the last few days. There were several comments made that we wanted to change, but this development is already being overlot graded and we didn't get a lot of time to provide input to the county. I met with county staff, Stan Everitt and George (Stan's engineer) this morning to negotiate what we could get changed at this point. Here is what was decided.... o The regional bike trail is shown on the plans on the north side of Rookery Road, south of Trilby Road. It connects from CR#9 on the east to the west side of the development including the recreation center. Everitts will provide a field design of a 10' concrete path of which the city will pay for 5' of the trail. Craig, it was my understanding from Kathlleen that you would pay for half. You will need to work with them on whatever design info you need. They want to do grades and easemnts after grading and field layout. o they will add sidewalks on the following streets starting on CR#9 ---- on the east side of CR#9 the last block on the south end which is a rural cross-section, a 4.5' detached sidewalk; on the north side of Rock Park from CR#9 east to the next street that turns north, an attached rollover curb with attached sidewalk; on the inside of Rookery Road all along the south loop ( but not inside the cul-de-sac on the east side of the deveolpment), a rollover curb with attached sidewalk. They did not want to extend the connector street on the south end of CR#9 because they are trying to discourage bikers from going south to the conservency district. They felt the interior streets would provide for local bike connection. o taper lengths on Trilbey and CR#9 will remain at 25:1 which is in a ccordance with the city's collector standards ( we had asked for 40:1 tapers because we felt the speeds would be higher on these roads). o they want to leave the 50' wide median on Trilby. They feel there is too much redesign at this point with all the utilities. There will never be a signal at Trilby and CR#9 and left turns shouldn't have lengthy delays form oncoming traffic because of the low volumes to the south. o Cam, we did not remove the paragraph that you referred to as item #6. They will provide fire protection water and a temporary emergency access acceptable to the fire authority for the rec center and model homes. o The city won't sign the agreement between Everitt and the county even though it speaks to city obligations, but they will provide the city wth their final, signed copy. The county will write a memoradnum of understanding to help clarify city inspections, maintenance and conflict resolution in the near future. o County Road #9 south of CR# 36 serves several properties on the west sidie that need to have access maintained. The city will expedite the final, street design thicknesses on CR# 9 as utilities are backfilled to allow street construction as quickly as possilble after utilities. o Trilby extension on the curve will be named Trilby. o If Everitt's builds CR# 9 to ultimate standards as an off site improvement north of CR# 36 next to the undeveloped property, the county and the city agree to help negotiate a shared cost from the future developer. There is no obligation to reimburse, but there is acknowledgement that we will make the future developer aware of the costs Everitt's incurred on their be half for possible reimbursement. As you know this project has many complications because it is in the county, UGA, IGA, conservancy district. Although it is not ideal, I believe we have made the critical modifications to get the best project considering all the factors. Please let me know if there is anything that we need to talk through that you just can't live with. F-Cam -McNair - .. Fossil Lake PUD Page Thanks to everyone for your help and input in this emergency. gary of a density bonus.) NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Again, we used our definition of a neighborhood center for this analysis - two or more uses. The proposed center is to include a clubhouse, surrounding green areas and retail. It is difficult to determine where or how much retail could occur on this site since the structure appears to be more along the size and design of a private clubhouse. (Could a set of vending machines count as retail?) No matter what, there should be better bike and pedestrian connectivity from nearby areas to this area. RELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH SHORE CONSERVATION AREA In addition to the lakeshore and wetlands, eagle roosts and a heron rookery exist along the north shore of the lake. The State Division of Wildlife indicates there should be a 300 yard setback from the lake, although they have indicated they would prefer 1 /4 of a mile because of the eagle roosts. The Corridor Plan, Fossil Creek Plan and the State's raptor biologist all indicate a 1/4 mile setback. (The letter in the submittal packet gives the impression that the plan is OK. However, it is dated before the most recent plan was produced. Could their comments have been directed to the first submittal last year? Refer back to the density evaluation and note that there is room to move units that are in close proximity to sensitive areas to other areas within the project boundary and maintain consistency with the Fossil Creek Plan. The burden of proof that the proposed plan is acceptable is on the applicant - they should provide an in-depth wildlife analysis. They haven't even identified eagle roosts or the rookery).. State law may affect the construction of the sewer line which would be placed through wetland areas. This will require a 404 permit which invokes the endangered species act which will result in a "prolonged consultation" between the applicants and regulatory agencies. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONNECTIONS To quote our Traffic Operations staff - This doesn't come close to the City's preferred grid system. Internal connectivity appears pretty good but there is a need to improve bike and pedestrian porosity. The application should definitely should show future connections to all out parcels. Access from CR 9 appears adequate. Fossil Lake Estates Planned Development Larimer County, Colorado Sketch Plan Review Project Description August 28, 2001 Project Description The Fossil Lake Estates project is located directly east and south of the Fossil Lake PUD in Latimer County. The 35-acre site is within the Fossil Creek Reservoir TDU zone (Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Transferable Density Overlay Zone District) and is a designated receiving area. It is currently zoned FA-1 with an existing home and barn located on it. Currently portions of the land are used for pasture. The Fossil Creek Reservoir is located to the south of the property and the Fossil Lake PUD development abuts the property to the north and west. There is also a small Pond (.92 acres) located to the west of the existing home. The existing Fossil Lake PUD is currently under construction to the west of the property as larger lot, single family detached homes. Smaller lot patio homes and/or townhomes are being planned and constructed along the northwest portion of the property and planned to the north of the project. Also the developer of the Fossil Lake PUD is planning smaller lot single family homes to the east of the project. The existing streets, Egret Court and Rookery Court are stubbed into the property on its west side. The applicant, Dr. Douglas Beard, is requesting that the property as shown on the site plan, be subdivided into 22 lots with an overall gross density of .63 units per acre and net density of .65 units per acre. The one existing single family home would be included in the 22 lots. It is proposed that portions of lot 22, the existing home site, would have a conservation easement placed on it but would remain in the ownership and maintenance responsibility of the current owner. This conservation easement will serve as open space and provide a buffer zone from the developed lots to the wildlife resources at the Fossil Creek Reservoir. The existing home and outbuildings on lot 22 would remain and this property would continue to be used as pasture and for light agricultural uses. As per the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8 related to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, this property is designated as an Estate Residential Area allowing a maximum of 17 homesites. Because this property is in the TDU receiving area, it is proposed the all new lots be clustered on the northern portions of the property and that an additional five lots be permitted. The owner/developer would be required to purchase four (4) TDU's and give them to the County in exchange for the additional permitted lots. These lots would not meet the minimum lot size required of the Estate Residential Area but the Code allows for the Board to waive this requirement. We would be requesting that the Board grant a waiver on the minimum lot size requirement based upon the clustering of the homesites. See section 8.9.2.A.I .C.2of the Land Use Code. Another item to note is that the property owner has met on site with the County Parks and Open Lands Department, the City of Fort Collins Natural Resource Department and the Colorado Division of Wildlife on several occasions. Based upon their meetings, they have recommended a revised buffer setback from the required 1/4 mile buffer from Fossil Creek Reservoir to approximately 1200 feet (see enclosed letter of January 3, 2000 from Ms. Daryl Burkhard). This revised buffer area is also shown on the map accompanving Ms. Burkhard's letter. The sketch plan as submitted adheres to the recommended buffer setback. Existing Zoning FA-1 Proposed Zoning PD - Planned Development Total Area of Project 35 Acres Area of Residential Use Residential Use as Percentage of Developable Land - 47.5% (16.19 acres) Non -Residential Use - 0% Open Space/Agricultural/Conservation Easement - 52.5% (18.81 acres) Land Use Data Acreage of Total Development - 35.0 acres Acreage of Developable Land - 34.08 acres Number of Lots - 22 Number of Dwelling Units - 22 (21 proposed, 1 existing) Gross Density - .63 units/acre Net Density - .65 units/acre Largest Lot - 18.81 acres Smallest Lot - .34 acres Average Lot Size - 1.48 acres; 64,470 square feet Proposed Uses Single Family Residential - 100% Existing and Proposed Utilities and Facilities Sewage Disposal - It is proposed that sanitary sewer service will be provided by the South Fort Collins Sanitation District per the terms and conditions of the District. The District currently has a sanitary sewer main running from west to east through the property just south of the proposed lots. The Developer will be responsible for installing any and all required sewer mains in the proposed development. Water Supply - It is proposed that the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District will provide the required water to the subdivision per the terms and conditions of the District. The District 2 currently has water mains stubbed into the west side of the property. The Developer will be responsible for installing any and all required water mains in the proposed development. Irrigation - There is currently no water available for irrigation of the individual lots. All proposed landscaping will be limited by the covenants and will need to be irrigated from the domestic water supply with taps purchased from the Water District. The existing water wells on the property will continue to serve as irrigation for the pasture and agricultural uses for lot 22. Concept Level Stormwater Report - Please see the attached report prepared by Shear Engineering Corporation Fire Protection - Fire Protection for the property shall be provided by the Poudre Fire Authority. The nearest stations to the site are station number 5 located at 4615 Hogan Drive and station number 10 located at 2067 Vermont. Per Ron Gonzalas of the Poudre Fire Authority, both stations would be discharged for any emergency in the area of the proposed development. The road travel distance to the project is 5.0 miles from station number 5 and 4.6 miles from station number 10. Roads - The site would gain access from the west at Rookery Ct. and would connect to the proposed development to the east and north. All roads are proposed to be designed to the City of Fort Collins local street standards with a 51' ROW. All lots would have access from the internal streets with the exception of the existing home that would continue to use its existing access from Egret Court. Landscaping All streets shall be landscaped per the City of Fort Collins standards at the time of development. All individual lots shall be landscaped be the homeowner at the time the homes are constructed. Off -Road Parking Each homesite will be required to have a minimum of two- (2) off street parking spaces. Also, the streets will be design to allow on -street parking in addition to the required off-street parking. Land Dedications There are no proposed land dedications within the proposed development although as noted above, it is proposed that portions of lot 22, the existing home site, would have a conservation easement place on it but would remain in the ownership and maintenance responsibility of the current owner. This conservation easement on the southern portions of the property would serve as a buffer to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Wildlife Resource Area. The existing home and outbuildings would remain and this property would continue to be used for pasture and light agricultural uses. Unique Features The property is located within the Fossil Creek Resource Management Area and is adjacent to the Fossil Creek Reservoir to the south. Most of the unique features associated with the property are located to the south of the property surrounding the reservoir and are described in the Site Inventory Report which is being submitted as part of the Sketch Plan Submittal. 3 Existing Uses of Property The property is currently used as a single-family residence on 35 acres. There are several outbuildings and a barn and the property owner uses portions of the property for pasture and light agricultural uses. Also, a small pond exists to the west of the existing home. Common Areas There are no proposed common areas within the development. Previous Development Proposals The County has no records of any previous development proposals or submittals on this property. Plans for a Homeowner's Association A Homeowner's Association will be formed at the time of final platting and prior to the sale of any lots. The Association will be responsible for the review of home design and enforcement of the covenants. PARKS AND OPEN LANDS DEPARTMENT 1800 South County Road 31 Loveland, CO 80537 (970) 679-4570 (970) 679-4574 -Fax January 3, 2000 Dr. Douglas Beard 2500 E.Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Dr. Beard: Thank you for taking the time and initiative to discuss potential development plans for your property at Fossil Creek Reservoir with Larimer County, City of Fort Collins, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife natural resources representatives. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input and perspective to potential development in this area prior to any formalization of plans. After our field visits to your property on November 29, 1999 and December 8, 1999. Kim Kreimcyer (City of Fort Collins Natural Resources, Andre Duvall (Colorado Division of Wildlife), and I met to discuss our various perspectives on the appropriate development setback for your property for wildlife purposes. As you are aware, a substantial amount of your property lies within the '/4 mile Fossil Creek Resource Management Area. Given the location of your property with respect to wintering bald eagle activity and congregations of wintering waterfowl, we would normally recommend that development be kept outside the full '/4 mile buffer. However, there are mitigating circumstances that suggest that the full '/4 mile buffer is not necessary. First, your own home is in close proximity to the reservoir. This close proximity of human activity and pets does impact wildlife behavior, eliminating potential for the most sensitive use of the area by bald eagles - winter roosting. In addition, the construction of your home on a berm provides a visual barrier for waterfowl resting on the reservoir to activity behind your home. Finally, there is relatively dense housing development occurring around your property due to the Fossil Lake PUD and the Fossil Lake PUD-Swift Addition. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the cumulative impact of substantial development in close proximity to the reservoir shores and do not feel that the '/4 mile buffer should be compromised more than absolutely necessary. This is particularly true given the high use of this area of the Reservoir by wintering bald eagles and the fact that other raptors also use the buffer area for foraging. Given the mitigating circumstances concerning your property while also addressing the potential for negative cumulative impact, we recommend the following guidelines for development on your property. • We recommend a revised buffer setback. This buffer should run from the southern boundary of the SW corner lot of the Swift Addition to Fossil Lake PUD to the southern boundary of the lot on the SF comer of Rookery Road and Rookery Ct. of the Fossil Lake PUD (see attached map). This revised setback will enable lots to be developed on the south side of Rookery Ct. when it eventually connects to the road system on the northeast section of the Fossil Lake PUD development. In addition, there is room for cul-de-sac to the east and west of the road. We estimate that this new buffer boundary is 200-250 feet within the '/4 mile buffer. • As with other development proposals submitted within the Fossil Creek Reservoir area, we would also recommend that adequate visual screening be utilized along the southern borders of the southern most lots in the development. This would be more critical on the west side of the potential development area since your house acts as a partial screen to the east. As we mentioned earlier, these are preliminary recommendations. Any development proposal most go through a full public and agency review during which modifying factors may come in to play. Nevertheless, we feel that the recommendations presented here are sound and reasonable and should carry substantial weight during any development review process. If you have any questions, please call me at 679-4576, Kim Kreimeyer at 221-6641, or Andr6 Duvall at 218-4959. Thank you again for taking time to work with us. Sincerely, IaA�/� �d�j Daryl R. Burkhard Open Lands Resource Specialist cc. Andre Duvall, Colorado Division of Wildlife Kim Kreimeyer, Fort Collins Natural Resources Russ Legg, Larimer County Planning Matt Lafferty, Latimer County Planning Fossil Lake Estates Planned Development Larimer County, Colorado Sketch Plan Review Review Criteria August 28, 2001 As per Section 5.2.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, Review Criteria, to approve a Planned Development application, County Commissioners must find the following conditions exist: A. The Planned Development complies with the Intergovernmental Agreement for the applicable Growth Management Area, including the applicable town or city master plan elements cited in the Intergovernmental Agreement or the Laporte Area Land Use Plan, as applicable; B. The Planned Development is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area; C. The Planned Development complies with all standards and technical requirements of this Code and with all other federal, state and County laws and regulations; D. The Planned Development complies with requirements of Section 8 (Standards for All Development) of this code except as they may be modified by Intergovernmental Agreement. The Sketch Plan as submitted complies with all of the above conditions for the following reasons: A. The proposed development complies with the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County including the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. B. The proposed development is compatible with the existing, proposed, and allowed land uses in the surrounding area. The existing Fossil Lake PUD is currently under construction to the west of the property as larger lot, single family detached homes. Smaller lot patio homes and/or townhomes are being planned and constructed along the northwest portion of the property and planned to the north of the project. Also the developer of the Fossil lake PUD is planning smaller lot single family homes to the east of the project. This project with help provide a transition from the higher density developments to the north to less dense development within this project and also a continuation of the conservation easement to the west through the southern portions of this project. C. This proposed development will comply with all standards and technical requirements of the Land Use Code as well as all other federal, state and County laws and regulations. D. The Fossil Lake Estates PD will comply with the requirements of Section 8 of the Land Use Code including: a. Section 8.1 Adequate Public Facilities 8.1.1 Sewage Disposal Level of Service Standards - Sanitary sewer service shall be provided for by the South Fort Collins Sanitation District per the rules and regulations of the District. 8.1.2 Domestic Water Level of Service Standards - Water service shall be provided for by the Ft. Collins/Loveland Water District per the rules and regulations of the District. 8.1.3 Drainage Level of Service Standards - As per the submitted conceptual drainage study prepared by Shear Engineering Corporation, the proposed development shall comply with the "Urban Level of Service -Subsurface Drainage " requirements. 8.1.4 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service Level of Service Standards - Fire Protection and Emergency Services will be provided for by the Poudre Fire Authority_ The nearest stations to the site are station number 5 located at 4615 Mogan Drive and station number 10 located at 2067 Vermont. Per Ron Gonzalas of the Poudre Fire Authority, both stations would be discharged for any emergency in the area of the proposed development. The road travel distance to the project is 5.0 miles from station number 5 and 4.6 miles from station number 10. All roads are currently paved to the site. Also, urban level water supply and hydrants will be provided for within the proposed development. 8.1.5 Road Capacity and Level of Service Standard - All roads to the site are currently paved as will all internal roads within the project. We believe that the traffic generated from the proposed development will have a negligible impact on the existing roads in the area. b. Section 8.2 Wetland Areas Any wetlands within the 35-acre parcel are located to the south of the proposed cluster development and will be preserved in their current state. The proposed development should have no impact on them. c. Section 8.3 Hazard Areas As per the Larimer County inventory maps, there are no known hazard areas within the proposed development. d. Section 8.4 Wildlife As per the "Sketch Plan Review, Vegetation and Wildlife Summary" submitted with this Sketch Plan Review, significant wildlife and vegetation habitat is found to the south of the site at the Fossil Creek Reservoir. The site has been surveyed by the County Parks and Open Lands Department, the City of Fort Collins Natural Resource Department and the Colorado Division of Wildlife on several occasions. Based upon their visits and analysis, it has been suggested by the Division of Wildlife that the 1/4-mile buffer zone from the reservoir be reduced to approximately 1,200 feet. We have complied with this recommendation by CDOW. e. Section 8.5 Landscaping As per the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.2, these standards do not apply to single family residential lots. f. Section 8.6 Off -Road Parking Standards 2 The proposed development shall comply will the requirements of off -road parking for one and two-family residential developments. g. Section 8.7 Signs The proposed development shall comply with all sign standards of the Land Use Code. It. Section 8.8Irrigation Facilities The proposed development shall comply with all requirements of the Land Use Code related to Irrigation facilities. i. Section 8.9 Supplementary Regulations The proposed development shall comply with all of the County's Engineering regulations as well as the development regulations for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Supplementary Regulations for the Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone. j. Section 8.10 Management Plans A management plan shall be prepared for the open areas within the proposed conservation easement upon final platting of the property. This management plan shall meet the intent of the Land Use Code Section 8.10. k. Section 8.11 Air Quality The proposed development shall comply will all County, state and federal air quality standards and will control fugitive dust emissions during construction. 1. Section 8.12 Water Quality Management Standards The proposed development shall comply with all County, state and federal water quality standards including those regulating erosion and sedimentation, storm drainage and runoff control, solid wastes and hazardous substances. in. Section 8.13 Commercial Mineral Deposits There are no known commercial mineral deposits within the proposed development. n. Section 8.14 Development Design We believe that the proposed development meets and/or exceeds all of the Land Use Code development design standards and guidelines as well as the easement and utility standards, block standards, and the road surfacing requirements. o. Section 8.15 Site Lighting With the exception of lighting for residential public streets, no other exterior lighting is proposed. p. Section 8.16 Fences Fhe proposed development shall meet all of the Land Use Code requirements for fences. q. Section 8.17 Setbacks The proposed development shall meet all of the Land Use Code requirements for setbacks with additional rear setbacks for the lots on the southern portion of the cluster development. r. Section 8.18 Lot Requirements 8.18.1 Minimum Lot Width - We believe the proposed development will meet the required minimum lot width requirements at the front building setback. 8.18.2 Minimum Lot Area - The lots as proposed would be clustered on the northerly 16 acres of the site and would not meet the minimum lot size required of the Estate Residential Area but the Code allows for the Board to waive this requirement. We would be requesting that the Board grant a waiver on the minimum lot size requirement based upon the clustering of the homesites. This waiver is allowed per section 8.9.2.A.LC.2of the Land Use Code. s. Section 8.19 Maximum Structure Height All new homes within the proposed development shall not exceed the maximum building height requirement of Section 4.1 of the Land Use Code for the PD zoning district. t. Section 8.20 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal The proposed development will not generate any hazardous waste. u. Section 8.21 Large Retail Development Not Applicable 4 Some specific recommendations for connecting to the out parcels will be mapped on Monday. OFF -SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS A traffic study has not been submitted/provided - without this, we cannot determine traffic patterns or volumes which may dictate required improvements. (For instance, would the proposed connection of CR 9 to Timberline be required?) The bottom line, however, seems to be that the project is outside the UGA. Therefore, we cannot require improvements - it's up to the County. (It was noted that the submittal packet referred to "fully improved streets" but did not say what the improvements were or what standards were used.) STREET STANDARDS Again, a traffic study is needed to determine anticipated volumes to see what standards would be required. (The street sections on the drawings did not appear to relate to any standards - they definitely were not using City standards. It was noted that if this property was in the UGA, at a minimum ROW dedication and improvements to CR9 and 36 (38?) Would be required.) MISCELLANEOUS The intent of the County needs to be determined - do they expect this development to be part of the City in the future or are they getting into the business of urban development? Our review could be substantially different if they are clear this is expected to be in the City in the future. Perhaps this is a referral that should receive a recommendation from P&Z if there's time? Sketch Plan Review, Vegetation and Wildlife Summary Fossil Lake Estates PD, Fossil Creek Reservoir Prepared For: PineCrest Planning and Design 4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared By: Wildland Consultants, Inc. 1001 Jefferson Drive Berthoud, CO 80513 August, 28 2001 LO Introduction The proposed project is located along the north shoreline of Fossil Creek Reservoir. The total size of the property is 35 acres_ The proposed development includes 21 single family lots on 162 acres. The remaining 18.8 acres (lot 22) will be placed under a conservation easement with maintenance the responsibility of the land owner. This conservation easement will serve as open space and provide a buffer zone to protect sensitive wildlife resources at Fossil Creek Reservoir. The current land use on the site is agriculture- The site includes an existing home, garage, and barn. The purpose of this report is to summarize the existing vegetation and wildlife resources occurring on the proposed development site and within 1,200 feet of the proposed development. The review of vegetation and wildlife resources was completed to comply with Larimer County requirements for the Sketch Plan Review. Figure I details vegetation types, wetlands, and important wildlife habitat within 1,200 feet of the development site. Attachment A includes photographs of the proposed development site. Fossil Creek Reservoir provides regionally important habitat to a variety of waterbirds and waterfowl. The federally listed bald eagle frequents the reservoir especially during the winter periods. The reservoir is the site for a proposed regional park. Extensive planning has already occurred with the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County to allow for development while protecting the sensitive wildlife resources present in the area. 2.0 Vegetation Resources 2.1 Development Site The dominant vegetation type on the development site is agricultural (Attachment A, Photograph 2)_ The site includes alfalfa and grassland pasture. Field edges and ditches support smooth brome grass, and a variety of weedy species. All of the proposed lots are located on agricultural lands. A small pond and surrounding wetland occur at the southern edge of the site (Attachment A, Photograph I ). Dominant plant species surrounding this pond include cattail, and American threesquare This wetland is part of the proposed Fossil Creek Reservoir buffer zone and will not be impacted by the proposed development. The existing house is located adjacent to the wetland area. 2.2 Site Vicinity The dominant vegetation type within 1,200 feet of the development site is agricultural land (Site Inventory Map)- Agricultural land in the area includes pasture, hay fields, and corn fields- New development is replacing agricultural land to the west of the project. The Site Inventory Map details the wetland and riparian areas that are located within 1,200 feet of the development site. The wetlands include shoreline areas around Fossil Creek Reservoir Wooded riparian sites along the reservoir are dominated by plains cottonwood trees, peach leaf willow trees.. and an understory of grasses and forbs. Emergent wetlands along the reservoir support cattail, American threesquare, coyote willow and other species. Most other shoreline areas are dominated by reed canary grass, smooth brome, and other introduced species. Other wetlands and riparian habitat that occur within 1,200 feet of the proposed development include those associated with an unnamed drainage and a small pond to the northeast of the site and a small manmade pond to the southwest of the site. 3.0 Wildlife Resources 3.1 Development Site The development site is dominated by agricultural land. The site supports wildlife species associated with agricultural land- Common species include Canada geese, meadow lark, horned lark, mourning dove. deer mouse, and other species. Raptors use the site for foraging_ There are no unique or key wildlife habitats in the northern half of the site where the proposed lots are located. The most valuable wildlife habitat on the site is associated with the pond/wetland and shoreline zone of Fossil Creek Reservoir. The existing home is located in this area. This 2 area is part of the development buffer zone from the reservoir. Wintering bald eagles occasionally day roost in the large cottonwood trees along the southern property boundary_ Bald eagle night roosts are located approximately 2,800 feet away from the southern property boundary. 3.2 Site Vicinity The most important wildlife habitat in the area is associated with Fossil Creek Reservoir. The reservoir provides important habitat to waterfowl, waterbirds, and raptors. The reservoir is classified as a bald eagle winter concentration area, a waterfowl concentration area, and a white pelican feeding and resting area (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1998). A wide variety of waterfowl and waterbirds use the shallow shoreline areas and mudflats along the reservoir for foraging and resting. The reservoir provides important resting habitat to fall and spring migrating waterfowl (Wildland Consultants, Inc. 2000). The reservoir supports an active great blue heron rookery, and winter bald eagle nighttime roost sites (Adams and Adams 1997, CDOW 1998, EDAW 2000). Figure 1 shows the locations of these sites within 1,200 feet of the project area. The great blue heron rookery is located approximately 2,800 feet from the south edge of the site and 3,500 feet from the nearest development lot. The rookery is located in a wooded riparian area along the shoreline of the reservoir (CDOW 1998). The nearest bald eagle night roost site is located approximately 2,800 feet from the south edge of the site and 3,200 feet from the nearest development lot. Bald eagles utilize large cottonwood trees along the shoreline of the reservoir adjacent to the southern property boundary for day roosting The open water areas (including shallow shoreline zones and exposed mudflats) serve as waterfowl and waterbird concentration sites. Open water habitats occur just to the north of the existing house on the site. New development lots are buffered from the open water habitats by approximately 600-900 feet of agricultural land. 4.0 Summary Project construction will result in the conversion of 16.2 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. Wildlife species using the agricultural land may be displaced. Some loss of foraging habitat to raptors will occur- There are no important wildlife habitats located in the development zone. A buffer zone of approximately 1,200 feet from the reservoir to the nearest lot will help preserve wildlife use of Fossil Creek Reservoir. The buffer zone will be part of a conservation easement. Use of the reservoir by sensitive wildlife species (great blue heron, other waterbirds, bald eagles) is expected to continue after development is completed. 3 5.0 References Adams, A.Y and R.D. Adams. 1997. Winter Roosting and Perching of Bald Eagles at Fossil Creek Reservoir, Latimer, County, Co. Report Prepared For City of Fort Collins. Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1998. Wildlife Habitat Maps for Larimer County. EDAW. 1999. Fossil Creek Reservoir Resource Management Plan. Wildland Consultants, Inc. 2000. Field Surveys, Fossil Creek Reservoir Management Plan. 4 Attachment A Photo 1- View to south across buffer zone towards wetland/pond and Hossu Lreelc Reservoir. s�� Photo 2- zone to development area. Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning City of Fort Collins TO: , Council Growth Management Committee THROUGH: John Fischbach, City Man erMO.� Greg Byrne, CPES Directo FROM: Bob Blanchard, Current Plan Ving erector �x DATE: September 15, 1997 SUBJECT: Fossil Lake PUD ISSUE: The Fossil Lake Special Area Plan is nearing completion and will be considered by both the City and the County in the near future. At the same time, a sizeable development application (Fossil Lake PUD) has been submitted to the County and forwarded to the City for review as a County referral. City staff have identified significant issues with this PUD application beyond just the timing with the adoption of the special area plan that have been forwarded to County staff. The City has always seen this area as a logical expansion of the Urban Growth Area. However, if the County were to approve develoomen: proposals in this area, it is questionable if we would be amenable to annexation i, developments were not to City standards. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: County staff have inquired as to what changes to the Fossil Lake PUD would be needed to ensure the City would agree to annex the property when it becomes eligible. The Council Growth Management Committee is being asked to identify these issues. In addition, the Committee should comment on the timing of the development application prior to the adoption of the special area plan. BACKGROUND: Recognizing the land use and natural resource issues surrounding the Fossil Lake reservoir and the probability of this area being considered for an expansion of the City's Urban Growth Area (UGA), the City and the County initiated a joint study of the area. An area plan is expected to be presented to the City and County for adoption by February or :March of 1998. In the interim, the County has received a development application covering a significant portion of the planning area (Fossil Lake PUD). The City is providing information and 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 comments to the County as part of the County Referral process. The following provides a brief discussion of staff identified issues as background for Committee discussion. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FOSSIL LAKE PUD: The Fossil Lake PUD Preliminary Plat and Master Plan is a request for approval of a non- contigbous PUD (two separate parcels) with density transfer from the south parcel to the north parcel The south parcel is currently used as a farm, and is located on the east side of Duck Lake and Mud Lake, between County Roads 30 and 32 and to the west of County Road 9. The north property is located at the southeast corner of County Roads 36 and 9. • Total number of acres = 745.8 acres north parcel = 465.19 acres south parcel = 280.59 acres • Total number of proposed lots = 425 • Overall density = 1.75 acres per dwelling unit • Number of dwelling units = 424 • One 10 acre industrial site on the southern parcel. • Existing zoning: north parcel - FA1 Farming (allows for densities of 2 acres/1 dwelling unit if part of a PUD) south parcel - AP Airport (allows for 1 unit per 2.29 acres) • The project is located within Subareas 16 and 17 of the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. The preferred scenario for these subareas is preservation in recognition of its natural resources values. Residential development would be allowed as an alternative. ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOSSIL LAKE PUD: Regulatory Questions • There is some question on how this is defined as a PUD. The County regulations define a PUD; however, there is no language concerning non-contiguous PUDs. The County staff commented that non-contiguous PUDs have been accomplished in the past, and, therefore, a precedent has been established. The County PUD Resoiution does not include the Airport zoning district as one where PUDs are allowed. However, the AP zone mentions PUDs in the County zoning ordinance. There remains some gray area as to whether the two parcels can be combined into one PUD. • The plan apparently utilizes a program of transfer of development rights when the County does not have an adopted TDR program. The County staff has indicated that this proposal is not using TDRs, but is shifting the density of one part of the PUD to another area. The proposal states that the density from the southern parcel (which would equate to one unit per 2.29 acres) is being transferred to the northern parcel. The issues surrounding this matter include the number of units being transferred, the manner that these units are being calculated, and the fact that the transferring of that density is resulting in open space which is then in turn being applied towards the 30% open space requirement per the PUD Resolution (the County's PUD regulations require that a minimum of 30% of the developable area within a project be retained as open space). • There are also inconsistencies between the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and the zoning, PUD, subdivision and mobile homes regulations. The adopting re�olL,ticn for the IGA states that when there are inconsistencies, the provisions of the IGA take precedence The IGA also has Land Use Policies specifically for the area beyond the Urban Growth Area which state: "Residential development will only be allowed at a density of 5 acres per dwelling unit unless the proposed development is within a PUD where the density can be increased to 2.29 acres per dwelling unit." [Exhibit A, Section 3.1.C.1(a)] Open Space Question and Appropriate Buffer Zones • The PUD resolution states that 30% of all developable land in a PUD must be open space Rough estimates on the number of acres dedicated to open space indicate that the northern parcel, taken as a separate entity, does not meet the open space requirement. It is only after the open space from the southern parcel is added into the e auation that the requirement is exceeded. The issue here is double -counting -- once for the density transfer and a second time in the calculation of the required amount of open space • There are several wildlife areas, as well as natural areas, associated with the Fossil Lake PUD Bald eagle night roosting areas and heron rookeries exist along the north shore of the Reservoir, (the south side of the development proposal) and the iss,ie of the appropriate buffer zone is not yet resolved. Based on the date of the Division of Wildlife letter in the submittal packet, there is some concern that they may have reviewed and provided comments on an earlier version of the Fossil Lake PUD that showed a greater buffer area. There is also a conflict with some of their cocvnents. In a letter dated this February, they indicated that there should be a 300 yard setback from the lake However, in other statements they have indicated a preference for a 1/4 mile setback. The Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, the Fossil Creek Area Plan, and the State's raptor biologist all recommend the 1/4 mile setback as well. The Fossil Lake PUD proposal, in some areas, does not meet a 300 foot buffer zone, which is seen as grossly inadequate by the City"s Natural Resources staff. Furthermore, no wildlife mitigation studies have been completed by the applicant to identify how these regionally sensitive wildlife resources will be protected as part of the development plan or how adverse impacts will be mitigated. Significant redesign of the project will be needed to accomplish this resource protection. Density Questions • A comparison of the proposed project with the Fossil Creek Area Plan (not yet adopted) and the City Structure Plan was completed by City staff . This analysis was completed based upon the definition of developable land per the Land Use Code including the netting out of appropriate areas identified in the Code. It demonstrated that while the density is close in some areas to the densities outlined in the Fossil Creek Area Plan, the project does not comply 100% with that planning document. With density shifts from areas closer to the reservoir (those natural resource/buffer areas discussed above) to create more buffer, the plan would conform to a greater degree than currently shown. Transportation -Related Questions • I; is unclear wh t street standards are being used for the street system in the Fossil Lake PUD. Ina lion, the loc ure connections from this proposal to outparcels are not shown. traffic stud has not beensubmitted as of yet, and this will help to flush out some of the issues regarding the design (structural) of the street system and the number of connections to various locations. The main concerns of the City staff are both the structural and urban design of the street system allowing high porosity for all modes of travel within and to the proposal. docfil\co u n cd\b s u ❑ Ke.wptl