Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-11-06COUNTY REFERRAL COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current COMMENTS TO:Russell Legg BY: 3 July, 1996 TYPE OF MEETING: Concept Technical Review PROJECT: Fossil Lake Villages PUD FROM: City of Fort Collins Engineering Department THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department PLANNER: Mitch Haas City comments must be received in Current Planning Department by: Tuesday, June 11, 1996 ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) • Appropriate ROW and improvements shall be made for all roads along the frontage of this property. County Road 9 and County Road 7 are currently considered Collectors. County Road 36 is currently considered an Arterial street. • Are their any existing or planned access points on the east side of County Road 9 or north side of County Road 367 These should be shown. Access points into this subdivision should line up or be adequately separated from access points on the other side of the road. • Any dead end streets (including County Roads) shall be terminated in public turn grounds. • Off site road improvements shall be done as necessary and as warranted by traffic impacts. • In between parcels B, G, K and F a roundabout is shown with a median in the southern leg of the roundabout; this will not work. The median and the roundabout are both fine ideas, but will not work well together in this configuration. • A lot of roundabouts are shown in this plan. These will not be very effective in slowing traffic unless a stop is provided on all three legs of the intersection, it does not appear possible with the number of roundabouts shown that stop signs will be warrant at all those intersections Date: ��i� �� Signature:��_� March 6, 1998 Mr. Russell Legg Larimer County Planning Division P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Russell: City staff has reviewed the resubmittal for the proposed Fossil Lake PUD that is scheduled for the Larimer County Planning Commission on March 16, 1998. We applaud the applicant's redesign. It incorporates street layout and connectivity as well as density and urban design concepts as suggested by City Plan and the standards in the Land Use Code. However, it is the opinion of our staff that this project is not ready to proceed to the public hearing phase of the development review process due to the lack of sufficient detail and information related to storm drainage and transportation. Additional concerns and comments offered by staff in these two departments are included within this comment letter. Based upon the lack of information to be reviewed by both City as Aell as County staff, it is the City's recommendation to the Larimer County Planning Commission that the project be continued until a later date to allow for submittal of additional materials and adequate time for review and recommendation. Comments related to Transportation and Engineering: ■ All off -site improvements should be articulated. Off -site road improvements should be done as necessary and as warranted by the future traffic impact study, including bike, bus and pedestrian movements. The changes to the street system as proposed in the redesign of the Fossil Lakes PUD are significant enough to warrant the resubmittal of a transportation study so that proposed impacts may be studied and an evaluation of the proposed off -site improvements may be undertaken. ■ Pedestrian and bicycle connections should be encouraged between all cul-de- sacs and CR9 and CR36. 100 LaPorte ,Avenue • P.0 R(A 580 • Fort Collins, (1) 80S22-0580 • (303) 221-6505 Letter to Russell Legg, Larimer County Planning Division March 6, 1998 Page 2 ■ Please provide a detail of the round -a -bout so that the design may be evaluated (in relation to the number of daily trips) as well as the location(s), if any, of any proposed facilities within the round -a -bout. In what manner is the off -road bike and pedestrian trail being accommodated through the project? This should be indicated on all the plans and addressed in the project description. The street named "Technology Parkway" may need to be renamed as it does not align with the proposed street of the same name associated with the Celestica development south of Harmony Road. Comments related to Natural Resources: ■ City staff agrees with the comments outlined by Daryl R. Burkhard with the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands. A copy of her comments (from the memo dated March 2, 1998) is attached. ■ The proposed plan shows the dimensions from the shore line to the centerline of the road. Rather the dimensions should be indicated from the shoreline to the building envelope. ■ We would encourage that language to the effect that farm equipment is to be used only in the summer months is incorporated on the plans as well as in any development agreements. The appropriate timing should be determined in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommendations. ■ City staff suggests that the conservation easement for the buffer area be administered and regulated by a third party. ■ We request a general note to the effect that construction activities within the buffer zone shall be timed so as to avoid disturbance of eagles and herons using trees. This will limit suitable construction periods considerably. (The Colorado Division of Wildlife should be contacted to get a window of dates). Herons will typically be active in the summertime months, and disturbance must be limited in the wintertime so as to minimize the impacts upon the bald eagles. ■ The design of all stormwater facilities should fit into the ecological context — oversized if necessary — to avoid any rigid, man-made "engineered" appearance to the extent feasible. The design of such facilities should be coordinated with Letter to Russell Legg, Larimer County Planning Division March 6, 1998 Page 3 the City's Natural Resources Department. ■ Attached are redlined plans that offer additional comments (mostly related to labeling and site -specific details on the site and landscape plans.) Comments related to Storm Drainage: ■ A drainage and erosion control report is needed for the site. Also, the preliminary drainage plan does not have the level of detail needed to review. The applicant should submit a drainage plan that meets the submittal requirements of the City of Fort Collins. Additional comments may arise once all information is provided. We are concerned that the reports accompanying this proposal are not based upon the design and layout as submitted. The layout and density may not work with all stormwater criteria. Thus, the design as shown on the paper may be required to be substantially changed to reflect stormwater needs. ■ The outfall channel for the McClellands basin is located at the northeast corner of the site. Hydraulic evaluations of the channel should be performed to identify the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the site. A small portion of the development site lies in the McClelland's drainage basin; fees in that basin are $3,717/acre. The balance of the site lies in the Fossil Creek drainage basin, and fees in that basin are $2,274/acre. ■ Off -site drainage easements are needed to convey runoff from the site boundaries to Fossil Creek Reservoir. The applicant should submit letters of intent to demonstrate that the project will be able to acquire the necessary easements. ■ There appears to be some irrigation facilities that cross the site. Approval from the owners of the irrigation facilities will be needed. Also, existing off -site drainage flows that may enter the canal and drain to the site should be considered. ■ Water quality treatment will be needed for the site. The proposed areas for water quality are shown on the plans; however, there are no descriptions of the type of water quality proposed to be used. ■ In order to increase the stability of the shoreline, plantings and shallow areas that serve to break waves are recommended. While this serves to increase shoreline Letter to Russell Legg, Larimer County Planning Division March 6, 1998 Page 4 stability, it may also result in limiting access to the Reservoir. The construction and planting associated with shoreline stability should be timed to avoid disturbance of wildlife associated with the Reservoir. Comments related to Planning and Urban Design: ■ Please show conceptual/potential connections to the 10 acre parcel to the north. We are aware that the property owner who resides in this area is concerned about these connections, so in order to reduce any possibility of conflict by showing defined streets and locations, we recommend that a note regarding connections be placed on the plan that clearly says these are conceptual and do not reflect exact locations. However, we do feel that it is important to identify that there will be street connections as well as pedestrian connections thru this site at such time that it develops. Please identify the uses for the neighborhood center. City Plan describes neighborhood centers as "a year-round gathering place accessible to all residents." It is described as being no large than 7 acres and including some of the following: recreation facility, school, children's and adults' day care, place of assembly and worship, small civic facility, neighborhood -serving market, shops, small professional offices, clinics, and other small business. The option of multi- family should not be included in the list of uses for the site. ■ The sizes of all tracts should be shown. We recommend that additional uses for Tract B be included, allowing for the possibility of a daycare facility as well as other non -retail uses. Are there any proposed transit stops? These should be provided on the plans and the developer should be required to escrow funds for the completion of these stops if he is not willing to complete the improvements as a component of the development itself. Attached are redlined plans indicating additional site -specific comments and concerns. Again, it is our recommendation to the Larimer County Planning Division and County staff that this project be continued until a later date to allow for the submittal of additional materials and adequate time for review and recommendation, especially in regards to storm drainage and transportation -related concerns. Letter to Russell Legg, Larimer County Planning Division March 6, 1998 Page 5 Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments regarding this proposal. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John F. Fischbach City Manager attachments xc: Mayor Azari and Members of Council Larimer County Planning Commission Frank Lancaster, County Manager Everitt Companies, 3000 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Greg Byrne, CPES Director Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director Leanne Harter, City Planner, Current Planning Pete Wray, City Planner, Advance Planning f1AK-Ob-98 NO 14:68 LAKIPltR CO PARKS OAR'IEK FAX NO. 303 679 4574 P.02 "rft,0 TO: Russ Legg, Larimer County Planning Department FROM: Daryl R. Burkhard, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands DATE: March 2. 1998 RE: Fossil Lake PUD PARKS DEPARTMENT 1800 South County Road 31 Loveland. CO 80537 (970) 6794570 r= (970) 679-4574 I have reviewed the revised proposal for the Fossil Lake PUD dated January 28, 1998. 1 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 Larimer 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. There are a several comments, however, that I would like to make regarding the proposal. These comments include: 1) the location of lot 14 with regard to the core conservation area defined and discussed in my memorandum of November 16, 1997; 2) the location of the farm storage/equipment building envelop in relationship to the core conservation area; 3) visual screening and landscaping conditions associated with lots 11, 12, I3. and 14; 4) the design and construction period of the water detention areas; 5) basic terms and conditions of the conservation easement on outlet T; 6) the use of the non-contiguous parcel; and 7) overall management of the natural resources area. In addition to these items, there appear to be a parcel or other structure designated along the shoreline in some versions of the Fossil Lake PUD master plan diagrams. We are unclear what this represents. Since this occurs in a designated open space area adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitat, we feel that clarification is essential. The location of lot 14 with regard to the core conservation area. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands is concerned about the location of lot 14. This lot crosses into a minimum setback area, the core conservation area, which is designed to protect the most sensitive natural resource areas on the north shore of Fossil Creek Reservoir. Tt is critical that all recidential lot boundaries and other development be kept outside of this core natural resource protection area_ This is particularly important given that the core conservation area delineated in previous discussions and memorandums establishes a minimum protection area. As discussed in my memorandum dated November 16, 1997, the core conservation area consists of the minimum setbacks recommended in scientific literature and by the Colorado Division of Wildlife for heron rookeries and bald eagle winter right roosts and hunting perches. In summary, these setbacks consists of 250 meters or 900 feet for heron rookeries, '/ mile or 1320 feet for bald eagle winter night roosts, and 1/ 8 mile or 660 feet for bald ease hunting perches. These minimum setbacks are usually recommended for areas that are heavily wooded or where visual range for the birds is limited. In the current situation, the area is open and flat with a long visual range for the birds. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands, the City of Fort Collins, and the Colorado Division of tinK-Uo-ao [HU 14:Jy LHKINtK UU fHKKS UHKItK hAX NO. 3U3 bl9 4b/4 K U3 Wildlife, however, are willing to work with minimum setbacks for several reasons including: 1) the developer has expressed a willingness to establish visual barriers for the birds through tree planting and landscaping codes for lots closest to the sensitive wildlife areas, and 2) the bald eagles that have been wintering in the Fort Collins area have demonstrated some tolerance for human activity and may be adaptable to the smaller setback distances. Given that the core conservation area utilized minimum setback recommendations, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands, the City of Fort Collins, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife discussed the desirability of additional buffer areas with the applicant. These discussions are reflected in the new Fossil take PUD application showing lots 11, 12, and 13 following the periphery of the quarter mile setback study area. It was recognized that the need for this larger buffer area was not as critical as one approached the eastern bounday of the project due to the presence of an existing residence on the shoreline of the adjacent property. The existence of this residential structure compromises the natural resource buffer area in the immediate area and minimizes its value. Therefore, all of the parties agreed that residential development further within the quarter mile buffer would be acceptable as one approached this eastern boundary. "lhis discussion may have let to some confusion, however, with regard to the core conservation area. Therefore, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands would like to reiterate that it it critical that deye mmnent and residential lot boundarieS be kept aunide of the core conservation area. We would like to recommend that lot 14 be moved further north so that the lot boundaries will fall outside of the core conservation area. The location of the farm storage/equipment building envelop in relationship to the core conservation area. In previous discussions with the applicant, the subject of a farm storage/equipment building in the natural resource bt ffer area was addressed in whichthe applicant suggested that this envelop be south of what has been labeled lot 14. Since this building .will be used during the stammer season and not during the bald eagle wintering season, the presence of this building in the quarter mile buffer area, but outside the northern periphery of the core conservation area, was acceptable. In its current location , however, the farm storage/equipment building envelop is well within the core conservation area which represents the minimum setback area. 1i7e request that this building envelop be moved outside of the core conservation area. This building envelop should he as close to the northeastern border of the overall buffer area as possible. The movement of lot 14 to the north of the core conservation area should accommodate the movement of the farm storage/equipment building envelop. We wouid Like to stress that the activity for the farm storage/equipment building should be limited to farm storage or farm equipment where winter activity during the months of November through February is not anticipated. It should not be used for any all season activity such as an equestrian center. Visual screening and landscaping conditions associated with lots 11 12 14 and 14 As mentioned above, the core conservation area is defined based upon minimum setback standards. The acceptable use of these minimum setbacks is contingent upon the establishment of visual screening of human activity in lots adjacent to the natural resource buffer. Therefore, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands requests that fairly large evergreens be planted either along the northern periphery of outlot T or within the residential lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 so as to visually screen human activity in the backyards- ofthe four lots. The use of large evergreens in the initial landscaping is important vunIu, ILIA uu. JUJ Utz] 4J14 r.U4 given the number of years it takes for small young trees to grow to a sufficient height for effective visual screening. Hardwood trees may be intermingled with the evergreen trees, but the evergreen trees provide the effective screening in the winter when eagle activity is most sensitive. The screening need not block scenic dews from the houses and their windows but should obscure the bird's view of most of the human activity that occurs in the yards. We suggest that covenants be in place that require landscaping to be reviewed by the homeowners association, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands, the City of Fort Collins, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife We also suggest that these lot owners participate in a larger natural resource management effort for Fossil Creek Reservoir as a whole. Design and construction period of the water detention areas. The design of the water detention areas should be based upon a natural system utilizing native vegetation_ Due to the close proximity to the sensitive wildlife areas such as the heron rookeries and eagle hunting perches, the construction of the water detention areas should be scheduled to avoid impacting wildlife activity. 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 to construction to occur outside of these months, then the most sensitive period during which construction should be avoided is the heron nesting season, mid -February through early August. 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 easemeut 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 storage1equipment 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. .. - ..._ .- ... ..... ��... vv .......v v..�.l�l� l�lll 1\V• JUJ Ulv 1J1Y I.UJ The use of the non-contiEugus 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 management of the natural resources area. The Latimer 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 11-14 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 Commu, y Planning and Environmental :vices Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins MIMORANDUM TO: John F. Fischbach, City Manager Greg Byrne, CPES Director Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director Pete Wray, City Planner Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director Tom Frazier, Multi -Modal Transportation Group Leader Gary Diede, Transportation Operations and Projects Group Leader Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner Mike Smith, Water Quality General Manager Bob Smith, Stormwater Utility Manager Glen Schlueter, Senior Stormwater Engineer Basil Hamdan, Civil Engineer Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director Karen Manci, Environmental Planner Rob Wilkinson, Environmental Planner FROM: Leanne Harter, City PlanneryW_-4,d RE: Comments from the meeting with County staff, Stan Everitt and Lucia Liley on March 24, 1998, concerning the Fossil Lakes PUD. DATE: March 25, 1998 This memo is to update those of you who could not attend the meeting at the County with County staff, Lucia Liley and Stan Everitt regarding the Fossil Lakes PUD. We reviewed the comment letter from the City Manager with County staff and the applicant present. City staff was informed that Mr. Everitt responded to most comments in a letter dated March 9, 1998, and a copy of this letter was distributed (a copy is attached.) Please note that this is not a PO Ror 580 • fort Collins, CO 80522_-0580 • (970) 221-1,7;0 • FAX i970) 416-2020 SEP- 3-97 WED 15:34 NO City Manager City of Fort Collins July 28, 1997 Russell Legg Daniel Tasman Latimer County Planning Division P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Russell and Dan. - City staff has reviewed the Fossil Lake PUD and offers the following comments. Comments related to Planning, Site Layout and Design: The Fossil Lake PUD proposal is based upon a system of Transfer of Development Rights that has yet to be formally adopted by Larimer County. Thus, the City has great concerns regarding the use of a mechanism that has not been fully developed nor tested. • Three areas demonstrate that the amount of developable land in the sending area is severely restricted, including the. location of this property within the Airport Critical Zone, the topography of the sending area, and inconsistency with the Plan far the .Region tween Fort Collins and Loveland, 1. The proposed sending area is located within the Airport Critical Zone. The Airport Critical Zone does not allow for residential use of any type, therefore, it is unclear how residential development rights may be transferred from an area wherein that type of development is not allowed. 2. Furthermore, the topography of the sending area as a part of a low-lying complex of ponds, wetlands, ditches, located in the broad, flat area that separates the Foudre and St. Vrain watersheds severely limits the development potential. 3. The Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland identifies the land use character of the sending area as "some limited commercialhuixed use development along 1-25 frontage road" (Subarea 18 of lire Plan). As the land use character of the sending area never included residential uses (with the exception of rural residential development in areas not within the airport critical zone), it is questionable the transfer of residential development rights from this location could be allowed. This proposal is inconsistent with the Corridor Plan. formal comment letter to be given to County staff nor the applicant. Rather, it is simply an internal memo to bring everyone "up to speed" on what has been occurring. This memo is organized in the following manner. The bulleted item is the comment outlined in the letter from the City Manager to County staff. The second item in italics is a summary of the discussions that took place at the meeting. The bolded item is the response offered by the applicant in a letter dated March 9, 1998. Additional comments/conversations that occured regarding the waiver of fees and the vested rights will follow at the end. Comments related to Transportation and Engineering: ■ All off -site improvements should be articulated. Off -site road improvements should be done as necessary and as warranted by the future traffic impact study, including bike, bus and pedestrian movements. The changes to the street system as proposed in the redesign of the Fossil Lakes PUD are significant enough to warrant the resubmittal of a transportation study so that proposed impacts may be studied and an evaluation of the proposed off -site improvements may be undertaken. The off -site improvements have been articulated to Stan Everitt by Tom Frazier. The phasing issue of the development is related to the improvements to CR 7 and 36. The necessary improvements to these roads will be tied to the phasing of final plats as well as other developments that may submit and impact CR 7 and 36. A transportation impact study will be submitted and will address the phasing of the project. Matt Delich forwarded a memo to the County offering the conclusion that improvements outlined with the original plan submitted are the same with this plan. The traffic study was to have started on March 23, 1998. Improvements to CR 9 will be required with the first final plat approval. The question remains on the timing of the remaining phases and the improvements tied to those phases. The traffic study will offer numbers to set as thresholds to time/drive improvements. Off -site improvements. The areas of County Roads 9 and 36, which are adjacent to our property, will be installed to their ultimate design requirements on our side of these roads with a full pavement overlay to the existing edge of the travel lanes on the adjoining rights -of -way. The areas of County Road 9 and 36 including the intersection of these two roads, which are not adjacent to our property, as well as the extension of County Road 9 northward to the end of the existing pavement will be paved and improved to accommodate two traffic lanes as well as two bike/pedestrian ways. Since these areas are off -site and it is probable future developments on adjoining properties 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' 7 bike/pedestrian lanes. The attached letter from our traffic engineer asserts that the revised plan does not significantly differ from the study of the original plan, particularly as it relates to the impacts on county roads. ■ Pedestrian and bicycle connections should be encouraged between all cul-de- sacs and CR9 and CR36. The applicant agreed that all these connections will be made ■ Please provide a detail of the round -a -bout so that the design may be evaluated (in relation to the number of daily trips) as well as the location(s), if any, of any proposed facilities within the round -a -bout. A traffic study is needed in order to evaluate the issue of the roundabout. This can be resolved at final plat stages, and the applicant agreed that if it is of concern to both jurisdictions, it will be removed. The proposed "roundabout' is a low -profile landscaped island intended 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 are no facilities planned within the roundabout. ■ In what manner is the off -road bike and pedestrian trail being accommodated through the project? This should be indicated on all the plans and addressed in the project description. At the meeting, the applicant committed to the bicycle trail through the site and it will be addressed at the final plat stage. The off -road bike/pedestrian trail can be accommodated in one of several locations and alignments. Final location and design will be influenced by development on adjacent properties, impacts on possible wildlife habitat, geological and/or topographic constraints and other issues. We welcome a final determination of the location by Larimer County and other agencies so we can show it on our plan. ■ The street named `Technology Parkway" may need to be renamed as it does not align with the proposed street of the same name associated with the Celestica development south of Harmony Road. This was not addressed at the meeting. I know that Dave Stringer met with County Engineering and the applicant and this issue was addressed. [c3 Comments related to Natural Resources: ■ City staff agrees with the comments outlined by Daryl R. Burkhard with the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands. A copy of her comments (from the memo dated March 2, 1998) is attached. The applicant agreed to move the barn. It is staff's recommendation that the 660' core conservation easement be retained everywhere. Related to this, staff recommended the removal of four (4) lots within this area. In response, the applicant questioned whether five lots could be added along the south of the development (rather than the four shown). A meeting was scheduled for Thursday am with the applicant and Daryl Burkhard and Tom Shoemaker to go over possible redesign to maintain core conservation area. They will examine both five and six lot scenarios along the south of the development proposal. ■ The proposed plan shows the dimensions from the shore line to the centerline of the road. Rather the dimensions should be indicated from the shoreline to the building envelope. Comments indicate a concern that a small portion of Lot 14 (including a corner of the building envelope) and the area designated for farm storage and equipment are within the 660-foot buffer area. The farm storage facilities can be moved outside the core areas and we would welcome suggestions as to the best location that would still afford access but limit impact on the wildlife. The slight encroachment of Lot 14 does not appear to created any undo hardship or influence on wildlife or habitat given that the existing home (Dr. Beard's) which is next door to this proposed lot is significantly closer to the Fossil Creek Reservoir shoreline and associated wildlife habitat that the building that will be placed on Lot 14. In addition, the existing lot of the adjacent owner is approximately 270' closer to the shoreline that the closest point of Lot 15. Presently, this resident has a boat dock, playground equipment, yard ornaments, and other items in this area which would continue to have much more impact on wildlife than a home that is nearly 1/8th of a mile from the shore. Given that a buffer of up to 1/2 mile and 100 acres has been established as a part of this plan, it seems excessive to suggest that this one slight encroachment in this location will have a significant detrimental affect on the overall environment of the Fossil Creek area. ■ We would encourage that language to the effect that farm equipment is to be used only in the summer months is incorporated on the plans as well as in any development agreements. The appropriate timing should be determined in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommendations. 12 The applicant voiced his opinion that limiting the use of farm equipment to summer months hurts farm operations. It was suggested that it would be appropriate to outline those farming practices occurring in the area currently, and that a notice will be placed in the lease to the individual entering into an agreement to farm the property that good faith efforts will be undertaken to eliminate impacts to the existing wildlife. It was mentioned that the conservation easement will need to address farming operations. There have been suggestions that the farming of the buffer area land should only occur during summer months. Farm operations cannot be limited in scope or time and still remain viable. Nonessential human activity will be curtailed year-round but essential land and animal activity should not be limited. ■ City staff suggests that the conservation easement for the buffer area be administered and regulated by a third party. This was not discussed. A conservation easement mechanism for the buffer area and the south parcel will include a public or nonprofit entity to coordinate administration and management of these areas. ■ We request a general note to the effect that construction activities within the buffer zone shall be timed so as to avoid disturbance of eagles and herons using trees. This will limit suitable construction periods considerably. (The Colorado Division of Wildlife should be contacted to get a window of dates). Herons will typically be active in the summertime months, and disturbance must be limited in the wintertime so as to minimize the impacts upon the bald eagles. A condition is being created and worded and will accompany staff's recommendation to the County Commissioners regarding this issue. The condition will address that nonessential human activity (such as equestrian activities) will not occur during certain months (determined by the nesting activities of the wildlife in the area). At the meeting, the language had not been formalized. ■ The design of all stormwater facilities should fit into the ecological context — oversized if necessary — to avoid any rigid, man-made "engineered" appearance to the extent feasible. The design of such facilities should be coordinated with the City's Natural Resources Department. This was not addressed at the meeting. The storm drainage documents will be submitted prior to final plat approval and this issue will be addressed. 5 ■ Attached are redlined plans that offer additional comments (mostly related to labeling and site -specific details on the site and landscape plans.) Comments related to Storm Drainage: A drainage and erosion control report is needed for the site. Also, the preliminary drainage plan does not have the level of detail needed to review. The applicant should submit a drainage plan that meets the submittal requirements of the City of Fort Collins. Additional comments may arise once all information is provided. We are concerned that the reports accompanying this proposal are not based upon the design and layout as submitted. The layout and density may not work with all stormwater criteria. Thus, the design as shown on the paper may be required to be substantially changed to reflect stormwater needs. The applicant noted that they are at a conceptual stage with the drainage reports. It was mentioned that Northern Engineering will be contacting both County and City staffs to schedule a meeting. County staff noted that the level of detail submitted for this project is that which would normally accompany projects at the preliminary stage in the County process. Therefore, it was asserted that the applicant never was informed that the level of detail for storm drainage reports would be required/necessary. It appears as if one of the great unknowns still is the storm drainage. Our preliminary engineering analysis portrays the majority of storm water flows heading southward and discharging onto the buffer area where there will be some water quality mitigation systems installed to protect the final discharge into Fossil Creek Reservoir from being excessive in volume or rate and inappropriate in quality. This storm water will be conveyed and detained within the project using street curb and gutter, open swales, and piping. Final design may require certain modifications to the land layout and we are willing to accommodate these changes based upon applicable storm water criteria. ■ The outfall channel for the McClellands basin is located at the northeast corner of the site. Hydraulic evaluations of the channel should be performed to identify the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the site. A small portion of the development site lies in the McClelland's drainage basin; fees in that basin are $3,717/acre. The balance of the site lies in the Fossil Creek drainage basin, and fees in that basin are $2,274/acre. The McClellands outfall channel of Muscrat Creek will be evaluated for possible 100-year flooding. 9 ■ Off -site drainage easements are needed to convey runoff from the site boundaries to Fossil Creek Reservoir. The applicant should submit letters of intent to demonstrate that the project will be able to acquire the necessary easements. The ditch company will need to be involved in the final decision (i.e., sign the final plat, etc.) If a ditch company is being arbitrary and putting unusual demands on the applicant, the County staff usually gets involved to negotiate. We have spoken on several occasions with the management of the Fossil Creek Reservoir and they have consistently indicated a willingness to accommodate storm water discharges into the reservoir given the proper precautions and mitigation systems meet with their approval. Please note that none of our property goes to the actual shoreline of the reservoir. ■ There appears to be some irrigation facilities that cross the site. Approval from the owners of the irrigation facilities will be needed. Also, existing off -site drainage flows that may enter the canal and drain to the site should be considered. Presently, there are irrigation facilities that serve the Swift property to the east and the Beard property to the southeast. These individual laterals will be rerouted within the appropriate easements and will tie into the present systems on these other properties. Both property owners are aware of these changes and have acknowledged the revisions. ■ Water quality treatment will be needed for the site. The proposed areas for water quality are shown on the plans; however, there are no descriptions of the type of water quality proposed to be used. ■ In order to increase the stability of the shoreline, plantings and shallow areas that serve to break waves are recommended. While this serves to increase shoreline stability, it may also result in limiting access to the Reservoir. The construction and planting associated with shoreline stability should be timed to avoid disturbance of wildlife associated with the Reservoir. "...Please note that none of our property goes to the actual shoreline or the reservoir." Comments related to Planning and Urban Design: ■ Please show conceptual/potential connections to the 10 acre parcel to the north. We are aware that the property owner who resides in this area is concerned about these connections, so in order to reduce any possibility of conflict by showing 7 defined streets and locations, we recommend that a note regarding connections be placed on the plan that clearly says these are conceptual and do not reflect exact locations. However, we do feel that it is important to identify that there will be street connections as well as pedestrian connections thru this site at such time that it develops. These connections will be shown. Plans will be labeled to say "Roadway connectivity will be established at the time of development of this parcel." This label will be shown on Tract A and the outparcel in the northwest corner of the proposal. ■ Please identify the uses for the neighborhood center. City Plan describes neighborhood centers as "a year-round gathering place accessible to all residents." It is described as being no large than 7 acres and including some of the following: recreation facility, school, children's and adults' day care, place of assembly and worship, small civic facility, neighborhood -serving market, shops, small professional offices, clinics, and other small business. The option of multi- family should not be included in the list of uses for the site. Regarding the option of multi -family, County staff informed us that any development of the parcel as multi -family will be required to "go through the process" again. The option of multi -family is shown as it is directly tied to the applicant receiving TDUs for the area. The land uses for the neighborhood center are included on page six of the project description of the master plan. The uses are from City staffs earlier suggestions, incorporating a few additional uses such as art studios and galleries. If we would like to see the uses labeled on the plans themselves, that would be possible. Tract A is identified as a multi -use and/or multi -family area. Page 6 of the Project Description discusses the intended uses of this tract and the multi -family component. ■ The sizes of all tracts should be shown. We recommend that additional uses for Tract B be included, allowing for the possibility of a daycare facility as well as other non -retail uses. The sizes of all tracts will be shown. The applicant agreed to list some ancillary uses for Tract 8 on the plan. ■ Are there any proposed transit stops? These should be provided on the plans and the developer should be required to escrow funds for the completion of these [3 stops if he is not willing to complete the improvements as a component of the development itself. The specific location and design of the transit stops will be part of the final plat, but they will be required/included. ■ Attached are redlined plans indicating additional site -specific comments and concerns. Waiver of Fees It was discussed at the meeting that as the proposal will be located within the UGA at the time of hearing by the County Commissioners, the fees will be required to be collected. Of those fees that will be collected, the City will receive 80% and the remaining 20% is retained by the County and is considered as the regional park fee. The issue will be clarified to the County Commissioners and staff's recommendation will be that no fees will be waiver. It was recommended that the applicant research the City's position on "fees in lieu of". Vested Rights In the County, a three year vesting period begins with the approval of the preliminary plat, and the applicant is required to return each year to receive approval of that preliminary plat. The State Statutes allow for the County to assign a longer vesting period than the three years. The applicant requested a 12 year vesting period and the compromise at the Planning Commission was 10 years. After the Planning Commission hearing, the rationale behind the applicant's request for an extended vesting period was explained. As the project will be brought in with phases (and the expected build -out is 12 years), the applicant will bring in the conservation easement with the first filing as a tradeoff for the extended vested rights time period. The State Statutes were reviewed to see what additional requirements (i.e., changes in the building codes, ordinances outlining impact fees, etc.) are ones that are applicable throughout the vesting period. Items such as land use regulations and zoning actions are not applicable during that vesting period, however impact fees and technical areas such as engineering standards and building codes, are applicable. The concern was mentioned that the vesting period for this project, if recommended and ultimately approved, of greater than the usual three years should be explained carefully and tied to this project specifically. Otherwise, every other project will try to extend the vesting period. The uniqueness of this proposal (such as the timing right before the E approval of the Plan as well as the applicant's willingness to voluntarily incorporate the spirit of the Plan) should be highlighted. The overriding concern is that a precedence is not established. I think this sums up what we heard at the meeting yesterday. It is my understanding that the meeting with Northern Engineering regarding stormwater has not been scheduled as of yet. After the meeting tomorrow regarding the core conservation area, I hope to touch base with Tom Shoemaker to see if resolution was reached. I know the burning question is where do we go from here? Definitely, I think we need to do a follow up letter to the one sent March 6, 1998, outlining any additional concerns we may have and how/if our concerns have been addressed. What I hope is that you all can give me some feedback ASAP on this idea and these comments, and I can get a draft letter together. I'll try to pull together a meeting for Thursday late afternoon or maybe even early Friday am (if you would like to involved in the meeting, please let Voneen know-6750). Not to be pushy, but I will need to get responses right away, especially since we'll need to get the letter (with the City Manager's signature) over there on Monday morning at the very latest!!! If you have questions, please give me a call at x6641. I'm GroupWising this to folks, as well as hard copies to some people. If I missed anyone, please forward it to them as well. Thanks for all the meetings and time everyone is putting in on this one!! 10 I'AR-11-98 WED 13:25 EVERITT COMPANIES FAX N0, 970L2341E6 P, 01/03 March 9, 1998 Mr. Russell Legg Larimer County Planrniuig P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Fossil Lake P.L;.D. Dear Nlr. Legg_ Thank you for meeting with me last Friday afternoon to review the Comments you and others have about the Fossil Lake P.C;.D_ proposal. I offer this letter as a tesuunsc Lo the issues rased. One dtin3 Lhat is important ro tecog=t; is that this is a prelimjauy plat submittal and review. rr is our expectation, as we hone in on the details of the plan and parriculariv the onginc=n- issues, that we may accd to make some ¢rilipr mcditicarions to the land plan. We are open to these revisions and ooK 'orward to workina with Rex Burns and other cngineermiz personnel to make certain ail issues are addres;ed. As T understand it, this wiii be done after preliminary plat approval and a condition Of final plat approval. Transrtortation Tasuea o Off -site improvements. The areas of Couary Ruads 9 and 36, which are adjacent to our propem, will be installed to their ultimate design requirements On our side of these roads with a tilil pavement overlay to the existing edge of the ravel lanes on the adjoining uroucrty right-)f-way. The areas of County Roads 9 and 36 including the intersection of these two roads, which are not uijlcenr to our property, as well as the extension of County Road 9 northward to the end of die existing pavement will be paved and improved to accommodate two rabic lanes as well as two bike/pedestrian ways. Since these areas are off cite and it is probable future developments on adjoining properties will dedicate additional right-of-way as well as make fiill improvements in association with the development of the property. we plan to install a 36' paved surface with two 1T traffic la= and two 6' bikepcdestrian lanes. The attached letter from our traffic engineer asserts that the revised plan does not significantly differ from the study of the original plan, Particularly as it relates to the impacts on county roads. o The proposed "roundabout" is a low profile landscaped island intended to temper traffic traycling 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 are no facilities planned within the roundabout. Corpmafc Of icn 3000 soup. CW Icso Aywuc • FwL CWlinv - Culomdo • 80727 Jr:pling Addn:ys: r. O. 30x Zl Z5 • toff Coraas • Colorado • 8052. -rciewone: (970) 22ti•ra 0 • FAN: (97(1) i3.n 196 • Ikava tine•: (303) - Got % SEP- 3-97 WED 15 : 34 P, 03 Russell Legg Daniel Tasman July 28, 1997 Page 2 The proposed development makes use of ]Bonus Density as allowed by Larimer County based upon open space, environmental sensitivity, and multi -modal circulation connections. The following comments are reflected on the enclosed plan and pertain to the layout of the site, including open space and circulation, as it relates to the calculation of Bonus Density for the proposal, Circulation. Pads of the plan as submitted have disconnection and excessive distances in the street and circulation layout, with blocks of 1,000-2,000 feet between connections. For example, connections at Blue Heron Lake through to County Road 9 and Fossil Lake Commons through to the north would serve the site to a greater degree than what is indicated as well as additional suggested linkages shown on the plan. Open Space. Much of the common open space appears to be in leftover back yard and perimeter areas that may function more as private back yards than as common open space or environmental enhancement. This type of open space should not be cited as rationale for the use of bonus density. The Reservoir is clearly a significant sensitive area. The ecological functions of its edge are under study by others with the objective of quantifying just what is needed for wildlife. Further review of this project should be delayed until the time the results of that study are available. Good urban design principles are in concert with conservation principles, suggesting more consolidated open space to leave more significant, larger and connected habitat areas for wildlife. • The plan has positive features that are responsive to community design purposes, notably the center and the mix of housing types. It appears that further refinement can reduce disconnection and land consumption, improve the multi -modal circulation system, and protect more of the high plains ecosystem that is indicative of the region. • The industrial site location is inappropriate in the proposed area. The Harmony Corridor Plan was developed to accommodate these types of businesses In areas that can be served by transit and other services_ • Buyers tbat purchase lots next to takes often assume ownership of the lake even though the lot lines may end quite a distance from the edge of the lake. lake. Please put notes on site plan to reflect that there may be future trail access in this area so that property owners do not get upset if 5-10 years down the read the City, County or another jurisdiction wishes to develop the shore line for trails to access the natural areas and Rcsctvoir. • The Poudre Fire Authority may be concerned about the lengths of cul-de-sacs proposed. In addition, a fire station site may be within this project to serve this area. imp-u-JO WCD LVE:ill l �UMFANIES FAX No. 970M4156 P.02/03 *' Mr. Russell Legg March 9, 199g Page Two o The off --road biketpedestriatr trnil can be accommodated in one of several locations and alignments. Final location and design will be intTaenced by development on adjacent properties, imparts on passible wildlife habitat, geological atid/or topographic constraints and other issues. We welcome a final determination of the location by Latimer County and other agencies so we can show it on our plans. ltorm nrinaa« Tynea o Our preliminary engineering analysis portrays the majority of storm water flows heading southward and discharging onto the buffer area where thcic will be some water quality mitigation systems installed to protect the final discharge into Fossil Creek Reservoir from being excessive in volume or rate and inappropriate in quality. This storm water will be convevcd and detained within the proiea using sorer curb and gutter, open swales, and piping. Final design may require cmMitl modify"cations rn the land layout and we are willing to accommodate these changes based upon applicable storm watLT criteria a The McClellands outfail channel or Muse-t Creek will be sveluatcd for possible 100-year flooding. o We have spoken on sever occasions with the management of the Fossil Creek Reservoir and they have consistently indicated a willingness to accommodate storm water discharges into the reservoir giver the proper precautions and mitigation systems meet with their approval. Plcasc acre that none of our property apes to the actual shoreline of the reservoir. o Presently, there are im.-ation facilitics that serve the Swift property to the east and the Beard property to the southeast. Ihese individual laterals will be rerouted within the appropriate easemens and will tie into the present systems on these other properties. Body property owners are aware of thew changes and have acknowledged the revisions. Natural Reeourma ):ssaes a Comments indicate a consent that a small portion of Lot 14 (including a corner of the building envelope) and the area designated for farm storage and equipment are within the 660-foot cart buffer area. The farm storage facilities caa be moved outside the cart area and we would welcome suggestions as to the best location that would still afford access but limit impact on the wildlife. The slight encroachment of Lot 14 does not appear to create any undo hardship or influence on wildlife or habitat given that the existing home (Dr. Beard's) which is next door to this proposed lot is significantly closer to the Fossil Greece Reservoir shoreline and associated wildlife habitat than the building that will be placed on Lot 14. In addition, the existing lot of the adjacent owner is approximately 270' closer m the shoreline than the closesr point of Lot 14. Presently, this resident has a boat dock, playground oquipment, yard ornaments, and other items in this area which would continue to have much more impact on wildlife than a home that is nearly 1/Sth of a mile from the shore. Given that a buffer of up to 1/2 mile and 100 acres has been ostnblished as a pert of wry ic•co t:dttti"17 COMPANIES FAX N0, 970=4156 P. 03/03 Mr. Russell Legg March 9, 1998 Page Three this plan, it sans excessive w suggest that this one slight encroachment in this lucation will have a significant detrimental affect on the overall environment of the Fossil Creek area_ o There have been suggestions thattarming or the buffer area land should only occur during summer months. Farm operations cannot be Imited in scope or tithe and still remain viable. Limited. Nonessential human mty will be curtniled year-round but cssendal land and animal activity should not be limted. o A conservation casement mechanism for the buffer area and the south parcel will include a public or nonprofit entity to coordinate administration and manauement of these areas. PSannino tag o Plans will be labeled to say -Roadwav connectivity w1Ll be established at the time of development of this parcel." This label will be shown on Tract A and the outparecl in the northwest corner of the proposal. 0 Tract A is identined as a mum -use and/or multi -family atca. Page 6 of the P vjeut Bcscnpcion discasaq the intended uses of this tract and the multi -family component. Russ, I believe this will help address the issues that have need come up to dare. It is clear that them will final PP.0P.U.D. app. appmvai clarification and quantification of information and data before we can, receive rrom L trintor Counry, but it is our hope that we can procacl ubsequcnc dccisiouwith the hearings and s by he Lartmer Counry Panning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on the prcliminary plat and master plan of Fossil Lake P.U.D. Sincere!v, tanley KL Everitt Executive Vice President SKZ/cp Attachment REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 7, 1998 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Fossil Lake P.U.D. , Ist Filing PLANNER: County Referral ENGINEER: Dave Stringer All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting: 1. Street names on Utility Plans do not match plat names 2. If additional streets are shown in utility plans then include phasing sequence 3. Reduce nose of island at County Road 9 and Waterfall to some distance behind flow line to allow for pedestrian crosswalk. 4. Show in detail island dimensions and show in cross section 5. Show on plan sheets where to find detail of street intersections. ( Typical ) 6. Rookery Road right of way needs to be 51 feet with 30 flowline/flowline 7. Address relocation of Power poles, mail boxes and etc. along cty. rd. 9 8. What happensd to cty. Rd. 9 south of Rock Port Drive? Construct with curb, gutter and sidewalk to south property limits . Should be at a minimum a connector street standard , 57 foot right of way with 36 foot flowline/flowline 9. See addition comments on redline sheets Date: /D - ? — `1 Signature: — Please send copies of marked revisions _Plat _ Site Utility _Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET A :a x� a S DATE: April 22, 1999 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT:Fossil Lake PUD First Filing On the cover sheet: /Street repair shall not begin prior to approval of the city of Fort Collins Director of Engineering... �((I Number 8 should read City of Fort Collins instead of Larimer county Street Repair standards should be named Street Repair and Reconstruction Standards and Guidelines. The determination of need for a complete overlay shall be made by the city engineer, and/or the City Inspector at the time the cuts are made. Prior to construction, the city of Fort Collins engineering Dept also needs to be notified (221-6605). Prior to construction affecting city signs, the contractor should notify Latimer County and city officer. On the Overall Utility Plan, rip rap ends of gutter at the endXoflstreet (Egret Ct.) Needs to be shown. On the Grading and erosion control plan, the 17' deflector inlet is not standard. Please provide information on why you want to use this type of inlet. WpnZ,-FP6l- 1�AIZK tn%P4 ` C1.LLD 6€ h1+�V�1EC> -�'211.3Y FL`2 CCN ?P{�C4'. The sheets entitled `Waterfall Parkway Plan and Profile should be renamed to Trilby Parkway Plan an Profile. The width of the median on Waterfall is not to exceed 20'. With the travel lanes( 4,4idol @30:1, twedian, there needs to be 300 feet of transition4ril' l la-vua P �lrcut�p� i on �or Sidewalks are to be detachedpn oA\ 5}rt6-S There should be enhanced crosswalks where Brookwater Lane intersects Waterfall Parkway. (Trilby Road) On Emergency access road plan and profile, does eop refer to pavement? -rs 4'ws � 1e.2 For the Shallow Pond Drive Plan and Profile, there is a 2% minimum grade for 125' or less. This is typical. It is also a limited access roadway. Suggests %common drives (typical) �, _1l Design6500'pas�+� Drtlof c,4rimpmvetnvti�s��Ypq�'^! An access easement is required along Rookery Road 4a w.36nAn-HYV-1 Side- V- At Sta 14+11.88 it should me a minimum of 100'. Shown is too short to mee this. Also include a transition after intersection. b 1 t� C �r�' (tom Rockery Road needs to be local ith 51 feet of right of wa_v Current does not fit City requirements for rural section. (30 feet flowline to flowlin-e �t(o3.'1- Provide detached sidewalk On the Rookery Road curve, it is currently less than city standards. Please request a variance. Show ramps at intersections for ADA requirements on Rock Park Drive o� The Cul-de Sac only needs a 40' radius. Add sidewalk to it.- axe-�"� Rock Park also needs 51' ROW L Flee �l;tta ,Brookwater Lane pv&ds a 40' setback for parking stalls)n Also 15' maximum radius for the ,vz.+nto parking lot. curb v-e-*. ns Add a type III barricade at the end of Falling Water Drive Also, a temporary turnaround for lots to take access of Falling Water Drive. qv-, C ovvu car r G� es, % . On Twin Wash, cannot have square right of way. Use Radius. _merits Provide an 8-10' elbow o-t 'kka 90" io9r, Yet _ ; =7AMri vtarn.n Aoj�:, nu4 Recommend changing street name. a `4VA Creekfront Court - 40' radius �;OwL u There should be detached sidewalks on both sides of the street. This is typical throughout. Drive onto Court should have a 20' minimum width. an .a.AZh � 4 JY�\ a-n Twin Heron Court should have 40' radius and 51' ROW Detached sidewalks on Sagewater Court (typical) Include type III barricade on Egret court. 5F ROW Requires off site easement for drainage Design flowline for 500' oersite. And show how it ties into existing grade. Typical street sections need detached sidewalk. Fossil court is not necessarily a court. an&k"' u`a-nU of On County Road 9, where is the detail for how the transition off tersection works. Needs to be a connector section -kb On plan and profile, detail the transition. Profile the transition from old to new. This should be a butt joint not feathered asphalt. Will the Existing 18"cmp pipe take projected traffic loads? There is not much cover here. On the cross sections, detail how irrigation works. Extend the pipe further flQ eeeend sections. Mist -grades are too steep. This will require easements. 'There is one cross section without a grade shown. Please correct. If pipe is abandoned, will it also be removed? t r Are all pipes covered77�o'Yv�t tiXcL Sheet 70 has a cross section without a shown pipe size. Please provide. Sheet 73, culvert needs to be extended because the slope is too high. Does it have a flared endsection? Show how CMP pipe under driveways will work How will the driveway (sheet 75) drain? For the striping Plan use the appropriate tapers (speed limit : 1) Based on Traffic volumes, CR9 is a connector street with 36' width. 6' interim bike lanes_ Storm Line 1-1 profile is a class III @ street. This is typical for culverts as well Where do the street trees go? Need additional easement if this is to occur for light and power since line is shown where they normally install. Storm Line 2 Profile, no Ads in the street. At culvert 24, it should probably go under the walk. Why are you using the typical deflector inlet? It is not standard. Use current ramp standards. The standard shown does not meet ADA requirements. The Asphalt pavement patch detail in no longer a city detail. Provide info on the outfall vertical curb and gutter detail. Delete the inflow vert. Curb and gutter detail. Provide connection to existing sidewalk detail. The drive over curb and gutter should have a height of 12" Date: Signatur Please send copies of marked revisions Plat _ Site Jtility _Landscape `— City of Fort Collins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DATE: April 26, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Fossil Lakes PUD — County Development ENGINEER: Sheri L. Wamhoff The following items need to be addressed for the City to accept the streets within the Fossil Lakes PUD as City Streets upon construction of said streets to City construction standards. Waterfall Parkway shall be named Trilby Road The median at the entry of Trilby Road shall be reduced in width to a maximum 20 foot width. The southern portion of County Road 9 that is designed as a rural x-section shall be designed as a connector to where the street dead ends. This section shall include sidewalk and bikelanes as portions north of this have. Transitions appropriate for the speeds on Trilby need to be provided for the lane striping. As this road will be posted at 35-40 mph the transition lengths need to be at 40:1 not the 25:1 as shown. Detached Sidewalks shall be provided along both sides of the rural x-section. The rural x-section will be allowed, but sidewalk shall be provided adjacent to all streets. The regional trail system is not being shown on the plans. This trail needs to be provided and coordination for this trail shall be done with Kathleen Reavis, Craig Forman, and Engineering. Date: ���� Signature: / `. PLEASE SEND COPIES ❑ PLAT I OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY NO COMMENTS —SUBMIT MYLARS 0 LANDSCAPE City of Fort Collins Engineering C()Otis Fossil Lake Estates PD — Sketch Plan Review September 24, 2001 Several lots don't appear to meet the minimum size and width requirements (section I.E.4.b.0)) What is out lot A, who maintains? Existing Snowy Creek drive should connect to this development, provides good connection for vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic Is drive to lot 22 outside of easement area? Rookery Court is not an acceptable name, street connection no longer qualifies it as a court. Need to change name General comment: Streets to be designed and constructed per Larimer Urban Area Street Standards. Community Pl, Current Planning City of Fort Collins March 28, 2002 and Environmental Services To: City Clerk's Office, Attn: Wanda Krajicek City Attorney's Office, Attn: Paul Eckman �y Engineering Dept., Attn: Cam McNair Stormwater Department, Attn: Glen Schlueter Natural Resources, Attn: Doug Moore Zoning Dept., Attn: Peter Barn s From: Troy Jones, Current Planning Re: Fossil Lake P.U.D. First and Second Filings Here's a copy of the Development Agreements for Fossil Lake P.U.D. First and Second Filings -for your Department's records. As you all know, Fossil Lake P.U.D. First and Second Filings are developments that were approved in the County in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, and subsequently annexed into the City of Fort Collins. The First Filing has had many building permits and certificates of occupancy issued by the County already. The Second Filing has been annexed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Because the site specific development plan approvals were obtained in the County, these developments are treated somewhat differently than plans whose approvals were obtained under the City's development review process. Based on the Intergovernmental A reement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, t e City is bound to the terms of the Development Agreement that was approved in the County upon annexation. This ma es it very important that any Uly employee who would potentially need to know what the agreement specifically says has access to the language of the agreement itself. To that end, here are copies of the Fossil Lake P.U.D. First and Second Filing Development Agreements for your department's files. Please let those in your department know how to find them if they would ever be involved in the review of subsequent approvals within the area of Fossil Lake P.U.D. First and Second Filings. 281 North College Avenue • [1(). t3ox 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80523-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 016-2021 SEP- 3-97 WED 15:35 P. 04 Russell Legg Daniel Tasman July 28, 1991 Page 3 • The clubhouse area should be enhanced so that it is more of a neighborhood center. City Plan describes neighborhood centers as "a year-round gathering place accessible to all residents." It is described as being no large than 7 acres and including some of the following: recreation facility, school, children's and adults' day care, place of assembly and worship, small civic facility, neighborhood -serving market, shops, small professional offices, clinics, and other small business. The densities proposed with this development are not consistent with the City Structure Plan. The City Structure Plan recommends that low density residential neighborhoods have a minimum overall average density of 5 dwellings per a low density residential uses are identified in the Fossil Lake PUD—Subur an Singl Family, Patio Homes, and Cottage Homes. a average density of these equ s 3.9 d lling units per acre which is less than that recommended on the City Structure er ewitie are being considered in the draft Fossil Creek Special Study Land Use Plan, however neither jurisdictions have formally adopted this document. Comments related to Natural Resources: • If there is to be development on the southern parcel, south of Duck Lake, an evaluation of impacts to both on -site and off -site wetlands and wildlife habitat areas should be conducted. Appropriate buffering and mitigation actions should be applied when the potential for impact to such is evident. • With regards to the northern parcel, located on the north side of Fossil Creek Reservoir, the primary concern is with the buffer zone distance proposed. Given that the desirability of a'/4 n-dle buffer between development and the north shore of Fossil Creek Reservoir is recognized in several long term planning documents including the proposed Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Laud Use Framework Plan and given that maximization of buffer width is desirable to protect current and fixture wildlife habitat values, and given that the applicant is proposing a buffer zone less than '/4 mile in width, a wildlife impact study should be performed by a qualified consultant prior to finalizing the buffer width. The study should evaluate the impacts of the proposed development on the existing and future wildlife use of the habitats adjacent to the site and associated with Fossil Creek Reservoir. In particular, impacts to herons, bald eagles, and sensitive species of waterfowl and shorebirds utilizing the site and adjacent habitat areas should be evaluated, and adverse impacts to habitat areas should be avoided. If avoidance of impact is not possible, then mitigation plans should be developed to offset the projected wildlife/habitat impacts. SEP- 3-97 WED 15:35 P. 05 Russell Legg Daniel Tasman July 28, 1997 Page 4 • Additional information is also needed on the landscaping and vegetation proposed for the buffer area as well as the design and grading of the proposed water quality protection areas. Comments related to Storm Drainage and Water/Wastewater. • Concerning the outfall for the McClelland Drainage, it is recommended that the applicant verify that the drainage will be preserved to the east as this is a major part of outfall system. Attached are, relevant pages from the Master Drainage Plan for the McClelland Basin discussing the utfall and the existing irrigation pond. This site draius towards the Reservoir, which results in two issues: Wafer Quality ---If the water is to be discharged ultimately into the Reservoir, water quality practices are strongly encouraged before the water is released into the Reservoir. Stability of Shoreline —In order to increase the stability of the shoreline, plantings and shallow areas that serve to break waves are recommended. While this serves to increase shoreline stability, it may also result in limiting access to the Reservoir. Comments related to Engineering and Transportation concerns. • Appropriate ROW and improvements should be made for all roads along the frontage of this property. County Road 9 and County Road 36 are minor arterials and County Road 7 is considered a collector. • All plans should show any planned or existing access points on County Roads 9, 36 and 7, These should line up with, or be adequately separated from, access points on the other side of each roadway. • Please provide a traffic study so that the City can see the proposed impacts and evaluate the proposed off -site improvements. All off -site improvements should be articulated, Off -site road improvements should be done as necessary and as warranted by the traffic impact study, including bike, bus and pedestrian movements. • While not required, a multi -use trail to the north of the Reservoir should be considered. This sort of connection may provide access to the Reservoir as well as future connections to this neighborhood and other locations, including other neighborhoods and possible linkages with the Harmony Corridor. • We recommend that the layout be designed to more closely follow the intent of the Land Use Code, Street Standards or Master Street Plan for providing a grid system of roadways with enhanced interconnections as discussed before. The pedestrian systems as well as SEP- 3-97 WED 15 : 36 P. 06 Russell Legg Daniel Tasman July 28, 1997 Page 5 bicycle connections should be enhanced from that shown on the plans. At the minimum, pedestrian and bicycle connections should be made from cul-de-sacs through to streets. Some examples include a connection between lots 21 and 22 along Blue Heron Lane through to County Road 9 and connections off the cul-de-sacs located on Two Heron Court. If the neighborhood center does become a gathering, focal point as recommended, then tho road system --including pedestrian and bicycle access and connections —should lead through and link the various neighborhoods to this center location. • All connections, including street, pedestrian and bicycle, to the outparcel should be indicated. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments regarding this proposal. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jo F. Fischbach City Manager xc: Mayor and City Council Members Greg Byrne, CPFS Director Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director Leanne Harter, City Planner, Current Planning COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSSIL LAKES PUD ` CITY/COUNTY STAFF MEETING , WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1998 ` Preliminary information: A letter outlining staff comments will be forwarded to the County on March 6, 1998. The letter will applaud the applicant's efforts at redesign and embracing several concepts stressed by staff, however, the City will encourage the Planning Commission to consider continuing the project until such time that information related to Stormwater and transportation is submitted and reviewed. Transportation: • Add pedestrian/bicycle connections between cul-de-sacs and CR9 and CR36. • More comments to follow with utility plans regarding signing and stripes and ROW for locals and arterials. • Please provide a detail of the round -a -bout. • Will there be an update of the traffic study? • What is the extent of the roadway improvements proposed for the project? • How is the off -road bike/ped trail being accommodated through the project? Planning: • Please show conceptual/potential connections to 10 acre parcel to the north. • Please identify the uses for the neighborhood center. The option of multi- family should not be included. • Show the sizes of the tracts. What are the uses for Tract B — possibly include daycare and other non -retail uses. • Are there any proposed transit stops? Natural Resources: • Plan is showing dimensions from the shoreline to the centerline of the road instead of to the buildings. • Language to the effect that farm equipment is to be used only in the summer months should be incorporated. • Suggestion of a conservation easement for the buffer area. • We should request a general note to the effect that construction activities within the buffer zone shall be timed so as to avoid disturbance of eagles and herons using trees. This will limit suitable construction periods considerably. • Agreement with letter from Daryl Burkhard to Russ Legg dated February 20, 1998. Stomwater: A drainage and erosion control report is needed for the site. Also, the preliminary drainage plan does not have the level of detail needed to review. Please submit a drainage plan that meets the submittal requirements of the City of Fort Collins. Additional comments may arise once all information is provided. • The outfall channel for the McClellands basin is located at the northeast corner of the site. A hydraulic evaluations of the channel should be performed to identify the 100-year floodpiain in the vicinity of the site. • Off -site drainage easements are needed to convey runoff from the site boundaries to Fossil Creek Reservoir. • There appears to be some irrigation facilities that cross the site. Approval from the owners of the irrigation facilities will be needed. Also, existing off -site drainage flows that may enter the canal and drain to the site should be considered. Water quality treatment will be needed for the site.