Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCCLELLANDS CREEK PD AND PLD FOSSIL LAKE PUD FIFTH - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2011-12-29COUNTYREFERRAL COMMENT SHEET A!! City of Fort Collins Current Planning COMMENTS TO: Matt Lafferty FROM: ENGINEERING TYPE OF MEETING: Larimer County Planning Commission PROJECT: Staley PD & PLD THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department PLANNER: Bob Barkeen City comments must be received in Current Planning Department by: February 5, 2003 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: o The submittal doesn't show a street connection between the northeast and southwest portions of the site, why has this changed? The lack of street connectivity between the two sites appears inconsistent with II.B.2. of the development standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. o Pedestrian design & ramp requirements are not being met in accordance with LCUASS. ■ Street T-intersections require a minimum of 3 access ramps (16.3.1.A.2) ■ Local streets in excess of 600' require a mid -block crossing (16.3.LA.3) ■ An access ramp (or driveway meeting access ramp requirements) is required at all cul-de- sacs and shall line-up with the trail systems where proposed (16.3.1.A.4) ■ Directional ramps are required (16.3.1.A.5) [This appears correctly on the preliminary utility drawings.] ■ The minimum width for multi -use paths serving both bike and peds is 10' (16.9) o The length of a parking space within a cul-de-sac for each lot that fronts on said cul-de-sac needs to be provided and accounted for. Show whether this is being met on the plans per LCUASS 19- 4. o The street turn of Muscrat Creek Drive into Rock Dove Drive creates a sight distance easement that impacts lots 17 & 18. The amount of impact cannot be determined at this time as the street classification of the street(s) is in question. It is suggested that the street be designed in accordance with LCUASS 7-24; this will eliminate the need for any significant sight distance easements on lots 17 and 18. o A sidewalk connection for Block 6 Lot 30 out to Northern Lights Drive would appear to be beneficial. o Muscrat Creek Drive was intended to function as a connector with combined parking and bikelanes, as shown on the Fossil Lake 2"d Filing. The site as proposed reduces Muscrat Creek Date: February 5, 2003 Signature: �- Resubmit: Site Plan ZiLandscape Plan tility Plan ,GSubdrain Report �ZF,gPa�cv�y�E� 5. Section 1.9.2 of the LCUASS states that where street upgrades are needed to comply with the LCUASS and/or Local Entity's Transportation Master Plan, the Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of street improvements adjacent to the exterior boundary of the subject Property. Therefore, County Road 36 and County Road 7, adjacent to the site, will need to be improved per these standards and per the 2-Lane Minor Arterial and Connector -Local Street cross -sections. As part of the CR 36 and CR 7 intersection improvements, opposing lefts are required. Concrete is also necessary per Section 8.2.21 of the LCUASS, which states that all arterial/arterial intersections need to be concrete. The typical proposed cross - sections for CR 7 and CR 36 need to be shown on the preliminary plans and there should be a preliminary road/striping plan sheet that depicts the turn lane improvements. Response: The utilityplans have been updated to include construction of County Road 36 and County Road 7 improvements per LCUASS standards. The intersection has also been shown as concrete. Further details will be provided with the Final Plat/Utility Plan submittal. 6. The County Road 7 and State Highway 68 intersection operates unacceptably at LOS F. However, this development will only contribute traffic to the am peak hour trips making a right off northbound CR 7 onto the SH 68 and the pm peak hour trips turning left off of SH 68 onto southbound CR 7. Based on previous discussions with Tess Jones at CDOT, she believes that the existing left lane onto CR 7 will operate acceptably with the additional traffic without lengthening or re -striping the lane, however this needs to be confirmed with CDOT. Tess Jones does not think that the additional CR 7 northbound trips from this development will have a significant impact on the state highway and they would prefer that the developer focuses on bringing the left turn mentioned above into conformance with CDOT standards. Response: This comment has been addressed with CDOT. Based on the results of the traffic impact study and the LCUASS, a right turn deceleration lane at the CR 36 and Northern Lights Drive intersection is required. Opposing left turns at the County Road 36 and Northern Lights Drive intersection are also required. The plans should illustrate these improvements on a preliminary road and striping plan. Response: An eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of CR36 and Northern Lights Drive has been added to the utilityplans. Opposing left turn lanes at CR36 and Northern Lights Drive have also been added to the utility plans. Section 8.1.5.C.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code states that roads within the traffic impact area must have an adequate pavement section to accommodate the projected additional traffic loads from the development without damaging the roadway or accelerating the need for maintenance. A segment of County Road 36 between County Road 7 and the Frontage Road has a double chip seal surface and we believe that it does not meet Larimer County Adequate Public facilities requirements. Section 1.9.2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards discusses the developer's responsibility for any street improvements necessary to provide adequate transportation services to the development. Therefore, as part of the preliminary approval, the applicant should understand that a soils and pavement investigation will be required at final design that evaluates the structural integrity of the existing paving section on County Road 36 east of the site and proposes a paving section designed per the LCUASS that accommodates the increased traffic load due to this development. Response: See attached correspondence from Earth Engineering Consultants Drainage/Floodulain/Erosion Control Issues• 1. Pond A is not providing detention and the report says it is in the Fossil Creek Reservoir major drainage basin. The site is located in the McClelland's Creek Drainage Basin and detention is required per the master plan due to previous and potential development related stormwater impacts to downstream properties, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch, and the County Road side ditch. Response: Pond A will provide detention and water quality per the requirements of the McClellands Creek Master Drainage Plan. cAdocuments and settings\dianne\local settings\temporary intemet filesUk 10 1 \county comments mec crk pld.doc Page 2 of4 2. Ponds are sized to detain the difference between the 100-year developed flows and the 100-year historic peak flows. The master plan for this basin requires a 100 year release rate of 0.5 cfs per acre. Response: Pond A has been revised to detain and release storm water at a rate of 0. S cfs per acre. 3. There will be a significant amount of disturbance required for pond B. It should be confirmed that there are not existing wetlands that will need to be mitigated. Response: Pond B has been removed from the utility plans. See the revised drainage report. Any wetlands impacts will be mitigated as required. 4. The entire pond is in the flood plain and hydraulic modeling is required if there is any fill proposed. The report indicated that they plan to do this; however, the applicant should be aware that hydraulic modeling is also required if the proposed 100-year water surface elevation of the pond will be higher than the existing elevation in this area because this water would also be considered as fill. Response: Detention Pond B has been removed from the flood plain. Water quality ponds maybe constructed in tine flood plain and will be put in tracts that will be maintained by the HOA. No fill will be required with the construction of the water quality ponds and therefore no negative impacts to the flood plait: are anticipated. We have met with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department regarding the detention issues. An agreement regarding impacts to the Swift Pond is being negotiated Should this solution not become feasible, an alternative drainage plan has been provided See the revised drainage report for further details. 5. In order to verify if Pond B is feasible, the depth to groundwater in comparison to the invert of the pond will need to be considered. Response: Pond B has been removed from the flood plain. The water quality ponds are designed above the existing ground water table. 6. This portion of McClelland Creek will need to be maintained by the HOA since the pond will be within it. Will this area be labeled as a separate tract to define the limits of maintenance? Response: Pond B has been removed from the flood plain. Water quality ponds BI and B2 will be put in tracts that will be maintained by the HOA. 7. Typically the runoff from the adjacent roads is also detained on -site. It is unclear if this is proposed with this drainage plan. Response: Adjacent roadway runoff will be detained on -site. The drainage report states that improvements will be made to the County Road 7 roadside ditch to adequately convey developed stormwater south into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. At the preliminary stage, we would like to know what the required improvements will entail. Clarify if additional culverts will be necessary, if significant regarding/reshaping of the swale is necessary, if properties will be impacted, if landscaping will need to be removed, if additional easements are needed, if specific erosion control is necessary for the transition into the ditch. Response: An outfall pipe from Detention Pond D will daylight to the existing borrow dith in CR#7. This outlet will be designed with final engineering. It is anticipated that no further easements will be needed for this store: pipe. The existing driveway will be reconstructed to original condition. No landscaping impacts are anticipated. Outlet protection will be provided where the pipe daylights to the borrow ditch. Fees: 1. Per Section 9.5 of the LCLUC, Engineering Staff would like to notify the applicant that Transportation Capital Expansion Fees will be required at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with duly enacted transportation capital expansion fee regulations then in effect. Response: cAdocuments and settings\dianne\local settings\temporary internet files\olk101 \county comments mcc crk pld.doc Page 3 of 4 2. The County has a Development Construction Permit and depending on the timing of the annexation, this application may be subject to those fees and associated conditions (Section 12.5 of the LCLUC). However, if the site is annexed into the City of Fort Collins within 60 days of final approval, the City of Fort Collins fees will apply. Prior to recording the final plat, this detail will need to be determined. Response: 3. This proposal lies within a Drainage Basin and drainage fees will need to be calculated by Lisa Dunn, from this office. The list of fees will be forwarded to the Building Department and collected at the time of building permit application for each lot in the subdivision (Section 9.2 of the LCLUC). Response: c: documents and settings\diannelocaI settings\temporary internet files\olk 10 1 \county comments mcc crk pld.doc Page 4 of 4 1 • COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMORANDUM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department FROM: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer "rV DATE: November 9, 2005 Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 SUBJECT: McClellands Creek PD & PUD - Phase l (aka 5`h Filing of Fossil Lake) (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 Proiect Description: The overall development proposal for McClellands Creek PD & PUD is to create 139 single family lots and a future multi family tract on 53.77 acres. ). The property is located at the southwest corner of CR 7 (Strauss Cabin Road) and CR 36 (Kechter Road). This is a final plat proposal for Phase l of the McClellands Creek PD & PUD. Phase l will include 33 single family units on approximately 7.42 acres on the west side of McCLellands Creek. Review Criteria: Development review staff reviews submitted materials per the criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use Code (LCLUC), Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Access Code, Storm - Water Management Manual (LCSWMM), and pertinent Intergovernmental Agreements. Comments: 1. The cost estimate submitted to me did not include costs for material testing, and survey construction observation. The County's typical cost estimate form also requires the developer's signature. 2. The development agreement should explain that the project has been split into phases. Engineering staff would also recommend that it references the preliminary approval findings of resolutions for the overall development. The development agreement could state that adjacent and off -site road and drainage improvements are required of the developer with the development of phase 2. This will include right-of-way dedication and improvements to the structural integrity of County Road 36 (Kechter Road) where there are deficiencies between the eastern limits of the site and the I-25 Frontage road. Auxiliary Lanes on County Road 36 will also be required as also discussed in the findings and resolutions for the overall development. 3. Section 25.b.1 of the Development Agreement (Issuance of Building Permits) should state that at least one lift of plant mix asphalt is required for issuance of full building permits. 4. The language in Section 25.c of the Development Agreement (Issuance of Building Permits) should include the requirements stated Section 25.b for the "show homes" to allow for water, sewer, and access while showing these homes to the public. 5. Any off -site utility, road, sewer, and irrigation easements need to be submitted and reviewed prior to final plat approval. Fees: 1. Per Section 9.5 of the LCLUC, Engineering Staff would like to notify the applicant that Transportation Capital Expansion Fees will be required at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with duly enacted transportation capital expansion fee regulations then in effect. 2. The County has a Development Construction Permit and depending on the timing of the annexation, this application may be subject to those fees and associated conditions (Section 12.5 of the LCLUC). Prior to recording the final plat, this detail will need to be determined. 3. This proposal lies within a Drainage Basin and drainage fees will need to be calculated by Lisa Dunn, from this office. The list of fees will be forwarded to the Building Department and collected at the time of building permit application for each lot in the subdivision (Section 9.2 of the LCLUC). Staff Recommendation: The comments above need to be addressed prior to final plat approval. We have not yet received comments from the City of Fort Collins; however I would like to have the opportunity to review and consider any outstanding comments they have prior to final plat approval. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: Everitt Companies (Attn:Stan Everitt), 3030 South College Avenue, Fort Collins CO 80525 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department File Reading File H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Fossil Lake\Staley PD (a.k.a. McClielands Creek)\McClellands Creek PLD & PD (Fossil Lake PUD 5th Filing) 2.doc —Phase 1 � £ Project Comment s Sheet 9tyof Fort Collins Selected Departments Date: November 17, 2005 Project: MCCLELLANDS CREEK PD & PLD (REVISED - WEST HALF ONLY) - COUNTY REFERRAL All comments must be received by Pete Wray in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: November 14, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 6 111/17/051 Carried over as unresolved. Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Offsite right-of-way should be received before the filing of the plat. Number: 19 eated: 11/17/2005 [11/17/051 Engineering is okay with proceeding to mylar signatures. However we should have the offsite right-of-way dedication in hand prior to the signing of the mylars. D to CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Design Team Responses to Comments for McClelland's Creek PD and PUD (being the 5`" Filing of Fossil Lake Ranch) August 31, 2005 Original Comments in Black Responses Underlined in Red Department: Current Planning/Landscape Review Issue Contact: Sean Wheeler Topic:- _ Technical Issues Number: 1 [07/22/05] The staking details must indicate that the lines attaching to the trees shall be loose enough to permit some sway. This allows the maturing tree's trunk to bend in the wind and build up enough strength as it grows. This has been addressed on the Site/Landsca a Plan provided bv The Birdsall Group. Number: 2 [07/22/05] Organic mulch is required below plants and two feet beyond their drip line. Rock mulch can not be used in these areas as it creates heat islands around plants that are not beneficial to their health. Even in the most xeric plants, rock mulch can contribute to overheating. Organic mulch helps to retain moisture, does not reflect heat onto the plants, adds valuable organic matter to the soil over time and helps to reduce weeds. Mulch generically sold as "gorilla hair" and/or small to medium sized bark chips proves useful at windy sites as these types are not easily blown around, especially if the planted areas has an edge sufficient for containment. Landscaping crews can also use landscape netting to contain mulch. As an alternative to river rock, the landscaping crew could use lava rock mulch in areas between plantings, however areas covered by the mature plant's footprint must use wood mulch. The recommended depth is 3 to 4 inches. All references to rock mulch being used as an alternative to wood mulch is revised accordingly. This has been addressed on the Site/Landsca e Plan provided bv The Birdsall Grow) Number: 3 [07/22/05] Plant Notes • Guarantee: Plant materials shall be guaranteed for a period of at least one year from the date of work acceptance. • Inspection Requirements: The County Forester or a designated County representative will inspect the installed landscaping for compliance with the approved plan. • Mulch Requirements: Organic mulch is required around plant materials and must extend a minimum of two feet beyond the drip line. Mulch must be comprised of a material such as wood chips, pine needles, shredded cedar or a similar material over weed control fabric. Weed control fabric is not required in perennial flower areas. Lava rock or other rock mulch can only be used between Plant groups, beyond the two foot drip line. Mulch depth shall not exceed 4 inches. • Tree Staking Requirements: Lines attached to tree stakes must have sufficient slack to permit some sway in the wind and allow the tree to build trunk strength as it matures. Staking and lines must be removed after a maximum of one year. • Tree Planting: Trees must be set on solid ground at a depth where the trunk flare remains 1 to 2 inches above ground level. Mulch "volcanoes" are prohibited and mulch must be pulled away from the trunk flare by 1 to 2 inches to allow for proper oxygen circulation. This has been addressed on the Site/Landscape Plan provided by The Birdsall Group Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 3 [08/04/05] As has been previously commented on, please provide an access ramp across Rock Dove Drive along the south side of the Rock Dove Drive and Muskrat Creek Drive intersection. This is amore direct connection than the access ramp that leads directly north across Muskrat Creek Drive, which can remain, but is not required. This has been addressed on the Construction Drawings by Northern En ineerin . [06/08/04] On street turns (such as Big Canyon Drive and High Desert Place)m the access ramp on the inside turn should lead diagonally into the corner, not split off into separate directions. The exception to this would be where a trail connection is made across the street such as at Rock Dove Drive and Muskrat Creek Drive where the access ramp on the inside corner should lead directly east, but the northern ramp should be eliminated. Both Site Plan and Construction Drawings will reflect these chanizes. Number: 4 [08/04/05] There still appears to be a question regarding the provision of a 9' utility easement on the east side of Lake Ranch Road as the plat shows an overlap of where the typical easement would be with an irrigation line easement. The 9' utility easement should exclude an irrigation line and irrigation line easement. [12/22/04] This may still be an issue, with regards to the east side of Lake Ranch Road. [06/09/04] Please ensure 9' utility easement is provided for along all internal streets and this easement is exclusive of any existing irrigation lines, as was previously shown along Lake Ranch Road, Number: 5 [08/04/05] The plat seems a little unclear as to whether right-of-way will be dedicated for the east side of Lake Ranch Road. Will an irrigation line be within the right-of-way? This will need to be removed. Number: 6 [08/05/05] Offsite right-of-way should be received before the filing of the plat Number:? [08/05/05] Provide City Approval Block on all sheets of the construction plan set. Addressed by NorthernEn ineering on Revised Plan Number: 8 __[08/05/05] The stationing on sheet R3 doesn_'t appear to be correct, as the left, centerline and right stationing are all aligned the same despite the curve of Copper Spring Drive. Number: 9 [08/05/05] Please provide additional spot elevations on the intersection details sheet as redlined to help more easily verify cross slopes. Addressed by Northern Engineering on Revised Plan Number: 10 [08/05/05] The cross slope on the south side of Muskrat Creek Drive west of Lake Ranch Road appears quite flat, is this an existing or proposed section? Addressed by Northern Engineeriniz on Revised Plan Number: 11 [08/05/05] Is a crown transition being proposed for Copper Spring Drive east of Lake Ranch Road? Addressed by Northern Engineering, on Revised Plan Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 12 [08/16/05] The off -site flows from Fossil Lake 2nd Filing (sub -basins 8 and 17) are being treated for water quality before being released into McClelland's channel. This development will eliminate the existing water quality treatment for Fossil Lake 2nd Filing and will need to incorporate these off -site flows in the new developments water quality 40- hour extended detention. Addressed by Northern En ineering on Revised Plan Number: 13 [08/16/051 The City has a standard water quality outlet structure detail which I can email to you. Addressed by Northern Engine, -ring on Revised Plan Number: 14 [08/16/05] The ditch company that owns the irrigation line along the west side of the project will need to sign the utility plans. Addressed by Northern En ineering on Revised Plan Number: 15 [08/16/05] Please include a riprap detail which includes all riprap buried 6 inches under. Addressed by NorthernEngineering on Revised Plan Number: 16 [08/16/05] Please_ include_ a drainage plan in the utility plan_ set. Addressed by Northern Engineering on Revised Plan Number: 17 Please see redlines plans for other minor comments. Addressed by Northern Engineering on Revised Plan Department: Engineering Department Issue Contact: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer Topic: General Number: 1 [08/17/05] The comments and redlines provided by the City of Fort Collins will need to be addressed prior to final plat approval. I have attached their written comments to this memo. Number: 2 [08/17/05] The cost estimate should include the following typical line items found on the County's cost estimate form, material testing, survey, construction observation and 15% warranty collateral. The County's typical cost estimate form also requires the developer's signature. Please see Revised Cost Sheet Number: 3 [08/17/05] The off -site utility, road, sewer and irrigation easements need to be submitted and reviewed prior to final plat approval. These documents will need to be recorded concurrently with the final plat. It seems that the swale on sheet D4 should show a minimum depth that includes freeboard. It seems that the required pond volume information on DR should also include the volume requirements for the 10-year-event and water quality. Addressed by Northern Engineering on Revised Plan Number: 6 [08/17/05] It is unclear if the 10 foot sidewalk just north of the site will be built with this development. If it will be built, it seems that the additional horizaontal and vertical information should be provided along with a typical cross-section. The sidewalk sections shown on the plans do not seem applicable for this type of walk. Drive to a residential (non -connector) local street. With the lack of proposed connectivity still an outstanding issue, it should also be asked if the downgrading of this street is appropriate. It would appear to be beneficial for the entire area if a continuous east -west bike corridor between neighborhoods is maintained from Ziegler Road to Strauss Cabin Road. o The TIS does not address the connectivity and street classification change between developments issues. o It is assumed that the 53' ROW being shown is for the drive -over curb requiring additional width? o Why isn't a street connection for the property to the south provided? It appears to be potential developable land and would require a future stub be provided from this site per the Larimer County Development Standards For the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins(II.B.6) o The intersection of Longview Drive with Big Canyon Drive is required to be widened along the outside of the curve ("eyebrow") in the same manner as done with Longview Drive and High Desert Place. o Show the proposed and existing rights -of -way on Kechter Road and Strauss Cabin Road (how will Strauss Cabin transition from a minor arterial to a local street?) o Drainage is not allowed off a private drive across a sidewalk onto a public street (per LCUASS 9.4.11.13). This occurs on most of the private drives in the development. o If a subdrain system is proposed (the soils report indicates that such may not be necessary) a groundwater analysis in accordance with LCUASS 5.6.1 would be required. Development Review Comments — Page 2 The trail will be built to the Northproperty line as per plan. Once the trail crosses onto Cily property, the City (Parks Department) will design and construct the trail. Number: 10 [08/17/05] It seems that the development agreement should explain that the project has been split into phases. It should also explain the issues outlined in comments 7, 8 and 9. Number: 11 [08/17/05] I would prefer if Section 25.b.1 of the Development Agreement (Issuance of Building Permits) states that at least one lift of plant mix asphalt is required for issuance of building permits. Number: 12 [08/17/05] I need additional clarification on the language in Section 25.c of the Development Agreement (Issuance of Building Permits). It seems that the requirements stated in Section 25.b should also be required for the "show homes" to allow for water, sewer and access while showing these homes to the public. Department: Planning Department Issue Contact: Katherine Huber Topic: General Number: 1 [07/27/05] On the final plat the Larimer County Road 36 needs to be removed because the City of Fort Collins changed this part of the County Road to Kechter Road. Addressed by Northern Engineering on Revised Plan Number: 2 [07/27/05] Site Data Sheet must reflect correct name (McClelland's Creek PD & PLD (being the 5t' Filing of Fossil Lake Ranch)). Addressed by Northern Engineering on Revised PlanAny current plans reflect these names. iiiii PROJECT City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: October 18, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt 1k #33-01L McClelland's Creek Annexation — Type II Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: November 9, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report _Other Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape ,a Citv of Fort Collins PETITION FOR ANNEXATION THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners") hereby petition the Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado for the annexation of an are, to be referred to as the McClelland's Creek PD & PLD (being the 5th filing of Fossil Lake Ranch P.U.D.) Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. Said area, consisting of approximately (11,92) acres, is more particulariy described on Attachment 'A" attached hereto. The Petitioners allege: That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Fort Collins. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have been met. That not less than one -sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Fort Collins. 5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated with the City of Fort Collins. That the Petitioners herein comprise more than fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Fort Collins. 8. That the City of Fort Collins shall not be required to assume any obligations respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property proposed to be annexed except as may be provided by the ordinance of the City of Fort Collins. Further, as an express condition of annexation, Petitioners consent to the inclusion into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (the "Subdistrict") pursuant to §37- 45-136(3.6) C.R.S., Petitioners acknowledge that, upon inclusion into the Subdistrict, Petitioners' property will be subject to the same mill levies and special assessments as are levied or will be levied on other similarly situated property in the Subdistrict at the time of inclusion of Petitioners' lands. Petitioners agree to waive any right to an election which may exist pursuant to Article X, §20 of the Colorado Constitution before the Subdistrict can impose such mill levies and special assessments as it has the authority to impose. Petitioners also agree to waive, upon inclusion, any right which may exist to a refund pursuant to Article X, §20 of the Colorado Constitution. WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Fort Collins approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment "A." Furthermore, the Petitioners request that said area be placed in the LMN Zone District pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins. ❑ (Check box if applicable). The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures therefrom at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the second reading of the annexation ordinance. Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area described on Attachment "A" as more particularly described below: A tract of land situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to -wit: "See Legal Description on Attachment `A'." IN WITNESS WHEROF, I/we have executed this Petition for Annexation this I_day of Petitioner's/Owner's S' ature LLCM Petitioner's/Owner's Signature Y)ID _S, COl 1 Er E AyE1,1l IF, Address Address f-nRT 0-0 M525 City State Zip City State Zip ATTACHMENT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION A tract of land situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to -wit: A Replat of a portion of Lot 4 of Staley/Poudre School MLD00-SI535 being part of North 1/2 of Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, Township 6 North (T6N), Range 60-8 West (R68W) of the 6th Principal Meridian (6PM), County of Larimer, State of Colorado STATE OF COLORADO )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ATTACHMENT "B" The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon his oath states: That he was the circulator of the attached Petition for Annexation and that each signature therein is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Circulator's Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11 day of t)r } p h n by ,TAt,Ij F K. VFQ lTT WITNESS my hand and official Commission Expiration Notary Public ATTACHMENT "C" ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION l"1'Lr;CI , an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, hereby certify that, as of the date of this certificate, the signers of this Annexation Petition for the area referred to as the Annexation to the City of Fort Collins are the owners of real property in the area proposed for annexation. Furthermore, I certify that said owners constitute more than 50% of the landowners in the area proposed for annexation, as said area is described on Attachment "A" of said Annexatiqp Petition, and own more than 50% of the land in said area, exclusive of streets and alleys.::' I t117 Date S gnature 1 Attorney Reg. No. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT • COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMORANDUM TO: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department FROM: Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department 11) DATE: July 8, 2003 SUBJECT: Staley PD & PLD — Traffic Impact Study Comments Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5724 FAX (970) 498-7986 E-Mail: rhayes@larimer.org Project Description ackaround- This is a rezoning from FA-1 Farming to PD-Planned Development for a planned land division to create a mixed - use development of 201 residential lots (125 single-family, 66 townhomes) on 53.77 acres. The property is located at the southwest corner of CR 7 (Strauss Cabin Road) and CR 36 (Kechter Road). The project site lies within the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and will therefore need to comply with the requirements contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Our Department had several comments relating to the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) that was submitted with the preliminary submittal. Several comments were outlined in the memo from Roxann Hayes dated 12Feb03 and I also provided additional comments by phone to George Schock with Northern Engineering Services. He then communicated them to Gene Coppola, the Transportation Engineer. Mr. Coppola responded to these comments with the letter dated 12May03, which I have attached for your reference. Review Criteria: As part of Mr. Copolla's response to our comments, he questioned whether the County was being fair and consistent because there are other developments in the area that were not required to analyze these same traffic impacts. The other referenced developments in the area are Harmony Park, Sage Creek, and Harvest Park, which are City of Fort Collins developments. Therefore, the County did not have the opportunity to provide comments regarding the transportation issues in this area. Since it is our intent to be fair and consistent, Development review staff from this office have reviewed the materials that were submitted per the guidelines and criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use Code (LCLUC), Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Access Code, Storm - Water Management Manual (LCSWMM), and pertinent Intergovernmental Agreements. Below are the most recent comments from the County Engineering Department: A segment of County Road 36 between County Road 7 and the Frontage Road has a double chip seal surface and we are concerned that it does not meet Larimer County Adequate Public facilities requirements. Section 8.1.5.C.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code states that roads within the traffic impact area must have an adequate pavement section to accommodate the projected additional traffic loads from the development without damaging the roadway or accelerating the need for maintenance. In addition, Section 1.9.2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards discusses the developer's responsibility for any street improvements necessary to provide adequate transportation services to the development. The County Engineering Department's position is that if adequate access does not exist at the time of development, the development must make the improvements necessary to meet the standard or wait until others construct the needed improvements. Since 45% (50 peak hour vehicles) of the sites traffic will be directed east on County Road 36 and we are concerned with the structural integrity of a portion of this road segment, the County will h:ldevrevlplanchk\projects\pd'slstaley pd\staley pd & pld prelim 2.doc I require the developer to provide an analysis of the pavement and propose any necessary recommendations to accommodate the traffic loads. The goal of the TIS is to address traffic related issues and provide information and guidance to the review agencies so that better decisions can be made regarding required improvements that are needed to meet the adequate public facilitates requirement for road capacity and safety needs. The County understands that there are existing inadequacies in the road system and that not all needed improvements are critical to meet the adequate public facilities requirement. In other words, the information in the TIS does not necessarily mean that this development would be responsible for constructing all of the improvements. However, we do want a complete analyses done of the entire impact area so that we can thoroughly discuss the results internally and with the applicant and then be able to make an appropriate recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Having all of the information up front also aids with any unprompted questions that may come up at the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioner hearing. Therefore, we feel that the scope of the traffic impact study still needs to include the intersection of CR 7 and State Highway 68 and the intersection of County Road 36 with the I-25 frontage road. Staff Recommendation: We would like the opportunity to review and comment on the revised Traffic Impact Study prior to our support of the preliminary proposal. Otherwise, the Engineering staff does not have any other concerns or comments at this time. If you have any question or would like to discuss this information further, please call me directly at (970) 498-5701. Thank You. cc: Dino Ditullio, 3030 South College, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Eugene Coppola, PO Box 260027, Littleton, CO 80127 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department file h:\devrev\planchk\projects\pd's \sta ley p&staley pd & pld prelim 2.doc Page 2 of2 Tel: 303-792-2450 Fax: 303-792-5990 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E. P.O. sox 260027 Littleton, CO 80163-0027 J MAY 1 5 2003 May 12, 2003 1 ARIMFR rn11NTv Traci Downs Larimer County Engineering P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 RE: Response to Comments on Staley Property TIS Dear Traci: I am responding to staff comments on the above TIS. I have received the comments from George Schock based upon his discussions with the County. Each comment is generally stated followed by a response. �1 , CR 7 is on the short- term capital improvements list for 2004. It will be paved from CR 36 north to the bridge. The County does not require developers to make improve- ments that are on the Short Term Capital Improvements Plan. No response. Please clarify what the word nominal means for traffic going south on CR 7. Nominal is intended to represent from 0 — 2 vehicles per hour. In this case, it was used to reflect the fact that an occasional vehicle might go south on CR 7 to access the 1-25 frontage road, albeit unlikely given the availability of more efficient access. Assigning 5% of the site traffic seems low on CR 7. In actuality, the rounding of site traffic resulted in about 10% of the site traffic going north on CR 7. This represents up to 10 vehicles in the high peak traffic direction. I do not see any benefit for vehicles using CR 7 except perhaps for those vehicles wishing to travel north on 1-25. Given the single lane approach on CR 7 at Harmony Road, significant delay may be experienced during peak hours. Consequently, only minor use of this route is expected dur- ing peak hours. The Harmony Park TIS estimated 10% of that site's traffic would go north on CR 7 despite having direct access to CR 7. In any event the actual number of site trips is small (0-10) during peak hours and even a major change in the distribution percentage will not result in a large number of trips being added to CR 7. Please look at the intersection of CR 7 and SH 68. It is a 2 way stop now. Please study turns at this intersection. Harmony Technology Park is adjacent to this intersection and that TIS evaluated this inter- section under short- and long-term conditions. At build -out Harmony Park will generate some 25,000 trips per day. That study found that one approach lane and stop sign control would operate acceptably through the long-term. The Staley project will add 10 peak hour trips in the peak direction to this intersection. This is considered insignificant. Furthermore, it is unlikely that these vehicles will impact intersection operations at this location. Current peak hour traffic counts at this intersection indicated there are 11 northbound morning peak hour vehicles and 8 northbound afternoon peak hour vehicles at this intersection. This con- firms the minor role of CR 7 in the area street system. Count sheets are attached. Maybe 45% of the site traffic going east on CR 36 is a little high? Possibly, but the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (FCRAP) indicates 25% of the area traf- fic will use 1-25 north and Harmony Road east of 1-25 with 20% using 1-25 to go to the south and CR 36 east of 1-25. The 45% distribution assumes peak hour congestion at the CR 7 — Harmony intersection and is generally in -line with the FCRAP. Please study the intersection of CR 36 and the frontage road to the east. Site traffic at the 45% level represents 40 — 50 peak hour vehicles in the peak travel direc- tion to the east on CR 36. These vehicles will turn onto the frontage roads. Consequently, about 25 left and right turns can be expected. The traffic study for the residential areas in the southeast corner of the Harmony Park project will send 95 — 100 peak hour, peak direction vehicles east on CR 36. That project was not required to investigate the frontage road inter- sections despite having twice the impact. Any auxiliary lane warrants would probably have been triggered by that traffic. In order to be fair and consistent, the County should not re- quire the Staley project to investigate the frontage road intersection. Please do a paving threshold study on CR 36 between CR 7 and the frontage road. Part of this road is a double chip sealed and may require an overlay. Daily traffic on CR 36 between CR 7 and the frontage road is estimated at 2,000 vehicles based upon an expansion factor of 10 times afternoon peak hour traffic. The southeast cor- ner of Harmony Park project will add some 1,400 vehicles per day and Staley will add up to 900 vehicles. Clearly, paving thresholds will be satisfied at least from traffic standpoint. The County did not require a paving threshold study with the traffic study for the Brookfield and Willow Brook developments which are part of Harmony Park. These residential areas and others (Sage Creek, Harvest Park, Fossil Lake, etc) add to traffic using CR 36. In the interest of consistency and fairness, the Staley project should not be required to conduct this investigation or be unfairly burdened with this improvement. I trust the above responses will sufficiently address the issues raised by the County. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, 4E ne G. Coppola, P.E. V � Z 0 U W U i W LL 0 CQ CC G /V // LL Q M� W Q 3= F-O Q ............... . o y U d � o 3^ LO m- c0 N O tD c � o0 1� I� c E 0 et v LO Ln LL7 Ln r e ` R QJ _I it w N U i0 OD ti N :N U71 t7 .a �O G tD M r N cO l0 ti C >. .0 I� CO I� O 1� .- m O co 0 U CN U O N N ch c(i N N N � � N �! O .-- r- O (V .-- 0 w Oli c0 M to h. cd M o- L N N N N t�11 N r w w � 0 W Q� O JaOa ao U_Ow<o•' LO O O O tNVmrix o 0 mU C W pm6 Zd JL LL W Q' O C O O� (D O ('7 - CD fn 0) CV y — N N N N (V Cj L9 W -! O .-- O (V O O s_ O p h• (O f� W N C ttf O F- 0000000�� eeeeeesea 3 O I-- =©ocooccoc E •- O c- M F'• 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0W CO 0 m m .J IARIMER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COUNTY Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 I (970) 498-5701 y' FAX (970) 498-7986 MEMORANDUM TO: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department FROM: Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department DATE: July 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Staley PD & PLD (a.k.a. McClellands Creek) — 5th Set Preliminary Comments Project Description: This is a proposal for a planned land division to create a mixed -use development on 53.77 acres. The property is located at the southwest corner of CR 7 (Strauss Cabin Road) and CR 36 (Kechter Road). The project site lies within the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and will therefore need to comply with the requirements contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Review Criteria: The intent of the Preliminary Plat submittal is to justify the feasibility of the proposal. Development review staff reviews submitted materials per the criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use Code (LCLUC), Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Access Code, Storm -Water Management Manual (LCSWMM), and pertinent Intergovernmental Agreements. The following comments include issues, questions, and technical requirements that need to be addressed prior to a preliminary hearing: Transportation/Access Issues• 1. The preliminary plat was not submitted so I could not confirm if the right-of-way requirements stated in Section 9.7 of the LCLUC have been addressed. CR 36, functionally classified as a 2-lane Arterial Street and depicted on Figure 7-317 of the LCUASS, requires a 42-foot half right-of-way. CR 7, classified as a Connector Local Street and depicted on Figure 7-817 of the LCUASS, requires a 28.5-foot half right-of-way. Response: Adequate Right of Way will be provided per LCUASS standards. 2. The applicant has requested alternative compliance to the connectivity design standard across McClelland's Creek, which the County can support since a pedestrian connection is still proposed. A road connection to the south has been provided. Response: No Comment 3. The internal roads and cul-de-sacs will need to meet the criteria in the LCUASS. The preliminary plans should include the appropriate typical cross -sections to document that this is expected. Response: Cross sections have beet: added to the plans. 4. The area that will have multifamily units has not been designed. I would like clarification on whether this use is getting approved as part of this application or if it will be part of a separate application after the entire site has been annexed into the City of Fort Collins. If the use will be approved as part of this submittal, additional preliminary information regarding the parking, access, drainage, utilities, etc will need to be reviewed and approved. Only one access is shown for this entire area. It should be confirmed that only one access is adequate for the proposed number of units. Response:An additional access to the multi family units has been added to the plans. A site plan will be submitted with the building permit application for the future development of the multi family property which will include details on parking, access, drainage, utilities.etc... cAdocuments and settings\dianne\local settings\temporary internet files\olk101\county comments mcc crk pld.doc