Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WATERFIELD PUD, FIRST FILING - FINAL - 7-95C - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS
Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 3 COMMENTS Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN, MMN, CC; undeveloped. S: I, Industrial (County); industrial uses, railroad yard. O, Open (County); existing mobile home park (Collins Aire Mobile Home Park). LMN; undeveloped (pending mobile home park). E: FA-1 (County); Plummer School, farming, undeveloped. W: FA-1(County); farming, undeveloped. T(City); undeveloped. This property was annexed into the City as part of the East Vine Drive 6th Annexation on August 2, 1983 and the East Vine Drive 7th Annexation on August 16, 1983 and was placed in the T, Transition zoning district. On May 21, 1996 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 52, 1996 which rezoned the southern 60 acres of the property I-L, Light Industrial with a PUD condition and the northern 80 acres of the property R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition. In addition Ordinance No. 52, 1996 rezoned the property with a condition that any residential development of the property be at a density of at least 6 dwelling units per net developable acre (as defined in Ordinance No. 52). On February 27, 1997 the applicant submitted the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B development application. On March 17, 1997 the City Council approved the CityPlan Zoning map which rezoned the property to the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. The Preliminary PUD application was processed according to the requirements of the Land Development Guidance System, in accordance with Ordinance No. 161, 1996. On May 19, 1997 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B by a vote of 5-0 including variances and a condition. The First Filing, Final PUD request was submitted on June 20, 1997 (within 6 months of the May 19, 1997 approval of the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B), in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 161, 1996. Therefore, this application is subject to the requirements of the LDGS. 2. Land Use: This is a Final PUD request for a total of 43 single-family lots, 176 multi -family dwelling units, and a 1,500 square foot clubhouse/pool on 27.5 acres. The overall density of the First Filing is 7.96 dwelling units per acre. Or R L OSr IGKCT GRAOC NA ItiR b TO a AW G SOLID WOOD FENCE: NJ 5, PLANT Lccrnc woxo ne.me. awn vri.e L © _'Fvm -c�L�L7 T� n7TrT7T� WATERI'�LD P. V 1J. uNos MAL APE PLAN 1ST FUJNG BULL RUN APARTMENTS PRAT OOLLM CowltAm o u w w yyor•x el 9 1.0 INTRODUCTION Jim McCory is currently working to develop approximately 140 acres of land (known as the Country Club Farms L.L.C.) in north Fort Collins, Colorado, for residential real estate. The City of Fort Collins requires a letter from an individual who is qualified to delineate jurisdictional wetlands regarding the presence or absence of wetlands on lands proposed for development. Jurisdictional wetlands are wetlands areas that fall into the domain of regulatory oversight. This report is written to satisfy this requirement for proposed land development. The wetlands delineation described in this report identified 11.50 acres of jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed development area. The wetlands consists of 11.50 acres of cattail marsh and is located near the center of the site. The wetland areas appear to be the result of seepage from the Larimer and Weld Canal. Storm water runoff may also supplement water to the wetlands areas. Some of the wetlands occur in areas that have been used for agricultural development. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to document a study to identify and delineate jurisdictional wetlands within the 140-acre parcel of the Country Club Farms site in Fort Collins, Colorado, to satisfy Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to issue.permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. 1.2 Site Location The study site consists of a proposed filing called the Country Club Farms L.L.C. site (referred to hereafter as the Country Club Farms site). The Country Club Farms site is currently slated for proposed real estate development; if the site is developed, it will contain single family residential developments. A map showing the general location of the Country Club Farms site is provided in Appendix A. The Country Club Farms site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Coordinates for the site were estimated from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Fort Collins quadrangle map (USGS 1960) and are 105' 02' 01" west longitude and 40° 36' 05" north latitude. 1.3 Site Description The majority of the Country Club Farms survey area consists of an upland agricultural development. The site contains a naturally occurring topographic low area that has developed into a cattail marsh with ponded water. The Larimer and Weld Canal traverses the northern boundary of the property. Water diverted from the canal is used to flood irrigate a part of the north area of the site where corn is grown. The southern portion of the site was primarily under cultivation for wheat. The site slopes gently downward to the south, with the elevation ranging from approximately 4, 950 to 4,980 feet amsl. The wetland area at the Country Club Farm site is situated in a topographical low area. A ditch exists along the east side of the wetland area. This ditch may have been used to drain the area at one time, but it does not appear functional at this time. A366 01.96 CHAPo.DOC 1-1 I W 1/4 CORNER I SECTION 5 FOUyNbD #4 REBAR I 2j/2" ALUM. CAP LS #17662 I I 83.20tt WETLANDS AREA 11,050 AC* WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 5 in kn N45'34'05"W 205.82 ft CL EASEMENT FOR 27" WATERLINE FOR CITY OF GREELEY WIDTH NOT DEFINED BK 1465 PG 452 N44'22'43"W 218.51ft CL 15' WATERLINE EASEMENT FOR EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BK 1740 PG 896 N41'44'57"W 245.72ft Ct WATERLINE EASEMENT FOR CITE OF GREELEY WIDTH NOT DEFINED BK 737 PG 575 203.00ft CA . I A C.'nn'nrY'U# 252.76f S86goo WE 1964.80ft 60- iREE 00F 4 II I 37.5' II 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT FOR EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ,I BK 1873 PG 126 7 -340" sf 49~°) Sso � 75• pOWERLINE EASEMENT SK 914 PG 585 EXISTING TOP OF BANK NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 5 36" PIPE CROSSING 553'49 �176.30ft ft S63'35'57 117.81 ft SSSS r 4 B S54-15'00"E(D) 35't J I273.70ft. I 8A ::::::: :::::::.. O 4A CL DITCH Q S62'S5'00"E(D) PER DEED • . • 130.00ft ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0 2 A B S82'20'00"E(D) 8 .. I .-.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::.... 2 B I ::: ::::: ::_:_:_:.:... _ .......: WETLANDS II........ ............. 'I --•--•• ................ ... FENCE I ..................... �I =:: 140-09 I I :.:.:.: o 17 A II 14Ao : 17B � II I I II SET N89036' I N89'11': I S00'23'23"W (D) I 46.00f S00'4a8'34"W 82.22ft I � SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):.U A ^ a� - ��-� ��� �' ? �� sf Drainage Class: ;2 r�i c./'i,►��co/ Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? a No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Cinches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: — _ Histosol . _ -- _ _ _ . Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _4ZOther (Explain in Remarks) Remarrks:CJjXSei: ����✓ eves ori%G �, �r� ���� �v� �.. ih �/JG So�� G✓aS O6SG /-liGo/ 4 6�.../ y'�'/3G C'/G��� GJ� d/S7�U /`Q o... G C WETLAND DETERMINATION s G c- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? � No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? JrW No Hydric Soils Present? 1 e- No (Circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ae ._ No Remarks: �rC v i t I7o f �jcf��..n./.�X��r�-sc-,�:s- Gv.'.��6� �' G,-i /973 �..6�`i•G���ie% Approved by HOUSACE 3/92 Program: Fort Collins CDBG Program Project Name: San Cristo PUD Phase 2 Locality: City of Fort Collins Sponsor's Name: City of Fort Collins Phone: 221-6758 Street Address: 300 Laporte Avenue City, State: Fort Collins, CO Acceptability. Category 1. Roadway Noise Acceptable 2. Aircraft Noise 3. Railway Noise Acceptable Acceptable - Predicted for Operations in Year 1997 1996/97 1996/97 Cultural, -Library and Recreational ServiceL Forestry Division MEMORANDUM DT: September 17, 1997 TO: Mike Ludwig, City Planner FR: Tim Buchanan, City Forester RE: Water&e 1st Filing Final A meeting was held onsite with Linda Ripley on September 16, 1997 to evaluate retention of existing trees located north of the Ball property. The grove in question includes approximately twenty large and mature trees consisting primarily of Cottonwood and a few Siberian Elms. The majority of the grove except four or five trees, are of good enough condition and free of structural defects so as to warrant their retention on the project. Linda indicated the site design will be adjusted to retain all the good trees. Existed protected trees will be noted on the landscape plan with notes requiring pruning and protection. Engineering plans will need to incorporate the tree site survey information to avoid grading damage. The site plan also indicated that there were existing trees north of the main grove. We discovered in the field that these were only old stumps and not existing trees. Final revisions should correct this and show only existing trees. 281 North College Avenue • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (970) 221-6361 • FAX (970) 221-6586 ��.. �Y ;fir •ft 1. _.. - ,� '' Y a. 4 N �'�+ )z 4v a • fir' ;f$.. Y.., rye � ��+TjT SG L ... h -� 1♦Vd� /lyY .�'•T" T -� i... TSNii.�-.�-�•'a ♦y ..�g?n R.: sy ,�/^` - € 1 ��t"•9 Pp' � - _ ' �+ Y e n _ s, _.._� AleS.r^- kHRUA ec V' w -rTT- TY J — _ _�_ �—__ _ ___ � — —•�_ .--.ttiy'�� i.v..,.'a:.�...�, eThSSF;;C�.. 'Y'�j�' L- '� 1577 .•.r 3jy ' BULL RUN APART ENTS WETLAND IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES ♦G.1J X111. wme. II m c.wv xeees .M c%epartY � o !G u5 GYW OWNER'S CERTIFICATION aril �_ err � 1letlevd[ ♦.n..a 9op Re w co. � aw.aua PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPROVAL ssarm�s>:�- j =k, RAsr VINE URVR �r mot, =me, [ e Y Lompep, Y.e.n bo.tl t LEGAL DESCRIPTION OBI. 91w1 ..pet.y{nn 4 - [ e Y Cemysc, — Ef3 \ Y=Y.E=n B1� u�eaty c.et.r eemor Cottages cottage[ m Amerlce 0 v.=.et 'a LAND USE BREAKDOWN VICINITY MAP ....© BYII Run Apartment[ w Y..np.. WAT RFfFT n P.U.D. PORT GOLDS COLORADO 91.ek rw rr,r.. TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT �E: 1.. 2M' .ae • r Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet D Railway Noise . page 2 Adjustments for Diesel Locomotives 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. Of Average Night- No. ,Of DNL Barrier Part Locos/ Speed Horns Time Trains Adj. No Chart Atten. DNL 2 Table 9 (Enter 10) Table 5 (Line 2a) Opus. 3 Rail No. 1 .5 x 3 x 10 x 0 x 5 = 75 73 Rail No. 2 x x x Adjustments for Railway Cars or Rapid Transit Trains 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 No. of Ave. Bolted Night- No. Of Adj. DNL Barrier Part. Cars/ Speed Rails Time Trains No. Of Chart Atten. DNL 2 Table 10 (enter 4) Table 5 (lime 2a/b) Opers. 4 Rail. No. 1 5 x .11 x 4 x 0 x 5 = 11 53 Rail No. 2 • Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet C Railway Noise List all Railways within 3000 feet of the site. 1. Burlington Northern - Greeley Branch 2. Necessary Information Railway 1 Railway 2 1. Distance in feet from NAL to rail track 100' 2. Number of trains in 24 hours a. Diesel 5 b. Electrified - 3. Fraction of operations at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 4. Number of diesel locomotives per train 1 5. Number of rail cars per train a. Diesel trains 10 b. Electrified trains - 6. Average train speed in mph 10 7. Is track welded or bolted? Bolted 8. Are whistles or horns required for . Grade crossings? Yes Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet C Roadway Noise page 2 Adjustments for Automobile Traffic 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Stop & go Average Night- Auto Adjusted DNL Barrier Partial Table 3 Speed Time ADT Auto ADT Work Atten. DNL Table 4 Table 5 Line 5C Chart 1 Road No. 1 0 x .21 x .81 x 171780 = 3,024 Under 45 Road No. 2 0 x .21 x .81 x 5,715 = 972 50 Road No. 3 x x x = Road No. 4 x x x = Adjustments for Heavy Truck Traffic 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Average Truck Stop & go Night Adj. DNL Barrier Part Grad. Speed ADT Table 8 Time Truck Work atten.. DNL Table 6 Table 7 -2 Table 5 ADT Chart2 Uphill 1.4. X .81 X 105 = 119 Road no. 1 238 X 0 X .81 = 193 53 Downhill 1.4 X .81, X 105 = 119 Uphill 1.4 X .81 X 34 = 39 .. Road no. 2 .. 78 X 0 X .81= 63 57- . Downhill . 1.4 .X .81 .. X 34 =.39 ; Combined Automobile & Heavy Track DNL.'`. Road No. 1 54.. Road No. 2 58 Signature ' K- Date ?✓Z �� Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet C Roadway Noise List all major roads within 1000 feet of the site. 1 9th Street (North Lemay Avenue) 2. Vine Drive Necessary Information Road 1 Road 2 . 1. Distance in feet from NAL to Edge of the road A. Nearest lane 450' 120' B. Farthest lane 500' 155' C. Average (effective distance) 475' 138' 2. Distance to stop sign N/A N/A 3. Road gradient in percent 2% 2% 4. Average speed in mph A. Automobiles 25 25 B. Heavy trucks- uphill N/A N/A C. Heavy trucks -downhill N/A N/A . 5. 24-hour average number of automobiles & medium trucks both directions (SDT) A. Automobiles . 13,580 4,365 B. Medium trucks 420 135. C. Effective ADT (a+(10xb)) 17;780 57715 Worksheet B Aircraft Noise List all airports within 15 mines of the site. 1 Fort Collins Community Airpark 2 Necessary Information 1. Are DNL, NEF, or CNR contours? available (yes/no) 2. Any supersonic aircraft operations? (yes/no) 3. Estimating approx. contours from Fig. 3: a. Number of nighttime jet operations b. Number of daytime jet operations c. Effective number of operations (10 times a + b) d..Distance A for 65db 70 db 75 db e. Distance B for 65 db 70 db 75 db 4.. Estimating DNL from Table 2: a. Distance from 65 db contour to flight path, D 1 b. Distance from NAl to flight path, D2 c. D2 divided by D 1 Airport 1 No No . 2 20 1,700' . 1,000' 500' 7,000' 5,000' 2,000' 1,700' 7,000' . 4.1 rrnAAr Sn Airport 2 Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet A Site Evaluation Site Location: East of 9th Street (North Lemay Avenue), South of Vine Drive Program: Fort Collins CDBG Program Project Name: San Cristo PUD Phase 2 Locality: City of Fort Collins Sponsor's Name: City of Fort Collins Phone: 221-6758 Street Address: 300 Laporte Avenue City, State: Fort Collins, CO Acceptability DNL Predicted for Category Operations in Year 1 Roadway Noise Acceptable 60 1996/97 2. Aircraft Noise Acceptable Under 50 1996/97 3. Railway Noise Normally Unacceptable 73 . 1996/97 Final Site Evaluation (circle one) Sherry Albertson -Clark October 3, 1984 Page Two Alta Vista Neighborhood - This neighborhood has been determined eligible as a result of the above Highway Department survey. A district boundary map is enclosed as you requested. We look forward to continued consultation regarding your rehabilitation efforts. Please contact Kaaren Patterson or Gloria Mills at 866-3395 or 866-3392 if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Barbara Sudler JState. Historic Preservation Officer BS/�KKP:ss cc: Howard Kutzer, HUD Enclosure YIC'� OCT , t COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado Heritage Center 1300 Broadway Denver. Colorado 80203 October 3, 1984 Sherry Albertson -Clark Senior City Planner Office of Planning & Development City of -Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Communitv Development Block Grant Residential Rehabilitation Dear Ms. Albertson -Clark: Based upon the September 25, 1984, meeting with Ken Waido, Jackie Davis and yourself of the Citv of Fort Collins; Howard Kutzer of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Gloria Mills and Kaaren Patterson of this office, we have the following understandings: Holy Family Neighborhood - Within six months, i.e. April, 1985, the Citv of Fort Collins, will have offered its opinion concerning whether there are any individual properties and/or districts within this neighborhood which meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In the interim, we will review all rehabilitation activi- ties for properties fifty years of age or older within the neighborhood against the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to insure that no properties which may be determined eligible are adversely affected by the proposed work. The enclosed questionnaire may be of assistance in evaluating National Reg- ister significance of districts and individual properties. Buckingham Neighborhood - After an on -site visit to this neighborhood, it is the opinion of this office that the neighborhood contains no eligible districts or individually eligible properties. The neighborhood has suffered a loss of integrity and lacks distinctive architectural examples. Therefore it will not be necessary for our office to review rehabilitation projects in this area, since there will be no potential to affect significant cultural resources. Andersonville Neighborhood - As a result of a survey conducted by the Colorado Department of Highways, it has been determined that this neighborhood also -lacks any eligible districts or individually eligible properties. (Correspondence enclosed.) Environmental Assessment Checklist page 10 21. See source #1 above - 22. See source #1 above 23. See source #1 above " 24. See source #1 above 25. See source #7 above 26. See source #1 above 27. See source,#1 above 28. See source #7 above 29. City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, as amended ' Traffic Impact Analysis for Fort Collins Business Center, Residential Portion City of Fort Collins Development Review Office Reviewed by consultant: . Sherry Albertson -Clark, Owner Albertson -Clark Associates - 30. See source #1 above _ 31. See sources #1 and #7 above .. 32..Jean Pakech, Secretary II City of Fort Collins StormWaterUtility Floodplain Map #0801020004C, dated 3/18/96 _ 33. See source' #32 above .. 34. See source #9 above .35 Not applicable in HUD Region Val ; 36. See source #9 above 37. 'See sources #9 above 1 _ 1 No Text Environmental Assessment Checklist page 8 Source or Documentation (to use along with sources identified for each of the 36 impact topics on Pages 1 - 4 of the Environmental Assessment Checklist) 1. Interview with Mike Ludwig, City Planner City of Fort Collins Development Review Office Reviewed by consultant: Fort Collins Zoning Map Fort Collins Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) San Cristo PUD, Phase 1 Amended Preliminary and Final File 2. Review of area development plans in City of Fort Collins Development Review Office and site visit by consultant: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Owner Albertson Clark Associates Plans reviewed by consultant: San Cristo PUD, Phase 1 Preliminary and Final Files Storm Drainage Report for San Cristo PUD, Phase 2 prepared by Stewart and Associates, 2/20/96 3. Review of Soil Survey by consultant: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Owner Albertson -Clark Associates Survey pages 42-43 reviewed in Soil Survey of Latimer County Area, CO, December 1980 4. See source #3 above 5. See source #3 above 6. General knowledge of area by consultant: Sherry Albertson -Clark,, Owner Albertson Clark Associates ` Review of EPA's Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites Inventory 7. General knowledge of area and review of City Transit Maps (dated 8/26%96),' site plan and Landscape Plans (No date, most recent copies,.prepared by Stewart and Associates) by Environmental Assessment Checklist page 7 1. Is project in compliance with applicable laws and regulations? _X Yes _ No 2. Is an EIS required? _ Yes X_ No 3. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be made. Project will not significantly' affect the quality of the human environment. X Yes No Prepared by: Title: Sherry Albertson -Clark, AICP Owner Albertson Clark Associates 5313 Fairway Six Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Environmental Assessment Checklist page 6 however, the proposed use is not a "critical action" and therefore, is not considered to impact or be impacted by, the base floodplain (100-year floodplain). Project Modifications and Alternatives Considered: Noise attenuation of 10 decibels will be required the reduce the noise levels from 73 DNL. The 8' high berm planted with evergreen trees proposed on the development site plan will not provide adequate noise attenuation from railroad noise levels, because the source (rail diesel engine and cars) level is at 15' and the proposed berm does not break the line -of -sight between the source (rail) and receiver (proposed homes). Environmental Additional Studies Performed (Attach Study or Summary) Noise Analysis was performed for the proposed project (see attached). Results of this analysis showed that noise from the adjacent arterial streets and the Burlington -Northern Railroad results in a Normally Unacceptable evaluation. (See above) Mitigation Measures Needed: Noise attenuation is required, to lower the site's combined noise levels from 73 DNL. Recommended measures for noise attenuation are for a barrier high enough to break the line of sight (15' above railroad tracks), and. as an alternative; interior noise attenuation measures. Final interior sound levels must be no greater than 45 decibels. Certification must be provided from a noise attenuation engineer that the measures proposed reduce interior sound levels to no areater than 45 decibels.. • Environmental Assessment Checklist page 5 Summary of Findings and Conclusions: The proposed protect consists of 40 single-family homes on lots. Existing uses in the area include single family homes to the west and south Land to the east is still undeveloped and to the north is a railroad line and an existing trucking company north of Vine Drive. Future development to the east is expected to be industrial. The site is phase 2 of an exiting single-family development Access to the City's transit system is convenient, with a bus route at 9th Street (north Lemay)) and Vine Drive and bicycle lanes on 9th. The site is atypical urban site, with no slope Drainage must be delivered off -site and will require off -site easements prior to development of the site. The site is within the 500-year floodplain of Dry Creek; however, the proposed use is not considered a "critical action". T Itijitic arr, a a IahIP to C the c tP nP p rnnnc A hnmrc arr I SOO `mare fnaf in cizo an Ints a minimum of 3,895 square feet One shade tree will be provided for each lot and individual owners will be responsible for foundation plantings Off-street parking will be provided on each lot and in garages at each home. An 8-foot high berm is proposed along the north side of the site for noise attenuation and is to be planted with 19 evergreens on the top of the berm Six-foot high cedar fencing is planned along the site's eastern boundary. The area has a diverse socioeconomic population and housing types are predominantly single family. The development of this site as a continuation of the San Cristo development (a Joint Venture for Affordable Housing demonstration project) is logical given the location and configuration of the site. This development is not expected to impact the socioeconomic or demographic character of this area. This project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental -effect on minority and or low-income populations. This project will not exclude participation in ; or deny benefits to people because of their race color or national origin. Summary of Environmental Conditions: A noise study was conducted and determined that noise levels from the adjacent arterial streets (9th and Vine) and the Burlington -Northern Railroad are Normally Unacceptable: Mitigation will be required. There are no historical cultural or archaeological resources associated with or related to this site. There are no air qualitywater resource wetlands or hazards associated with or related to this site. This site is located northwest of the Fort Collins"Community Aitpark which is not a commercial service airport; however, aircraft noise levels were evaluated and have minimal impact on the site. The site is within the 500-year floodplam of Dry Creek; Environmental Assessment Checklist page. 3 Project Name and Identification No.: San Cristo PUD, Phase 2, Fort Collins, CO Impact Categories* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Source or documentation Community Facilities and Services Educational facilities X Review of PUD file for site by consultant - 9/11/96 Commercial facilities X General knowledge of area and review of area maps . Health Care X General knowledge of area and review of area maps Social Services X General knowledge of area and review of area maps Solid Waste X Review of PUD file by consultant 9/11/96 Waste Water X Review of Water Utility comments in PUD file by consultant - 9/11/96 Water Supply X Review of Water Utility comments in PUD file by consultant - 9/11/96 Public Safety - Police X . Review of City Police Department comments in PUD file - 9/11/96 Public Safety - Fire X - Review of PFA comments in PUD file by consultant - 9/11/96 Public Safety - Emer/Med X General knowledge of area and and review of site plan Open Space X Review of Parks Department comments in PUD file - 9/11/96 LA Environmental Assessment Checklist page 2 XT......,..A T.to,.t;finat;nn Mn • San .Cristo PUD. Phase 2. Fort Collins. CO Impact Categories* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Source or documentation nIr yunmy Effects of ambient air quality on project and X Interview with Karen Manci contribution to com- Environmental Planner, City munity pollution levels Natural Resources Div. - 9/10/96 Environmental Design and kistoric Values ' Visual quality/coherence, diversity, compatible General knowledge of area, use and scale X review of site plan and site visit - by consultant - 9/10/96 Historic, cultural and- See attached letter of determination archaeological resources X by Colorado SHPO Socioeconomic Demographic/character changes X I Review of 1990 Census Data for Tract 13.03, City of Fort Collins Displacement X General knowledge of area and site visit by consultant Employment and income X Review of 1990 Census Data for patterns, Tract 13.03, City of Fort Collins Social justice X Review of 1990 Census Data for • Environmental Assessment Checklist page 1 Prniect Name and Tdentification No.: San Cristo PUD Phase 2. Fort Collins.,CO Impact Categories* 1 2. 3 4 5 6 Source or documentation land aeveionment Conformance With Discussion with City Planner Comprehensive X Mike Ludwig and review of Plans and Zoning City Zoning Map and codes - 9/11/96 (requires PUD approval) Compatibility and X Discussion with City Planner Urban Impact Mike Ludwig, review of area Plans 9/11/96, site visit 9/10/96 Slope X Review of Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, CO pages 42-43 and site visit by consultant - 9/10/96 Erosion X Review of Soil Survey of Larimer County. Area, Co pages 42-43 and site visit by consultant on 9/10/96 Soil Suitability X Review of Soil Survey of Latimer County Area, CO pages 42-43 Hazards and General knowledge of area, review . Nuisances, including X of area land uses and EPA listing - Site Safe 9/11/96 Energy X General knowledge of area and Consumption review of City Transit Maps, site and landscape plans - 9/11/96 Noise: X Effects of Ambient See attached Noise Analysis Noise on project and contribution to community noise levels" Statutory Checklist Project Name and Identification No. San Cristo PUD, Phase 2, Fort Collins, CO Are all activities of this project exempt from NEPA procedures? —Yes X_ No Are activities of this project categorically excluded from NEPA procedures? Yes X No Area of Statutory - Reg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Compliance Doc. Compliance N/A Consult. Rev. Permits Det. of Conds/ Req. Req. Req. Con- mitig. sistency req. SHPO determination Historic Properties X in 1984 "not eligible" Site is outside base floodplain (100 yr.) Floodplain Management X and is not a critical action No wetlands in area Wetlands Protection X X Noise Analysis shows Noise I normally unacce t. Air Quality X No affect on air qual. Manmade Hazards No hazards present Thermal/explosive hazs X Airport Clear zones X No commer. service No navigable water Water Quality . in area Navigable water X . Aquifers X No affect Solid Waste D' osal X No affect Coastal Areas Not on coast Coastal zone ingint. X No endangered Fnrianoiw,-d gnariPQ X snecies in area a • Project Location San Cristo Phase 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION San Cristo PUD, Phase 2, Fort Collins, CO The project is located east of 9th Street.(North Lemay Avenue) and south of Vine Drive. The site is proposed for 40 single-family homes on individual lots. The Fort Collins Housing Authority proposes to construct homes on Lots 1-33. The homes planned for this site will be two and three - bedroom homes, approximately 1,500 square feet in size. Minimum lot size is 3,895 square feet. The proposed structures will be similar in size to the existing single family homes adjacent to the site to the south and west. The preliminary PUD plans were approved by the City of Fort Collins in 1988. This proposal has been submitted to the City of Fort Collins as an amended preliminary and final plan and is expected to be considered for final approval yet this year. Area land uses include: Burlington Northern Railroad and an existing trucking company (north of Vine Drive) to the north; undeveloped land to the east (industrial portion of Fort Collins Business Center); existing single family homes to the south (San Cristo PUD, Phase 1); and existing single family homes to the west (Anderson Place Subdivision). EN[1IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT For San Cristo PUD, Phase 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Jackie Davis 10/1/96 Page 2 Because of the location of the railroad to the north of the site, Lots 1-8 of the proposed San Cristo plat are most directly impacted by railroad noise. Lots 9, 32 and 33 also have noise levels exceeding acceptable levels, with a 67 DNL expected. Thus, a Noise Attenuation Engineer may be able to design acoustical solutions for those lots which exceed 65 DNL and certify that all lots on the site meet the 45 dB interior noise level. If you have any questions about this assessment, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ALBERTSON CLARK ASSOCIATES Planning O Historic Preservation O Community Participation October 1, 1996 Jackie Davis CDBG Specialist P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Jackie: Attached is the completed Environmental Assessment for the Housing Authority's San Cristo PUD, Phase 2 site. I have made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the results of this assessment; however, the Housing Authority will be required to provide a certification from a Noise Attenuation Engineer about mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the project and certify that such measures will reduce interior noise levels in the proposed homes to 45 dB. The combined noise levels shown in my analysis of the site and surrounding noise levels from roadway and railway traffic results in a 73 DNL (day night average sound level) for the site, making noise levels in the "Normally Unacceptable" level. Interior noise levels must be no greater than 45 dB. The "Acceptable" noise level of 65 dB assumes that standard construction practices will result in an interior noise level of 45 dB. . The proposed 8' high berm with evergreen trees planted along the top of the berm does not provide noise attenuation for this site, because it does not break the line of sight between the source of the noise (diesel train engineer at 15' above grade of tracks) and the receiver (proposed one-story homes). Vegetation, such as the proposed evergreen trees, does little for noise attenuation because it does not provide a solid barrier. 'A barrier in the proposed location would have to exceed 15' above grade to begin to provide any noise attenuation for the proposed homes. While a barrier -is generally the most desirable noise mitigation measure, since it reduces exterior sound levels, placing a 15'+ high barrier in the back yards of the proposed homes is probably not the best choice, from an aesthetic standpoint. . An alternative to providing noise attenuation through a barrier is to provide acoustical construction measures which are beyond standard construction practices. These measures must be designed and certified by a Noise Attenuation Engineer, . that the design and installation of such measures will reduce interior noise levels to no greater than 45 dB. Commtffy Planning and Environmentaoices Advance Planning Department 0 Community Development Block Grant Program :y of Fort Collins October 29, 1996 Ms. Shelly Stephens, Executive Director Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Environmental Assessment - Fort Collins Housing Authority - San Cristo PUD, Phase 2 Dear Shelly: Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment for the Housing Authority's San Cristo PUD, Phase 2 site which was prepared by Sherry Albertson -Clark. There was a Finding of No Significant Impact based on the results of the assessment; however the Housing Authority will be required to provide a certification from a Noise Attenuation Engineer about mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the project and certify that such measures will reduce interior noise levels in the proposed homes to 45 dB. Please be advised that no Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be released for this project until the City receives a certification from a Noise Attenuation Engineer that the project complies with HUD regulations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, .__ Jackie Davis 'Community Development Specialist Enclosure 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6758 FAX (970) 224-6111 TDD (970) 224-6002 Workchart 5 Noise Harrier To find R. D and h f m SKs 5:1 dons and Distances Fit out the following wakStreet (all quantities are in feet): EnteNh/e�valu/ens for: S. Q= 1. Elevation o1 barrier top minus elevation of source 2. Elevation Of observer rnirm elevation of source 3. Map distance between source andabssrver (R' + D') 4. Map distance between barrier and source (A ) 5. Line 2 divided by line 3 6. Square the quantity on line 5 (j.e-. multiply it by itself): always positive 7 40.16 of line 6 8. one minus fine 7 9. Line 5 times Jim 4 (win be negative if line 2 is negative) 10. Line 1 minus line 9 11. Line 10 times fine 8 12. Line 5 times line 10 13. Line 4 divided by line 8 14. Line 13 plus fine 12 15, Line 3 minus fine 4 16. Line 15 divided by line 8 17. Line 16 minus line 12 e ["02D l -[s /S" l-[1 r l [0 1-[S !S 1=[2='7 1 (3 [4 Q lj [2 / 1 - [3 ` O� 1 = [5 ,� O� (5 -�Olo 1 x [5 -; 0& ] _ [6 , 0031a1 [ 0.4 1 x (61 003 (p ] _ [7 , 0 o/yyl [ 1.0 1-17,00lyy]_[s,nags-�j 12, r4 60 1 _ [8 1 Fffs71 = [13 �CO3 OO r13 /Qo 1 + 112i S�� 1 = [14 H 1 — /V/�U ��/0 115 �rJ l_[g �I�l� °1= 116Ll j (Note: the value on line 2 may be negative, in fines 10, 14• and 17. that adding a negative nurn Round off A and D to nearest kite". h to one which rase so will the vanes on lines 5.9. and 12; bar is the same as subtracting- decimal place. fine 1 may also be negative- Pmnambw. then. in x ♦ (-y).x-y. Mdsubb'aCWV anagalive number is like adding: x-(-YI=x•Y. 23 71 • Poo • • . • ��!� �%i/i%%%� .. =----- -MEW //%9sed%- :PM PII �%No om PM PEP oc go nowmmmoc 50..2• . ■H■■■■■■■■■■. .. :.....-_..........�.. ......olm •■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■ :■■■ :■■ .. �.■■■■■■■■■■■■111mom ■■■■■■■■ ►..■■■■■■■■■■■:�I■■■■�■ ■■■■ `►`..■■■■ ■■ ■■11■■■ `.. ■ ■■ ;■■■ ■■■■ i11■ ■■■ ■■■■No oil ME 0 , . i i i i - tt fi7 a mom on a �• .mom■ - 20 24 72 Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet D Railway Noise page 2 Adjustments for Diesel Locomotives 10 11 12 , 13 14. 15 16 17 Average Night- . No. Of DNL Barrier Part Speed Homs Time Trains . Adj. No Chart Atten. DNL. Table 9 (Enter 10) Table 5.. (Line 2a) Opus., 3 Rail No. 1 Rail No. 2 9 No., Of Locos/ .2 .1.5 x 1.5 x 10 x 1.0 x 7 = 158 75 11 = 64 x x x Adjustments.for Railway Cars.or Rapid Transit Trains 18 19 20 . 21 22 23 24 25. 26 No. 'of Ave. Bolted Night- No. Of -Adj, DNL Barrier Part.. el f T .1 _ T' T - lT _ - ! 1_ _ _ A---- Tl R Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet D Railway Noise List all Railways within 3000 feet of the site. 1 Burlington Northern - Mainline 2. Necessary Information Railway 1 Railway 2 1. Distance in feet from NAL to rail track 107' 2. Number of trains in 24 hours a. Diesel 7 b. Electrified - 3. Fraction of operations at night 15% (10p.m.to7a.m) 4. Number of diesel locomotives per tram 3 V 5. Number of rail cars per train a. Diesel trains 75 b. Electrified trams - . . 6. Average train speed in mph 20 7. Is track welded or bolted? Welded 8. Are whistles or horns required' for Grade crossings? Yes .._ 1% Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet C Roadway Noise page 2 Adjustments for Automobile Traffic 9 ` 10 .. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Stop & go Average Night- Auto Adjusted DNL Barrier Partial Table 3 Speed Time ADT Auto ADT Work Atten. DNL Table 4 Table 5 Line 5C Chart 1 Road No.1 0 x .21 x .81 x 177780. = 31024 Under 45 - 11 = under 34 Road No. 2 0 x .21 x .81 x 5,715 = 972 50 - 11 = 39 Road No. 3 x x x _ Road No. 4 x x x .Adjustments for Heavy Truck Traffic '17 18 19 20.21 22 23 24 25 .. 26 . 27 Average.. Truck Stop & go. Night Adj. DNL Barrier Part Grad. Speed : ADT Table 8 Time Truck Work atten. DNL Table 6 Table 7 2 Table 5 ADT Chart2 Uphill 1.4 X .81 X 105 = 119 .. Road no. 1 238 .- X.0 X .81 = 193 53 - 11 = 42 Downhill 1.4 X .81 X 105 = 119 Uphill IA . X 81 X. 34. =.39 :.'.. Road no. 2 .. 78 X. `0 X .81 = 63 -57 -.11 = 46 .:.. ,. .81 " Downhill 1.4 X X 34 = 39 _ Combined Automobile &Heavy ,Truck Road No..,l 43 . • Road No. 2 Signatur ' "Date :. y 1. Noise Assessment Guidelines Worksheet C Roadway Noise List all major roads within 1000 feet of the site: 1. 9th Street (North Lemay Avenue) 2. Vine Drive Necessary Information Road 1 Road 2 1. Distance in feet from NAL to Edge of the road A. Nearest lane 450' 120' B. Farthest lane 500' 155' C. Average (effective distance) 475' 138' 2. Distance to stop sign N/A N/A 3. Road. gradient in percent 2% 2% .. ..4. Average speed in mph A. Automobiles 25 25 B. Heavy trucks- uphill N/A N/A C. Heavy trucks - downhill N/A ' N/A 5. 24-hour average number of automobiles & medium trucks both directions (SDT) A. Automobiles 13,580 4,365..- ; B. Medium trucks . 420 135 C. Effective ADT (a+(10xb)) 17,780 55715 6. 24-hour average number of heavy trucks A. Uphill N/A, ,,. ' , ,:. N/A :. B. Downhill N/A N/A C. Total 210." 68 7:. Fraction of nighttime traffic (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 10% 10% 8. Traffic projected for what year? 1997 :199T No Text Jackie Davis 11/22/96 Page 2 An alternative for providing noise attenuation is through acoustical construction measures which are beyond standard construction practices, or to combine acoustical measures with some type of barrier, where appropriate. These acoustical measures must be designed and certified by a Noise Attenuation Engineer, certifying that the design and installation of such measures will reduce interior noise levels to no greater than 45 dB. Since the noise levels on Lots 1 and 8 will exceed 65 DNL, a design and certification is required from a Noise Attenuation Engineer that whatever acoustical and/or barrier solutions for these lots meet the 45 dB interior noise level requirement. If you have any questions about this assessment, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Sherry Alb son -Clark, AICP 0 ALBERTSON CLARK ASSOCIATES Planning 0 Historic Preservation O Community Participation. November 22, 1996 Jackie Davis CDBG Specialist P. O. Box 580 Fort.Collins, CO 80522 Dear Jackie: Attached is the revised Noise Analysis for the Housing Authority's San Cristo PUD, Phase 2 site. This analysis was done using current information on the Burlington -Northern Mainline, rather than the Greeley Branch information, as was used for the initial noise assessment. The analysis also factored in the Housing Authority's proposal to construct a 12' high earth berm and an 8' high doubled -sided, 2" wood plank fence on top of the berm for noise attenuation purposes. The results of the revised noise analysis put the railroad diesel locomotive noise levels at 75 DNL (outdoor day -night average sound level), before consideration of barrier attenuation. My analysis shows that. the berm and fence, as proposed to be constructed, would result in an 11 dB level reduction. This reduction takes into account the fence being constructed of pine, cedar or redwood and considers transmission loss value for these materials and assumes that the fence is constructed to extend down to the top of the berm, to prevent sound leakage under the fence. As a result, the total DNL for all forms of noise (roadway, aircraft and railway) combined for Lots 2 - 7 is 64 DNL, which is considered to be within the "acceptable" range. The proposed fence, however, does not provide adequate noise attenuation for the homes on Lot 1 (west side of home) and Lot 8 (east side of home), to reduce levels on these lots to 65 DNL or below. While there is a 6' high fence proposed along the east side of the property along Lot 8, this fence is not high enough to provide adequate noise attenuation for this lot from railway noise coming from the east . of the site. Also, there is no barrier proposed for the west side of Lot 1 to provide noise attenuation for this lot from railway noise coming from the west of the lot. While a barrier is generally the most desirable noise mitigation measure, since it reduces exterior sound levels, placing a 20' high barrier in the back yards of the proposed homes is, not the best. choice from an aesthetic standpoint. "The Housing Authority should consider alternatives to the proposed 20' high barrier and also verify whether the proposed barrier would have a detrimental affect on any drainage or floodplain issues, as well as if there is adequate space in which to safely construct such a barrier. 5313 Fairway Six Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 • (970) 223-5390'FAX (970) 223-7144 Michael Ludwig June 27, 1997 Page 2 We also located a table indicating typical noise levels from common sources which was made available to the Board in connection with the approval of the Hearthfire P.U.D. where site -generated noise was an issue. Unfortunately, railroad noise was not among the common sources for which decibel readings were listed. While we acknowledge the Board's interest in this issue, Brisben Companies, the developer of Bull Run affordable housing project, does not have a budget for the project which covers only essential costs. It cannot justify the cost to hire consultants to evaluate the railroad noise, simply to have the information available, for the following reasons. There are no L.D.G.S. criteria, City Code or statutory provisions which require the Waterfield developer to measure or mitigate off -site noise. The Board approved the Waterfield P.U.D. Preliminary finding that all applicable criteria were satisfied and without imposing a condition regarding off -site noise evaluation. Residential development has been approved immediately adjacent to railroad tracks in several parts of the City, including the Meadowlark, Larkborough, Harmony Crossing, Willow Springs, and Paragon Point developments. Most recently, the City approved the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park which is very close to the same set of railroad tracks of concern to the Board with Waterfield and with a lesser setback. Finally, the lay out and design of Waterfield provides for significant distances and/or structural barriers between the tracks and almost all of the residences. Only two buildings in the Bull Run Apartment complex have a line of sight to the railroad tracks, and the distance to the tracks is approximately 200 feet, much greater than in the approved developments listed above. Please let me know if you need further information or have questions. By: LAL/jpk Enclosures pc: Jim McCory Sincerely, JUN3u fto ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANDIES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. ULEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER JEFFREY J. JOHNSON MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524.2880 (970) 4824= TELECOPIER (970) 482J0W June 27, 1997 Michael Ludwig, City Planner Current Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Waterfield P.U.D. Dear Mike: ARTHUR E.MARCH 1908-1991 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 09 FORT COLLINS. CO SM22-0469 We have continued to search for data and/or studies which might provide the Planning and Zoning Board members with more understanding of how the noise from the Burlington .Northern railroad tracks would affect the Waterfield P.U.D. However, the L.D.G.S., City Code and State statutes only regulate noise which is generated on -site and we are having difficulty finding data regarding off -site railroad noise. We understand that the City has not conducted any studies regarding the impact of railroad noise upon residential development, nor does the City own equipment with which to evaluate noise levels. We have located an environmental impact assessment, which included a noise analysis, prepared by Albertson Clark Associates for the Housing Authority's project at San Cristo P.U.D. Although some of the data for that analysis is similar to information about the Waterfield .P.U.D., we were advised by Albertson Clark Associates that the results are not necessarily transferable to Waterfield P.U.D. for a number of reasons. First, the San Cristo analysis was conducted under strict H.U.D. guidelines and formulas designed to estimate the highest possible noise levels, or the worst -case scenario, factoring in estimates of a variety of noise sources, not just railroad noise. Also, H.U.D. analyses are not based on any actual decibel readings, and we could not locate any data which compared their combined calculations to actual readings for intermittent railroad generated noise. Finally, the distance between the railroad tracks and residences in Waterfield P.U.D. is considerably greater than the separation distances in the San Cristo study and there are numerous structures in Waterfield either existing (homes on the out parcels) or planned (school, C-store, retail building and day care) which should serve as effective barriers for sound abatement purposes. Intervening uses were not a consideration with San Cristo. 1 DATA FORM 3 Atypical Situations Section A.3 (Continued) 1. Aerial photography: aerial photography from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1963 and 1978, indicate that the wetlands extended into the agricultural areas. 2. Previous site inspections: The Country Club Farms site was visited during August, 1995 by Terry Geiselman and Stephen Johnson, both of Riverside Technology, inc., to conduct a Spiranthes diluvialis survey. During this site visit, it was evident that Phalaris arundinacea, Hordeum jubatum and Rumex crispus were growing in this area, even though it was under cultivation. The area was wet due to irrigation. 3. Adjacent vegetation: Foxtail Barley (Hordeum jubatum) and curly dock (Rumex crispus)were found growing directly adjacent to the disced areas. 4. NRCS soil survey: The soil survey for Larimer County listed sample location 17B as being in Aquepts, loamy soil. The survey indicated that this soil unit may include wet meadow sites. AJ66 01.96 DATAFRMSDOC DATA FORM 3 ATYPICAL SITUATIONS Applicant _Application Projecc Name ga. Number: Name:�'��:2!t-- Location:,,-. Plot Number: 171? Date: /-/9 - /iSs A. VEGETATION: 1. Type of Alteration: v4 e_ l,wXi,n ceL. &Znce/¢ire. 2. Effect on Vegetation: �/ �- �- ,f� �.-��- �_��e� �� r•-"�.�- 3. Previous Vegetation:,�,6 ,r �,{ �Niti �/4�Ytf.%/?ii Fi9��✓ (Attach documentation) 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes No B. SOILS: 1. Type of Alteration: v 2. Effect on Soils: ��.3 �-// �s % �c lr_ �� /�✓ 3. Previous Soils: �ri'�i��-/Ssi�CXcai+�������«✓ /o //lc�cs (Attach documentation) 4. Hydric Soils? Yes No C. HYDROLOGY: 1. Type of Alteration: 2. Effect on Hydrology: 3. Previous Hydrology: (Attach documentation) 4. Wetland Hydrology? Yes Y No Characterized B4 snu s Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): �i� .� �1� �a-�-+ ✓ Drainage Class: 0 ,/ �i�.:7c Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): /g Confirm Mapped Type? No .- Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: - - Histosol = _ - -= Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor rganic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List _Other _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (Explain in Remarks) Remarks:Gti%�: hz �Q-� G��j���' c��r 4-G�G cv- "^ /•r ,�.//cam/ S��'///• // cps �1 ��.Q OC�� ���� 0l CJISfG�� i+cG So,�lvGS GdScrinCi� WETLAND DETERMINATION c c Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? (OF No Hydric Soils Present? (r No I- -IN (Circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Y885 No Remarks: ///��� /� 0 7G �s fc Gl G✓�f �a a., �'�i c /vr✓� Hpprovea uy nwuo„vr= Qiac I OUTINE WETLAND UtItHMINAI1UN 87 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: k Z- /' Date: //-i s-/4s r- /i.Ya ApplicanUOWner. County: Investigator. State: 11;,/ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Ny Community ID: oot;� }_ Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Vs- No Transect ID: ' Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Nc� Plot ID: (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Scc Dominant Plant Snecles Stratum Indicator uominant mani 1pecles airaium_ murcdrur 1. 7/�rnwS_ �v�G 9 2. 10. 3. t 1, 4. 12. 13. 6. . 14, 7. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC _ d (excluding FAC). Remarks://C�/c�Gfi--, o%scl•�c�c.r fifc cv�f�co� (jc���^�' AiJc1-� �ca.i �e-Gv v�fS/j ��^�►�w��� G�r'n . -v� �C�y Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs _ Other No Recorded Data Available Feld Observations: Depth of Surface Water: O (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: > /G (in.) Depth -to Saturated Soil: 2 (in.) Remarks: 15 /dui ,-<,gn' �.ly ces e'sc!C). Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches _ Water Marks Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) c -V'-, ,UILS Map Unit Name /f (Series and Phase): .CT �o �-+ i Drainage Class: as C-15�c5. c / - Feld Observations V Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confine Mapped Type? es No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol _ _, _ Concretions _ _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils I Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime - ✓Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes � ircie) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes o ' Remarks: S/ /r��- r+NNwvvU vy nwv+v� v�a� U I INt V1r t 1 LANU Ur- 1 r-MVI114H I IUN COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: A�/�. !, �.r L• G. c . Date: / / / q i5 sS � Applicant/Owner: Q:,!�3—County: L1- Investigator: % �Ma State: Ca//-4.-go4y Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No. Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? --- - Yes - _� Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (:27.3 Plot ID: ,/2 (if needed, explain on reverse.) • 5 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator .. Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 9. 2. 10. y 3. 4. 12. i4 5. 13. :I 6. 14. 7. 15. i 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC). Remarks: G/� ��no/ �.-c`/ a �i'o s, f �� � o%cam cro 7 . . S'/� �a.-�,/��cc� 4�SG�� JuSj-� f��'•c� �Ci f'iiiJ' S'4 rvc/ HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches Water Marks Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks•�lc-r-i.��\�i�%j �v/y�(, na��ir �/..)ri..-. ��y�,/�� �+.—/�/%- .Si//�- ��f"/ic Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): f(i �. %S �e - Drainage Class: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): 4 Confirm Mapped Type? es o Profile Descriotionc _ "' - Depth Matrix Color _Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, IInchesl Horizon jhjunje Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance./Contrast Structure. etc. Hydric.SoilIndicators: Histosol — __ Concretions Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils JG Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils — - _ Aquic Moisture Regime " ` ' ✓Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List �G Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? �ps�No (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? c*W' No Hydric Soils Present? krz__�No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No Remarks: E-,jf� mac. C�r� ci Gj��`j�%� �C•(< <--c/%�.S/ •_.___.._� 6., uPV ICAr`C'2100 ,.rr,..., _ —Y ,._-- UTINE WETLAND DETEHMINATION COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: r_. lxz ee . Z. Z. Date: ii-i � -i 9 cit- � iS•' } Applicant/Owner.. % County: i Investigator: o , . , e 1 , � State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? `ems% No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? - -Yes !!� Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Qy Plot ID: (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator - Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator - -- .. _... c/2/ - to. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7 _ 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAG). p Remarks: NYUHVLUUY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. 67 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: /Z. (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _'Saturated in Upper 12 inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _LOxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) [tem7arks,:�c SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): �' �a i-. •� Drainage Class: z) -4i Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? es No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, -- finches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. '/O /� o • s � S���v v�� li Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol - _ — Concretions _ Histic Epipedon — High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils — Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions — Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors — Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (EW,� (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes do% Hydric Soils Present? Yes eq�- Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes to Remarks: /ili G �- ix n o 7' is f4-- c/ < r c- '-- " "--I c ', ri% J1 .----.._, ..un110Ar•1=02c00 rr. j ._-- TINE WETLAND UhlhHMINATION COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: ��- /�� C/� l f-<�. +s G• L. e. Date://-/S-/9 ss .49 ��•' O6 Applicant/Owner: / - County: c r Investigator. < - State: eZ� Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? esT No . _ Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?- - Yes I`J57 ` Transect ID: — - Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (aST3,, Plot ID: / y� (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION - ----- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator _ - Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator _9. t 3. ...... --". 11. - 4. 12. r 5. 13. 6 14. 7, 15. B. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC - (excluding FAC). G� O Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge �[ Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Q_ (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: '7 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) . Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: _ Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches _ Water Marks Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Ipdicators (2 or more required): ✓ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: AG �i m��p /� G7�� r -. �� c v..v �� ��c �en �Ysc o r n c 1� f%l G /GG✓ZJ µ G S, I DATA FORM 3 Atypical Situations Section A.3 (Continued) Plot Number 8B 1. Aerial photography: aerial photography from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1963 and 1978, indicate that the wetlands extended into the agricultural areas. . 2. Previous site inspections: The Country Club Farms site was visited during August, 1995 by Terry Geiselman and Stephen Johnson, both of Riverside Technology, inc., to conduct a Spiranthes diluvialis survey. During this site visit, it was evident that Phalaris arundinacea, Hordeum juhatum and Scirpus americanus were growing in this area, even though it was under cultivation. The area was wet due to irrigation. 3. Adjacent vegetation: Foxtail Barley (Hordeum juhatum), Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and Olney's Three -square (Scirpus americanus) were found growing directly adjacent to the disced areas. 4. NRCS soil survey: The soil survey for Larimer County listed sample location 8B as being in Nunn clay, loam, wet soil. The survey indicated that this soil unit may include wet meadow sites. A366 01.96 DATAFf" DOC DATA FORM 3 ATY?T_CAL SITUATIONS Applicant .applicacion Project Name:,Z 12c-cc=/ Number: Nane:�_, Location: Plot Number: S>11e? DaceSS 0 1V-'3G. A. VEGETATION: 1. Type of Alteration:n i. c r'-- 2. Effect on Vegetation:��/�� i✓���a ,, vcac� o 3. Previous Vegecation:.0" ^,'V LoPcco�Cs...we.dsS�ffGli' ,Scc u.r��,,- %(Attach documentation) S/' ,ems a.y,mi.cr�nscr(C7 fr '_r ._ .%ec—��.,S)•pi0�e ..�/J G C � /`7` r4Gu� �'U/1 ��y,�� X ��ca. •� � a �� �/� %��J Gc% 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes No B. SOILS: 1. Type of Alteration::, 4Z, d/ 1lcc.17 o� se- 2. Effect on Soils: /d /i7 G/JC r 3. Previous Soils: (Attach documentation) 4. Hydric Soils? Yes No C. HYDROLOGY: 1. Type of Alteration: 2. Effect on Hydrology: 3. Previous Hydrology: (Attach documentation) 4. Wetland Hydrology? Yes x No Characterized By: B4 UTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: 'S/ Date: Applicant/Owner: County: 4 � Investigator: cam., State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes IFE Community ID: — A a Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? '�a� No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes � Plot ID: r�/3 (if needed, explain on reverse.) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator - Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 9. 2. - --- - - - - - --- ..._- 10. 3. 11, 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14...._ 7_ 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding Remarks: �CC���kf/a 41 HYDROLOGY J< Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge `' Aerial Photographs _ Other — No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: —Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches _ Water Marks Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary I dicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) ✓ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: > / G (in.) _ Water -Stained Leaves — Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: > C (in.) =Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: �c�. //J sfo� a�/fr of disc Si Sc s � � • 1 r Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): L-r^ L /? ass Drainage Class: y dd��v o%r✓,c Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): w �� Confirm Mapped Type? a No Profile Descriotion: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (M uesell Moist) - Ablmdance/Contrast Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol - Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in. Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ..... Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Sp,� L✓GcS G�.S� ^��'� c w c G Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes g Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes <� Hydric Soils Present? Yes tE5*, Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ci Remarks:��c si�G /z' /�c� s1`Ca✓ cis L✓c f���o� �„ �!/G✓C !"7e�7 �;-- f-/�G iC�..�' Cv��.,1- %S�l�N.l Approved by HOUSACE 3/92 R (TINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (l. -/ COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: 6N ' ,i le, -�aeazs L_. Z- C' Date: ApplicantlOwner County: Investigator. State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? )MV No Community ID: /— Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? — -- Yes'- - tco = Transect ID: " - ---- Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes GY, Plot ID: ;P.41 (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION - - J Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator _ ._• Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 9. 1,f7aM�v n cin�/YSii %f %�N L 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5 13. 14. 7. 15. g, 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC I/ (excluding FAC). Remarks. Gus HYDROLOGY Recorded. Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _ Inundated _ Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks _ Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water -Stained Leaves _ Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: > / (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks:�?G rjo-/�/Sd�� S vc �-c c, .ia ��. c c:f f/jc iliGG2S S 11 J• DATA FORM 3 Atypical Situations Section A.3 (Continued) larowd'lii,i 1. Aerial photography: aerial photography from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 1963 and 1978, indicate that the wetlands extended into the agricultural areas. 2. Previous site inspections: The Country Club Farms site was visited during August, 1995 by Terry Geiselman and Stephen Johnson, both of Riverside Technology, inc., to conduct a Spiranthes diluvialis survey. During this site visit, it was evident that Hordeum jubatum and Rumex crispus were growing in this area, even though it was under cultivation. The area was wet due to irrigation. 3. Adjacent vegetation: Foxtail Barley (Hordeum jubatum), Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and curly dock (Rumex crispus) were found growing directly adjacent to the disced areas. 4. NRCS soil survey: The soil survey for Larimer County listed sample location 4B as being in Aquepts, loamy soil. The survey indicated that this soil unit may include wet meadow sites. A366 OL96 DATArRA&DOC 1 DATA FORM 3 ATYPICAL SITUATIONS Applicant Applicacion Project Name : i%h 7 _ Go c./ Number: \ame:��S�„/T Location. oe �s Plot Number: Dace: //_/9-/s7 L .1•C, A. VEGETATION: 1. Type of Alteration:/nn�_/�-isc.. 0. f' 'i / l7/`G�. /7G-� �G ter] LlZl � Go 2. Effect on Vegetation: �lj� i-tea Y��r,�!/r_cc7w �i�•� or Qvrmil_. 3. Previous Vegetation:,&L..�urr j"A'—Ae"n (Attach documentation) CSGG G.f��G/X� .S�S�Gf 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes x No B. SOILS: 1. Type of Alteration:�so_� 2. Effect on Soils: sG-.)7L ZC-�Gw /O i s thi r 3. Previous Soils: (Attach documentation 4. Hydric Soils? Yes' No C. HYDROLOGY: 1. Type of Alteration: �T 2. Effect on Hydrology: 3. Previous Hydrology: (Attach documentation) in c/J4r . 4. Wetland Hydrology? Yes X No Characterized B4 l Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class: - Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): 4 Confirm Mapped Type? af-w— No Profit e Description: i Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, flnchesl -Horizon fl�l msell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators:- _- Histosol -- -_ =- _ — Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils - -- -_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: O��e . �7 �/�" e v..�o r�� v WETLAND DETERMINATION ` Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? �s No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? © No Hydric Soils Present? No Remarks: S� ✓c..s e f /,_r fc ... nNNivvau ur `UTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ( 7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) i Project Site: Date: Applicant/Owner. County: Investigator: c r ci State: r'�/�,. Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes (:R—� Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? =dam No- Transect ID: - = Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes QEo, Plot ID: y� _ (if needed, explain on reverse.) d VEGETATION Dominant Plant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 9. 2 .. _ 3. 1.1. 4. 12. 5. - - ---- 13. 6. - - 14. 7. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC). - Remarks: _ I�G✓f,{.. NCO /'/"J 3. _//iGG /7G 0' JCGI! I�CG d/�T� Y�SCC� HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge _�zl Aerial Photographs Other _ No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: /GAS (.S CS). Q"�' Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches _ Water Marks Drift Lines - _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test _� Other (Explain in Remarks) C L22�/3 g r' f7///ti/i C«,A-1L'y"G se G- ZC rt, yc^c Bvi cyo �T I Map Unit Name (Series and Phase A2 /12 Drainage Class: /1 cr 0 1�,2&-s Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? 6P No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. -Concretions, finches) Horizon f unsell Moist)--: (Munsell-Mbist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. Aq Hy dric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (NE—(CIrcle) (C . ircle) Welland Hydrology Present? Yes <ZW— Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Weiland? Yes Remarks: 7Q" Approved by HOUSACE 3/92 f 'r, 111I�,. r, ram, ---. ........ -„v„ COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: c a <. uate:,4.- -isZs- _x•y Applicant/Owner. -XZ n11, /-2 c C - County: Investigator. c. G. G State: .. :� Da Normal Circumstances exist on the site.. No Community ID: 3- Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation). Yes TransectID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes dO> Plot ID: 41114? '= a (if needed, explain on reverse.) - -- ------- - i r, i _, VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator —Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator y 9. 2. 10. 3. 1.1. 4. 12. 5. 13. _ 14. - 8. 16. I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC). - - O Remarks,G/v.auS��J�c.,7`c� G�e��• T/Sc ,ram /� G d �G c .� o/sc <� �'u s� �,l`�- .S' -- -- -- ...._ _. Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): -Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge �C Aerial Photographs _ Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: - Depth of Surface Water. O (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: / G (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: G (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches _ Water Marks _ Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) I[Remarks:�Gi�/3v Yvn v�a�S oT 1'/ Si `. cnn c Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): z s ��-. ✓ Drainage Class: Feld Observations �— Type? No Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confine Mapped C' Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. Hyd(ic Soil Indicators: -- -- - ---- -- Histosol - -' _ Concretions —" Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime _ X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions ` ' _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (Zy�' No (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? (a No Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No Remarks: S • fG J us f r� a, 9/`s �c �/J c/�w� �'`//�- ., a 7b ^ppiuvvu Yy �IVVVlIVV v, ar. ( COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project Site: .,rr, ✓ /'/uf 4��— . L. Date: // -/9 4 S 47,/Z., Applicant/Owner ZJI /»r County: Investigator o r-c - State: Goo/ ' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? dS!Z- No Community ID: - G✓��/� .. is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? - =-_Yes - 49F Transect ID: = Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes d4-o-- Plot ID: z �3 (if needed, explain on reverse.) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 3. 11. 4. 12. 5..... - - --- ---- - - 13. - - 6. 14. 7. _ - 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 2 (excluding FAC). _ = /vo � Remarks: x Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge �[ Aerial Photographs _ Other _ No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: Z� (n•) Depth to Saturated Soil: 7/ t (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches Water Marks _ Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves )_ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: gG! %a-� �S O1� r..iJ9 oT f G Si 7C' _. �vGP a r,� /�� SOILS ;t Map Unit Name / (Series andPhase): -�.;ar - > Drainage Class: �i� .,f --- --• --- L�` - �iecpr�r: Meld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): s Confirm Mapped Type? Ce '' No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast _ Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol - _ _. __ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ — _ Aquic Moisture Regime - --_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 49� (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Q-� des' Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes Hydric Soils Present? No Remarks: fc �s "'7v1` /• rf�� ctrs w 'wc/��• �., t�G n��� nlnn MtJFlIVVOU Ur I IyVV/1vV wvc r' IINt VVtILANUUtICntvnuvHIIUN (1, COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) l Project Site: elop e),'2A-.e:" Date: //-/5_/5'7.s- A?i3.' Applicant/Owner: County: Z.c. %� Investigator: State: t � / Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? c `� No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes = cta> Transect ID: - Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes cttr-, Plot ID: 7_.4 (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator .-Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 �ro�tJii r in��r� ci C �_ �GG/ 9. 2. 10. 3. q 12. 5. - - 13. 6. - - 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC -- (excluding FAC). - Remarks: jT%jC Sow" s� /Sc d�cc-� �Scc�L�Jr• 1ti .1- se're"'M X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches _ Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) �S). !�'/� �l �s t✓a/-G T ram �7G3 ago+" /S%� 0 APPENDIX B Jurisdictional Wetlands Field Notes FORT COLLINS QUADRANGLE �\ COLORADO—LARIMER CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 7°000 SE/4 FORT COLLINS 15QUADRANGLE \G 4965 1) NE CHEYENNE. WYO. 41 Ml. LARAMIE. RTE .5 MI. jg] fj• 493 WELLINGTON 9 MI. IWELLINGTONI R.69 W. R.68 W. 496 2�30r e9i 2130000 FEET � <98, < 1115°00' LA PORTS ].3 Ml. _ - 99 wELLINGTON 3.7 Ml. 40037'30r 5076 • � g ..�_• °.a, J�r� I. 1, � " II Course 1 � n ' ......�,r ti '>4..,,.: j \'• w •I/• 't • I o', iddin u Ti k 1 I P ( n I r o4 :N I ♦top / �'. .6 � • � ` • • i' �`* '� r ( ,•. � \ o Ile 6006 IF It- 36 I---�°' ----- = 35 %`" 3 --t.=so_,1 33 I I � c ... P 1 4 • � • yd� _ 4496 a / 6 \ I ° .. I y =cam .'IIY �. _ 1 U4 II :1 \��•. I aaaa I If k i 1 50/ T.8 N. --___— • , • n r I :~ c - N. tl ....i.... u ............. .................................. F q, l I `\ � /4495 I \n S000 49 4 ♦—_—_ ° • • I r__ c___-= .,,,._•' - -'III �� q •_ _ .,./ .._ _ •_- .. • L II i RIMER ...__ -_ IIs• .. ..... i CANAL... .. �1 .. tt - y pp t'.... •. ;I' i a 1 : "1 $eUling2 .� 65` \� __ W ' - ° _ P9 = Site Location �• V I \ ppIf A. •i ,\ 1 ,1.f' � yb Sow I •P1�� se`�\.� �I ,7 e••:' I .. d i � \— a I u •■ _ 1 0 °' ■ Es __ �' !� I u Plammer lack Flolow • t \\�- i, ■ 'r. of r u R E \ • - •` mi !•YI .'mot _ CN. _ i 1 950'� _ I Noiln Vn�ar\/ _ _ S« _ ScF'I .Itlnc n 6 _. _ DO A. THERN• C I e — Su ar R ner °.C'S 17 .. 'rg ° 0 1 Y �. Ande iiln . i ucci ern .9s0. Sinn M93. I \� Al PARK "_ ii I �, \ '� ass. :�' I v •:�---'� i '<- I Husple«n 35' 12, - 6 I1 'r r= ♦ I Fr \ j� a •ice' . ¢� ..� l � • • P Ll RE _RESIN[ET \ RA ST(T'� d ■ SP ` s ``ct tii / + I j -. UNIVE 'IT1�J_`�` .4l_ I •tea` I; /I'1 JI alY I /1, �I i)6 �•• 1 \ l//�, t\L( 1 I APPENDIX A USGS Topographic Map and Country Club Farms L.L.C. Site Location Map 0 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Riverside Technology, inc. 2821 Remington Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970/223-2944 — FAX 970/223-2955 • Terry Geiselman, Geologist/Wetlands Delineator A366 O 96 CHAP7.DOC 7-1 6.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.W., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program: FWS/OBS-79/31. Northern Engineering. 1995. Map of the site boundaries. Fort Collins, Colorado. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Central Plains (Region S). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.5). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Lorimer County Area, Colorado: Comprehensive Hydric Soils List. ------ 1963 and 1978. Aerial Photographs of the Country Club Farms Site. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in cooperation with Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station. 1980. Soil Survey of Lorimer County Area, Colorado. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1960. 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map for Fort Collins, Colorado, Quadrangle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1975. National Wetlands Inventory Map for the Fort Collins, Colorado, Quadrangle. Weber, W.A. 1976. Rocky Mountain Flora. Colorado Associated University Press. Boulder, Colorado. A366 01.96 CHAP6.DOC 6-1 0 5.0 RECOMNMNDATIONS The wetlands delineation described in this report has been submitted to the COE, Omaha District, Tri-Lakes Project Office, in Littleton, Colorado. Acceptance will be conveyed in the form of a letter. If accepted, the COE will recommend that this wetlands delineation be considered valid for 3 years from the date of the letter unless new information warrants revision before the 3 years expire. A COE Section 404 permit may be required based on the area of disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands as a result of the development. , A366 01.96 CHAP3.DOC 5-1 0 4.2 &iLs The Country Club Farms site was comprised of four soil series as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (USDA 1980). The jurisdictional wetlands area was generally contained in a swale of Aquepts, loamy and ponded soils. A small portion of the wetlands occurred in Nunn clay loam, wet. According to the Soil Survey of Lorimer County Area, Colorado (USDA 1980), the soils at the Country Club Farms site are characterized as follows. Aquepts, Loamy These nearly level or gently sloping, poorly drained soils are in depressional areas on uplands, along drainageways, and on side slopes below large canals. The surface layer is fine sandy loam, loam, or clay loam. The underlying layer is mainly loam or clay loam extending to a depth of 40 to 60 inches or more. A water table is at or near the surface in spring and summer. Included with these soils in mapping are a few small areas of Stoneham, Fort Collins, and Kim soils and Nunn clay loam, wet. Runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate. These soils are suited to pasture and native grasses. Aquepts, Ponded These nearly level soils are near stream channels and drainageways. A water table is at or near the surface most of the year. The soils are extremely variable. The native vegetation is mainly cattails and sedges. These soils offer very little grazing but are suitable for wildlife habitat. Nunn clay loam, wet, I to 3 percent slopes This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is on low terraces and alluvial fans, commonly adjacent to drainageways. A seasonal high water table is at a depth of 20 to 30 inches during part of the growing season. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. This soil is suited to pasture and hay. When the landform is a swale, the Nunn clay loam, wet is also considered hydric. According to the Lorimer County Area, Colorado, Comprehensive Hydric Soils List (SCS 1993), the Aquepts, loamy and ponded soils are hydric. 4.3 HydrologX The wetlands area appears to be primarily the result of seepage of water from the Larimer and Weld Canal which borders the wetland area on the north side. The canal is concrete lined and primarily conveys water for irrigation use. It is not known whether the canal will be discontinued; therefore, the continued source of wetland hydrology for the site cannot be determined. A366 01.96 CNAP4..DOC 4--2 4.0 RESULTS Table 3 summarizes the results of the multi -parameter approach to wetlands determinations for each sampling location. The delineated wetlands areas are shown on the site map in Appendix A. A total of 11.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were identified during the survey. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map for the Fort Collins quadrangle (USFWS 1975) identifies wetlands areas on the project site. According to the Cowardin system (Cowardin 1979), the 11.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands identified as the cattail marsh were classified as palustrine wetlands type. Palustrine wetlands include areas commonly called marshes, wet meadows, swamps, bogs, or riparian zones where water depths in the deepest part of the basin are less than 6.6 feet during low water periods. The cattail marsh wetlands area contained areas of open water. Water depths were not measured but were assumed to be less than 6.6 feet. TABLE 3 Wetlands Determinations for the Country Club Site Site ID* Delineation Date Wetlands Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetlands Hydroloy Present. Hydric Soils Present? is this Sampling Point within a Wetlands? 2-A 11/19/95 no no no no 2-B 11/19/95 yes yes yes yes 4-A 11/19/95 no no no no 4-B 11/19/95 yes (see section F) yes yes yes 8-A 11/19/95 no no no no 8-13 11/19/95 yes (see section F) yes yes yes 14A 11/19/95 no no no no 14B 11/19/95 yes yes yes yes 17A 11/19/95 no no no no 17B I yes (see section F) yes yes yes *The site map in Appendix A shows the location of each sampling site. Field notes are in Appendix B. 4.1 Vegetation The Country Club Farms site is characterized by sparse woody overstory consisting of riparian trees such as the Russian olive (E/aeagnus angustifolia) and cottonwood (Populus spp.) growing near the Larimer. and Weld Canal. It should be emphasized, however, that this overstory comprises less than 1 percent of the total basal area of the site. The understory at the site consists of upland and wetland vegetation. Upland vegetation includes mostly agricultural crops consisting of wheat and corn. Wetland vegetation included cattails (Typha Iatifolia), Onley's Three -square (Scirpus americanus), Foxtail Barley (Hordeum jubatum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinaces). A366 01.96 CHAPI.DOC 4-1 1 h. NWI wetland mans. The NWI has developed wetland type maps for many areas. These may be useful in determining the type of plant communities that occurred prior to alteration. To develop the strongest possible record, all of the above sources should be considered. If the plant community types that occurred prior to alteration can be determined, record them on DATA FORM 3 and also record the basis used for the determination. Previously existing vegetation at the Country Club Farms site (locations 411, 813, and 17B) were based on: 1. Aerial photography: aerial photography from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 1963 and 1978, indicate that the wetlands extended into the agricultural areas. 2. Previous site inspections : The Country Club Farms site was visited during August, 1995 by Terry Geiselman and Stephen Johnson, both of Riverside Technology, inc., to conduct a Spiranthes diluvialis survey. During this site visit it was evident that Hordeum jubatum and Rumex crispus were growing in these areas, even though they were under cultivation. The areas were wet due to irrigation. 3. Adjacent vegetation: Foxtail Barley (Hordeum jubatum), Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and Olney's Three -square (Scirpus americanus) were found growing directly adjacent to the disced areas. 4. NRCS soil survey: The soil survey for Larimer County listed sample locations 4B and 17B as being in Aquepts, loamy soil and sample site 8B in Nunn, clay, loam, wet soil. The survey indicated that these soil units may include wet meadow sites. DATA FORM 3 notes are included in Appendix B. A366 01.96 CHAP3.DOC 3-9 a. Has all or a portion of the area been cleared of vegetation? b. Has only one layer of the plant community (e.g., trees) been removed? c. Has selective harvesting resulted in removal of some species? d. Has all vegetation been covered by fill, dredged material, or structures? e. Have increased water levels resulted in the death of some individuals? (At the Country Club Farms site, some of the wetland areas had been cleared of vegetation by discing of the topsoil. Data Form 3 notes are included in Appendix B). • STEP 3 Determine the Type of Vegetation that Previously Occurred. Obtain all possible evidence of the type of plant communities that occurred in the area prior to alteration. Potential sources of such evidence include: a. Aerial photoeraohv. Recent (within 5 years) aerial photography can often be used to document the type of previous vegetation. The general type of plan communities formerly present can usually be determined, and species identification is sometimes possible. b. Onsite inspection. Many types of activities result in only partial removal of the previous plant communities, and remaining species may be indicative of hydrophytic vegetation. In other cases, plant fragments (e.g., stumps, roots) may be used to reconstruct the plant community types that occurred prior to site alteration. Sometimes, this can be determined by examining piles of debris resulting from land -clearing operations or excavation to uncover identifiable remains of the previous plant community. c. previous site inspections. Documented evidence from previous inspections of the area may describe the previous plant communities, particularly in cases where the area was altered after a permit application was denied. d. Adjacent vegetation. Circumstantial evidence of the type of plant communities that previously occurred may sometimes be obtained by examining the vegetation in adjacent areas. If adjacent areas have the same topographic position, soils, and hydrology as the altered area, the plant community types on the altered area were probably similar to those of the adjacent areas. e. SCS records. Most SCS soil surveys include a description of the plant community types associated with each soil type. If the soil type on the altered area can be determined, it may be possible to generally determine the type of plant communities that previously occurred. f. Permit applicant. ice. In some cases, the permit applicant may provide important information about the type of plan communities that occurred prior to alteration. g. Public. Individuals familiar with the area may provide a good general description of the previously occurring plant communities. A366 01.96CHAPILOC 3-8 l � collected in the B horizon at depths of 10 inches.) Record findings on the Data Form I for each location. Proceed to Step 14. • Step 14: Determine whether hydric soils are present. Examine each Data Form I and determine whether a positive hydric soil indicator was found. If so, the area at that location has hydric soil. If soils at all sampling locations have positive hydric soil indicators, the entire area has hydric soils. If soils at all sampling locations lack positive hydric soil indicators, none of the area is a wetlands. Complete the soil section of each Data Form 1. (Completed data forms for the Country Club Farms site are in Appendix B and results are presented in Section 4.0, Table 3.) Proceed to Step 15. • Step 15: Make wetlands determination. Examine Data Form L (Completed data forms for the Country Club Farms site are in Appendix B and results are presented in Section 4.0, Table 3.) If the entire area presently or normally has wetlands indicators for all three parameters [Steps 8 (or Section F), 10, and 14], the entire area is a wetlands. If the entire area presently or normally lacks wetlands indicators of one or more parameters, the entire area is a non -wetlands. SECTION F Atypical Situations Methods described in this section should be used only when a determination has already been made in Section D or E of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987) that positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wetland hydrology could not be found due to effects of recent human activities or natural events. Apply procedures described in one of the following subsections (as appropriate) to determine whether positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wetland hydrology existed prior to alteration of the area. Once these procedures have been employed, RETURN TO Section D or E to make a wetland determination. PROCEED TO the appropriate subsection. Subsection 1 - Vegetation Employ the following steps to determine whether hydrophytic vegetation previously occurred: STEP 1 - Describe the Tyne of Alteration. Examine the area and describe the type of alteration that occurred. Look for evidence of selective harvesting, clear cutting, bulldozing, recent conversion to agriculture, or other activities (e.g., burning, discing, or presence of buildings, dams, levees, roads, parking lots, etc.). Determine the approximate date when the alteration occurred. Record observations on DATA FORM 3 (some of the wetlands at the Country Club Farms site had been converted to agriculture; DATA FORM 3 notes are included in Appendix B)). PROCEED TO STEP 2. STEP 2 - Describe Effects on Vegetation. Record on DATA FORM 3 a general description of how the activities (STEP 1) have affected the plant communities. Consider the following: A366 OLWCHAPIDOC 3-7 • Step 9: Apply wetlands hydrologic indicators. Examine the portion of the area occupied by each plant community type for positive indicators of wetlands hydrology. Record findings on the appropriate Data Form 1. (Information for determining hydrology was also obtained from USDA 1980.) Proceed to Step 10. • Step 10: Determine whether wetlands hydrology is present. Examine the hydrologic information on Data Form 1 for each plant community type. Any portion of the area having a positive wetlands hydrology indicator has wetlands hydrology. If positive wetlands hydrology indicators are present in all community types, the entire area has wetlands hydrology. If no plant community type has a wetlands hydrology indicator, none of the area has wetlands hydrology. Complete the hydrology portion of each Data Form 1. (Completed data forms for the Country Club Farms site are in Appendix B and results are presented in Section 4.0, Table 3) Proceed to Step 11. • Step 11: Determine whether soils must be characterized. Examine the vegetation section of each Data Form 1. (Completed data forms for the Country Club Farms site are in Appendix B and results are presented in Section 4.0, Table 3.) Hydric soils are assumed to be present in any plant community type for which the following statements are true: a. All dominant species have an indicator status of OBL. b. All dominant species have an indicator status of OBL or FACW, and the wetlands boundary (when present) is abrupt. When either a or b is true and wetlands hydrology is present, check the hydric soils blank as positive on Data Form I and proceed to Step 16. (At the Country Club Farms, a soil pit was dug at every selected observation point in each community type, even when a and/or b were true.) If neither a nor b applies, proceed to Step 12. • Step 12: Dig a soil pit. Using a soil auger or spade, dig a soil pit at the representative location in each community type. The procedure for digging a soil pit is described in Appendix D, Section 1, of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987). When the soil pit is properly completed, approximately 18 inches of the soil profile will be available for examination. (At the Country Club Farms site, a soil pit was dug with a spade to 18 inches at each observation point for a total of 10 documented pits.) Proceed to Step 13. • Step 13: Apply hydric soil indicators. Examine the soil at each location and compare its characteristics immediately below the A - horizon or at a 10-inch depth (whichever is shallower) with the hydric soil indicators described in Part III, paragraphs 44 and/or 45 of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987). (For the Country Club Farms site, soil samples were A366 01.96CHAP3.DOC 3-6 • Step 5: Select representative observation points. Select a representative observation point in each community type. A representative observation point is one in which the apparent characteristics (determine visually) best represent characteristics of the entire community. Mark on the base map the approximate location of the observation point. This was done for each observation point (where an atypical situation did not exist) selected at the Country Club Farms site. Observation points are identified on the site map in Appendix A. Between observation points, the boundary lines were visually determined and staked based on observed vegetation changes. Proceed to Step 6. • Step 6: Characterize each plant community type. Visually determine the dominant plant species in each vegetation layer of each community type and record them on Data Form 1 (use a separate Data Form 1 for each community type). Dominant species are those having the greatest relative basal area (woody overstory), greatest height (woody understory), greatest percentage of area cover (herbaceous understory), and/or greatest number of stems (woody vines). (The observation points at the Country Club Farms site were characterized by a consistent herbaceous layer. Completed data forms are in Appendix B.) Proceed to Step 7. • Step 7: Record indicator status of dominant plant species. Record on Data Form 1 the indicator status of each dominant plant species in each community type. (Completed data forms for the Country Club Farms site are in Appendix B and results are presented in Section 4, Table 3.) Proceed to Step 8. • Step 8: Determine whether Ihydrophytic vegetation is present. Examine each Data Form 1. When more than 50 percent of the dominant species in a community type have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, hydrophytic vegetation is present. Portions of the area failing this test are not wetlands. (At the Country Club Farms site, the "50/20 Rule" was applied.) The "50/20 Rule" is a procedure that entails the following: For each stratum in the plant community, dominant species are the most abundant plant species (when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled) that immediately exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure for the stratum, plus any additional species comprising 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum. Complete the vegetation section of each Data Form 1. (Completed data forms for the Country Club Farms site are in Appendix B and results are presented in Section 4.0, Table 3.) Proceed to Step 9. A366 0I.96CHAPIL49C 3-5 • Step 2: Determine whether an atypical situation exists. Examine the area and determine whether there is evidence of sufficient natural or human- induced alteration to significantly alter the area vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology. Include possible off -site modifications that may. affect the area hydrology. If there is no such evidence, proceed to Step 3. If one or more parameters have been significantly altered by an activity that would normally require a permit, proceed to Section F of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987), which describes methods to be used when positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wetlands hydrology cannot be found because of effects of recent human activities or natural events. Using Section F, determine whether there is sufficient evidence that hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wetlands hydrology were present prior to this alteration. An atypical situation (with respect to vegetation) exists in specific areas at the Country Club Farms site. These atypical areas are outlined on the site map (Appendix A) and described in Section F, Atypical Situations. Section F begins on page 3-7. Steps 3 through 9 pertain to sampling locations where atypical situations do not exist (sampling sites 2 and 14). • Step 3: Identify the plant community type(s). Traverse the area and determine the number and locations of plant community types. Sketch the location of each on the base map, and give each community type a name. (The Country Club Farms site was determined to consist of two plant communities: an upland prairie agricultural community and a wetlands community --communities I and 2 respectively. The determined communities were not mapped but were identified on each Data Form 1.) Proceed to Step 4. • Step 4: Determine whether normal environmental conditions are present. Determine whether normal environmental conditions are present by considering the following: a. Is the area presently lacking hydrophytic vegetation or hydrologic indicators because of annual or seasonal fluctuations in precipitation or ground water levels? b. Are hydrophytic vegetation indicators lacking because of seasonal fluctuations in temperature? If the answer to either question a or b is thought to be yes, proceed to Section G of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987), which outlines methods for dealing with problem areas. Problem areas are defined as areas in which wetlands indicators of one or more parameters are periodically lacking because of normal seasonal or annual variations in environmental conditions that result from causes other than human activities or catastrophic natural events. If the answer to both a and b is no, proceed to Step 5. (There were no problem areas identified at the Country Club Farms site.) A366 0/.96CHAP3.DOC 3-4 TABLE 1 Plant Indicator Status Categories Indicator Category Indicator Symbol Definition Obligate Wetlands Plants OBL Plants that occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions but that may also occur rarely (estimated probability <1%) in non -wetlands. Example: Typha latifolia (broadleaf cattail) Facultative Wetlands Plants FACW Plants that occur usually (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in wetlands but also occur (estimated probability 1% to 336/6) in non -wetlands. Example: Rumex crispus (Curly dock) Facultative Plants FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and non -wetlands. Example: Sporobolus airoides (alkali sacaton) Facultative Upland Plants FACU Plants that occur sometimes (estimated probability 1% to <33%) in wetlands but occur more often (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in non -wetlands. Example: Agropyron smithii (Western Wheatgrass) Obligate Upland Plants UPI, Plants that occur rarely (estimated probability <I%) in wetlands but occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in non -wetlands under natural conditions. Example: Medicago saliva (Alfalfa) Source: COE 1987 and Reed 1988. TABLE 2 Dominant Plant Species Occurring at the Country Club Farms Site Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Category" Typha latifolia Broadleaf Cattail OBI, Scirpus americanus Onley's three -square OBL Phalaris arundincea Reed Canary grass FACW Hordeum jubatum Fox -Tail Barley FACW Rumex crispus Curly dock FACW Agropyron smithii Western wheatgrass FACU Bromus inermus Smooth brome FACU Cersium arvense Canada Thistle FACU Source: Reed 1988 and Weber 1976. 'Indicator categories for plants are abbreviated as follows: OBL = obligate wetlands plant FACW facultative wetlands plant FAC = facultative plant FACU = facultative upland plant UPI, = obligate upland plant Refer to Table 1 for a definition of each category. A366 01.96CHAP3.DOC 3-3 least intermittently inundated or saturated for 5 percent or more of the growing season are considered evidence of hydrologic characteristics that can support wetlands. In addition to wetlands hydrology information collected in the field, information on the hydrology of soils in the area during the growing season was obtained from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey maps to support a wetlands hydrology determination. The growing season is defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987) as the portion of the year when soil temperatures at 19.7 inches below the soil surface are higher than biological zero (51C). However, for ease of determination, the COE manual allows for an approximation of the growing season by the number of frost -free days. In the Fort Collins/Loveland area, there are, on average, 144 frost -free days per year. The average first frost -free day occurs the first week of May, and the average last frost -free day occurs at the end of September/beginning of October. Five percent of 144 days is 7.2 days, or approximately 1 week. 3.5 Routine Procedures The routine procedure selected for identifying and delineating wetlands is a multi -parameter approach requiring positive evidence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology. If these parameters are met, the area is determined to be a jurisdictional wetlands. The following routine procedure is adapted from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987), which provides a logical, defensible, and technical basis for wetlands delineation. This routine procedure stresses on -site inspection together with preliminary data gathering and synthesis of available information. Procedures for making routine wetlands determinations when insufficient information is available for one or more parameters are also described in this section. There was insufficient information with respect to vegetation in three areas at the Country Club Farms site (sampling points 413, 813, and 1713). Sampling points are located on the site map in Appendix A. At two sampling points, the vegetation present was categorized using the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Central Plains (Region .i) (Reed 1988) and Rocky Mountain: Flora (Weber 1976). Table 1, Plant Indicator Status Categories, was taken from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987) and provides definitions and information concerning the indicator symbols. Table 2 lists the dominant plant species that occur at two of the sampling locations at the Country Club Farms site and provides the indicator status of each. An on -site inspection was determined to be required at the Country Club Farms Site and was conducted as outlined below. All procedures are adapted from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987). A Data Form I was completed for each of the sampling sites. A Data Form 3 was completed for three sampling sites where information on vegetation was insufficient. Copies of all data sheets are included in Appendix B. Steps taken during the on -site inspection are described below: • Step 1: Locate the project area. Determine the spatial boundaries of the project area using information from a USGS quadrangle map or other appropriate map, aerial photography, and/or the project survey plan (Northern Engineering 1995, USFWS 1975, and USGS 1969). Proceed to Step 2. A366 OLY6CHAP3.DOC 3-2 3.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 3.1 Agency Contacts The following individual and agency were contacted as part of this wetlands delineation: • Terry McKee, Environmental Resource Specialist, COE - Tri-Lakes Project Office, Littleton, Colorado 3.2 Site Reconnaissance An initial reconnaissance of the site was conducted during August, 1995 by Stephen Johnson and Terry Geiselman, both of Riverside Technology, inc. The purpose of the site visit in August was to conduct a survey for the presence or absence of the federally threatened plant species Ute ladies' tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). The final wetlands delineation, documented on field notes in Appendix B was conducted by Mr. Geiselman on November 19, 1995. 3.3 Equipment and Materials The following equipment and materials were used in this wetlands delineation study: • Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987) • Munsell Soil Color Chart • Copies of 1987 COE Data Form I • Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado (USDA 1980) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map for the Fort Collins, Colorado, Quadrangle (USFWS 1975) • Soil Conservation Service's Larimer County Area, Colorado: Comprehensive Hydric Soils List (USDA 1993) • National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Central Plains (Region 5) (Reed 1988) • Blueprint of the site boundaries (Northern Engineering 1995) • Book entitled Rocky Mountain Flora (Weber 1976) • Book entitled Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin 1979) • Weatherproof field book • Wooden boundary stakes • Permanent ink pens • Soil spade • 1963 and 1978 Aerial photography from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (Fort Collins) 3.4 Growing Season Information Wetlands delineations are best conducted during or shortly after the growing season to facilitate identification of vegetation parts, such as flowers and leaf structure. The wetlands delineation described in this document was conducted shortly after the growing season. The growing season is also important in determining whether the wetlands hydrology criterion is met. Areas that are at A366 01.96 CHAPIDOC 3-1 2.0 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS The jurisdictional wetlands identifications and delineations were conducted by Terry Geiselman of Riverside Technology, inc. (RTi). Mr. Geiselman is a Registered Geologist who has 2 years of experience in conducting jurisdictional wetlands studies in Colorado and Wyoming. He is recognized by the COE under Regulatory IV to identify and delineate wetlands as part of the Section 404 process of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Geiselman also has experience in conducting surveys along the Front Range of Colorado for the federally -threatened Ute ladies' -tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). Mr. Geiselman's qualifications include a B.S. in Geology, studies in hydrogeology and environmental science, and over 5 years of water resources related work. A366 01.96 CHAPADOC 2-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pie 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Site Location................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Site Description............................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS............................................................................... 2-1 3.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Agency Contacts.......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Site Reconnaissance..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Equipment and Materials............................................................................................. 3-1 3.4 Growing Season Information....................................................................................... 3-1 3.5 Routine Procedures...................................................................................................... 3-2 4.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Vegetation.................................................................................................................... 4 1 4.2 Soils....................................................................................................................4-2 4.3 Hydrology.................................................................................................................... 4-2 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................5-1 6.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................6-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS......................................................................................................... 7-1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A U.S.G.S. Topographic Map and Country Club Farms L.L.C. Site Location Map APPENDIX B Jurisdictional Wetlands Field Notes Table Page 1 Plant Indicator Status Categories.......................................................................................... 3-3 2 Dominant Plant Species Occurring at the Country Club Farms Site .................................... 3-3 3 Wetlands Determinations for the Country Club Site............................................................ 4-1 01.96 A366 TOCDOC DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRI TRr _AKES PROJECT OFFICE, 9307 STATE H� 121 LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123-6901 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF February 12, 1996 Mr. Terry Geiselman Riverside Technology, Inc. 2821 Remington Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Dear Mr. Geiselman: Reference is made to the proposed filing known as the Country Club Farms L.L.C. site. The project is located in the Southwest '/a of Section 5, Township 7 North, Range 68 West, Larimer County, Colorado. This project has been reviewed in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the excavation and discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands. This letter is to inform you that the wetland delineation map dated August 8, 1995 is considered accurate and acceptable by this office. The wetlands are considered to be waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of, the Clean Water Act. If a proposed activity requires work within these waters, this office should be contacted for proper Department of the Army permits. This wetlands jurisdictional delineation is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration date. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (303) 979-4126 and reference action ID #199680077. Sincerely, Terry McKee Environmental Resource Specialist Printed on ® Recycled Paper ® Riverside Tec%ology, inc. -7 Water Resources Engineering and Consulting January 26, 1996 Mr. Terry McKee Environmental Resource Specialist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9307 State Highway 121 Littleton, Colorado 80123-6901 Dear Mr. McKee: The purpose of this letter is to request that you review and consider for approval the jurisdictional wetlands delineation described below. The study area consists of a proposed filing called the Country Club Farms L.L.C. site. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (Fort Collins quadrangle) showing the general location of the Country Club Farms L.L.C. site is enclosed. In addition, a more detailed site map has been provided. The site is currently slated for proposed real estate development; if the site is developed, it will contain single family residential home developments. The 140-acre parcel is located northwest of the intersection of Summit View Drive and East Vine Drive in the city of Fort Collins. The Country Club Farms site is in the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 7 North, Range 68 West, of the 6th prime meridian in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Coordinates for the site were estimated from a USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Fort Collins quadrangle) and are 105° 02' 01" west longitude and 40° 36' 05" north latitude. The jurisdictional wetland delineation study of this site was conducted by Riverside Technology, inc. (RTi) on November 17, 1995 using the U.S Army Corps of Engineers document entitled Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (dated January 1987). The jurisdictional wetlands delineation identified a wetland area consisting of 11.5 acres. The following information has been enclosed for your review. • The wetland delineation map Vicinity project location map (Fort Collins quadrangle) • Data Form 1 sheets and Data Form 3 sheets Thank you for taking the time to review this material. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please call me. Sincerely, Riverside Technology, inc. Terry Geiselman Geologist/Wetland Delineator enclosures xc: Jim McCory, Colorado Land Source (w/enclosures) Bud Curtiss, Northern Engineering (w/enclosures) Stephen W. Johnson, RTi (w/o enclosures) Richard Spotts, RTi (w/o enclosures) 2821 Remington Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)223-2944 FAX: (970) 223-2955 Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation Survey for the Country Club Farms L.L.C. Larimer County, Colorado prepared by Riverside Technology, inc. 2821 Remington Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 prepared for Jim McCory Colorado Land Source 8101 East Prentice Avenue, Suite M-180 Englewood, Colorado 80111 January 1996 1 ' /f /I /f TO: / �t/IM/L"�✓L��I FROM: MARCH & MYATT, P.C. POST OFFICE BOX 469 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 =� « (��, C l��l ATTN: Y /�Li i,ti%� (970) 482-4322 V!i� a� µ� SUBJECT: (; (Jra Iw.�"� /nil i / /� DATE: O -/ MESSAGE: G / �� /�l�"7�%� l llif�ll %, i/ l / L"•�� •�fln �/ "(�� fl/�/ � r _. L{' rl Y�r SIGNED Mr. Mike Ludwig Page 2 June 20, 1997 In addition, a chemical analysis of the irrigation canal water, ground water, and wetland pond water will be conducted. This analysis will help in determining the source of water for the wetlands. An analysis of the major ionic species (Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, HCO,, and SO,) for the three waterbodies would provide sufficient information to determine water types. A trilinear diagram plot will graphically display the differing water compositions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this letter or the future work planned for the Waterfield P.U.D. Site. Sincerely,. Riverside Technology Terry Geiselman Registered Geologist cc: Rob Wilkinson, City of Fort Collins Basil Hamdan, City of Fort Collins Jim McCory, Colorado Land Source Bud Curtiss, Northern Engineering Patrick Plumley, RTi Richard Spotts, RTi g, r,.1,7udwig2.dm fM2lU97 f Riverside Technology, inc. Water Resources Engineering and Consulting June 20, 1997 Mr. Mike Ludwig Project Planner Fort Collins Planning Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear Mr. Ludwig: This letter is in response to the Waterfield P.U.D. Fist Filing scheduled for June 18, 1997. It is Riverside Technology, inc.'s (RTi's) understanding that the Waterfield P.U.D. First Filing will consist of the apartment complexes and single family dwellings located on the property's east side. We also understand that the City wishes to avoid any impacts to the wetland area if possible. There is some concern because a subdrain system will have to be installed to allow for the construction of basements in the single family dwellings. The current plan is to route the water collected in the subdrain system to a detention area located to the southwest of the property. If the diverted water is currently supplementing the wetland hydrology, the reduction in ground water flow may impact the wetlands. RTi conducted an initial study of the ground water system at the Waterfield Site during April, 1997. The results of this study were summarized in a report entitled Preliminary Evaluation of the Ground Water System at the Waterfield P. U.D. Site dated April, 1997. As part of this report, a pot ;ntiometric surface map was constructed from existing ground water elevation information. The map indicates that the basic direction of ground water flow in the area of the First Filing is to the south and not towards the wetlands area. If this is the case, diverting the collected ground water from the subdrain system to the detention area should not impact the wetlands. RTi is proposing to conduct additional ground water work at the Waterfield site during July and August, 1997. This work will consist of installing additional peizometers and modeling the ground water system using a model called "MODFLOW." The model will provide information on how the ground water system will be effected by the First Filing construction activities as well as future development that is planned for the site. If the model indicates that ground water flows from the First Filing area are supplementing the wetlands hydrology, the subdrain system will be redesigned and the collected ground water will be directed into the wetlands. Mr. Basil Harridan with the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Division is familiar with the applications of MODFLOW and will be contacted to review and comment on the results of the modeling program. gmmOud.42.drx (AQ(V97 2290 E. Prospect Road, Suite 1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 484-7573 FAX: (970) 484-7593 I ,;,. . .�.,::eei..u........ �.am =..,w au...,.w::+�x..... em:aa ..:. �.....n ..�..;n..+.:.ut��,wee«..urtih:ln.�.aw6.zvi��awit.;.2�oisY'ApistN#.'+b'"irYV'Y:La"'n'8'4tl ....'.`.dish; tltl!'�IOY�tl'/ 10tl.lO t!-l•'KVK.LVLVKMUV LMIVU OV1ARl-8 IL�JYJJ�01U0.fJ0! t'MI�G J/Y September 3.1997 W. M>lu Iaidwig City of Fort Collins t `cur out Playing 235 Mathews Fact Collies, Cokarado 90522 RE: Waasfidd PUD Fist _FL%ng Dewy NOW , 71is letter is in response to our telephone conversation of August 20, 19VI regal*ng dip First Ming of Waterfield FUD. In thepreiimimmy sub Mittel for the Watec6eld PUD, blortha n EnghmerkS examined the entire she (sppr ca[mately 140 maven)` In our pr+eliminazy drainage evaluation. we had planned to utilize do testing wallads area far some of the developed runoff: The project received preliminary approval, but *c concept of using file exirling wedanda for ddeotion was not fully accepted, as there wave many francs that heeded to be resolved with Stowwater Utilities and Natural, Resources. prior to final approval. _. Tries Filet Ming final for Waterfidd did not include the entire site, but only the easterly portion of the sitk including the Brill Run affordable housing comaplev, and some single family lots at the nwhew comas' of the property. The dmmge concepmptmeoted with the Fust Ffiing do not include any desoon> = in the alsdng watlands etas, ancl, inBtlead, calls for a detention pond in the soudw/ et comer of tale site which would provide sufficient storage capacity for the moire f rst fi1ing. Given the tight time @mote allowed for the Fast mining, it was cur decision to not . auto developed flows through the wetland was. We felt this would allow•us.to complete the r; : groundwat sad hydrolog'rtal studies filet are bang pceW for this area So while the`dsatmge,- - impra emenofa as shown with the first filing would meet all the City requirements for the developed condition. it would be our intent to modify the First Fling drainage concepts wh i the Seoond,Ft"Lag is submitted, to be mm aft atiive of the ludimimy plan. When 2id Pibog is designed, as mentioned) Wxweit would be our intent to use the existing w ands area, far, somo ddenidon stmaga Per estiierdiscussions with Caty staff, lmdmtmd that soonie pie of developed romofiwill be mgau+od prim to being released into the -wet en& We _sire, ymsently looking at a couple of different scenarios for this Wit. Also, die gmeadwafar.aod hydrological study for this area will bee mipleted when 2i6 Filing is deaigued. base design issues will help the City to damdne the fcmibilby of w4land detention. 410 SOVII NORIES, SUITE 202, FORT COLLINS; (OLORADO 80521, 070) 221.41Sd,, FAX (9701 221-41S9 9EP-04787 09.09 FROM.COLORADO LAND AC,URCE ID.3032909097 PACE '.'4/4,;:; SEP-03-97 WED 02;24 PM P. 02/02 Cam► Cb& Faints ru.c. 8101 Rua row Avmtt Sot M180 VOWNd, Ckr do SM11-2929 (303) 2901M 0 FA 2904W September 3, IWI Mr. Mike Ludwig City of Fort Comm 235 Mathews Fort CoUina, CO W522 RE: Waterfield PUD Preliminary Plat Dear M*e: As manager of Courny Club Farms L.L.C. I acknowledge that d1e Final plat for Waterfield PUD First Filing will result in changes to the Waterfield PUD Preliminary Plat as approved.. Those changes acknowledged are: 1. The access road on the notthem side of Brisben's Ball Run mow lies within that portion identified as Semgor Cottaga. The Senior Cottages parcel will have a loss of acreage and will have to amend or redesign its layout for Final Plat, if applied for. 2.By not MMI-9 for a Final plat on Senior Cottages at this time that the Preliminary Plat for Senior Cottages will expire six (6) months from the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Waterfield PUD. 3. By processing the First Filing without the entire WarerFiekd PM Preliminary Plat, that additional eng mining and design changes can be andgxrted. Thank you for your assastance in this matter Sincerely, James R..McCory Manager CC: L. Fulton L. Liley CECIL L. OPPIE 2412 East Vine Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Michael Ludwig Current Planner City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. Ludwig, August 28, 1997 I have met with Scott McFadden of the W.O. Brisben Companies, Inc., developer of the Bull Run Townhomes community which is adjacent to my property on Vine Drive in Fort Collins. During the meeting, Mr. McFadden and I agreed that as part of the Bull Run Townhomes development, they will construct a privacy fence along their property's western boundary and my property's eastern boundary. This will satisfy our concern to minimize the impact of this development on our property. Cecil L. Oppie WAE� Pup FIRST F IuS, , F 10A1.. * 1-9sC Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA I APPUCASLE CRITERIA ONLY CRI i cR1pN Is the c:7:enen acoicacle7 "'heenteric be satisfies?. - If nc, please exclain - 3 , <I Yes INo Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA i I IVan I I 1.1 Solar Onentation I I 1.2 Comorehensive Plan I I1100T 1..3 Wildlife Habitat ( Iyr I 1.4 Miner2l Depcsit I I I I 1,5 -cclocically Sensitive Areas I rzszrved I I 1.c Lands or Acricultural Irnoorance 1.7 Enercv Conservation 1.E Air Quality I I I I I 1.9 Water Qualiiv. I I I I I s•es 1 11 Water Conervati 1.1 IwOFr NE.'G'r'EOF.HOOD COMP:,TIEILITY C,RITE:jIA I I V=r uiar. Pedeeman. Eike Transocr,_ticn I I I I 2 ?uiidirc Placement and Orient_ticn I I04I I 2= i latural Features I I I 2. v=nicular Circuiation anc P2rkinc 2.54 =.merge^cy Accass 2.1 Pedestrian Circuiation I I I I 2.i 1r ,lt=c.ure I I 2 =' Euilaing Heicnt and Views I I I I I :1 . Shading 2.10 Solar Acv-ss I 164or MOOF I I " 2:11 Historic Resources I IWT I 2.12 S_t�acks I I 2.13 L_ndscace 2.1 A Sicns I I I I 2.155 Site Lighting 2.16 Noise and Vibration I IbeI I 2.17 Glare or Heat I I I 2.18 Hazardous Materials I I I A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity I I I 3.2 Design Standards 3.3 Water Hazards 3.4 Geoloeic Ha7-ards i Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins. Colorado. Revised . 5 1994 /0...0 U 5� -61- SCHOOL PROJECTIONS Proposal: , #7-95C Waterfield P.U.D. - Final Description: Mixed -use development (43 single family residential lots and 176 multi- family units) on 46.97 acres. Density: 4.66 du/ac (gross) General Population: 176 (multi -family units) x 3.2# (persons/unit) = 563 43 (single family units) x 3.2* (persons/unit) = 138 School Age Population: Elementary: 176 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 70 43 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 17 Junior High: 176 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 33 43 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 17 Senior High: 176 (units) x .166 (pupils/unit) = 29 43 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 17 TOTAL =183 *Figures assume a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom single family residential units. #Figures assume a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom multi -family residential units. m a n TM9N EMa0911RE TM IAENCLOSUREOA S �IOEEIEVAIICN ENCLOSURE WALLS SPLIT RAIL FENGC 5OLIC WOO,' 'EN�-E WATERFMLD P.U.D. 6r FB.[NG BULL RUN APARTMENTS FORT GOWNS COLORADO ®LEI ® ®QL'.I L`__._ YY L SS L iY L LL L LL S IL L MS.S LL Y LL a Lm LL u im LL ®L LL LL LL iL - LL IL Y. LL 1 11 I I 11 I 1 T..r Y w pp s e - 1� . ..p RUN w lei pIAN- ♦N!OY is No Text RANT UST iw.�. O ® ..new e...+.... �. p co n me mcwm. w� i?j L WATERFIELD P.0 D. a PW LSC FUJNG BULL RUN APARTMENTS FORT COLLEs COLORADO -LF:� o u o w wu• r . ,o. 5 .. 9 PLANT UST PLANTING NOTE5 rLANT LEGEND . . — m p co --- — w.... C w — AREA MAP c-+ �r n xwur WATERFIRD P.U.D. n' .r= .„mc e Pu ISI' FILING SINGLE FAMILY a POKr COUM ODLORADO / MATCNLINE SHEET 3 OF 9 TRACT C / DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPE, ACCESS. [xj AND UTILITY EASEMENT / a�Pxc exuuaPc mm. maT c sauxo.e. uxe "2 ______--- e° 7 `" ° e e'wwu _ I I I 4 ww 24'FMnOrlw 10 E" I i i I`I :12 <m ---------------- x � � m e 4n,rn I. 9 1/ o� ass. u .. ]A•PNab on. t sls _ w0 R pimic _ ° "� ° I eeo " ___ R o - it x4 ry r �_f¢5 10.1Y wqx I ,m .x, g l a I 13 m 4J r _ P, Q . g 9 ' o e I I I , I 4.crrs. w44 ac Id 19 = ! 2a'P°m wmsbnw - 101Y `--I-I 9m I --- I N Oppie Property y Ball 9 Property -oned T Q1 Zoned T s wog swo Noon PEx« '� ro i" IIC.9 T se x1M 9 T xw4 RMS I P s, 9— I II � 1 ,sx¢no=v� m I _ n� Existing i.• „2__ _ ] VP WP18V HOLLSIS g R �O"TM 4 - PI �:'ris am o LLmme �P _ __ � LSf FILING 3 e o Vern nd I 2 P o i18 Schoo ' RFIELD P.U.D. WE SAL I 8 x I e� -J BULL RUN APARTMENTS .,.,,. �...�. - - - - - - ------------ _ ssm wminau .ow. a wax __ YOU COLIJM COIARADO R —Rpp RO Pv Mi5 T!T — I Rt rlin°tnn A...fi...__, n..a___., ... xcxe... �. "` 3 s 9 K & M Company Vacant Zoned_t_ & WELD CANAL I_AFIMER --- _ —DITCH ROAD f 1 * 0 12 it 10 1*80 70 60 5 40 2 10 1 '•" ,m mn uvomn uwwn ePsmr� uromn uxo san um son uw son ummrt um son umwrt ,sss son R 23 24 I 1 25 �22� e333 m n II I ew.4w n 32 ,.3..5 I w .. I. I w4e:m r. w I I I �I CI i:Y ,sEs�so.n l �.>m1.m n I ,w,fim n I i ,41 cril m n / I..I _ 0m I-. _ f ... 40 1 I 17 em wn • e�m e: r. 37 y\, y�, \ 28sa \ m Pw son \ n P.v w n \ uo I I 63256 SO. FT.\� ' R i II 1 � I y TRACT CIq 1 - Ip g DRAINAGE. LANDSCAPE.ACCESS, AND UTILITY EASEMENT Eli h Lie II P I MD?CNLIryE SWEET ] OF 9 I McMahen Rldder Pp Larimer �o County Zoning L TC7�L�L7 T i]7777771l WATERFMLD P. V.L. sne euwn LST FILING - _= SINGLE FAh n.Y FORT collim oa oRnoo d No Text VICINITY MAP 06/30/97 #7-95C WATERFIELD P.U.D. (LDGS) FINAL 1"= 600' 11 lows I oil WIN MEMO �: ♦. ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ 0 ME NO S �• ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦i♦ i� �0 1 � : ♦ice♦♦ �♦i♦ ♦i: i� :� .� IN I� 1 IMAIND Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 9 6. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C provides 176 multi -family dwelling units meeting the City of Fort Collins' definition of "affordable housing" for a period of at least 25 years. 30 points were awarded on the Residential Uses Point Chart at Preliminary PUD for this commitment. 7. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C provides additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas, and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the Bull Run multi -family development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood in regards to the 18, 4-bedroom units which were granted Preliminary PUD approval on May 19, 1997. 8. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C is consistent with the City's Transportation Policies. 9. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C has no direct impact on the approximately 25 acres of wetlands, buffer and associated wildlife habitat which exists on the remainder of the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Waterfield PUD, First Filing Final, #7-95C with the following conditions: 1. A 6 foot wooden fence (or equal as determined by the Director of Planning, Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, and the Waterfield developer) is required on the north side of single-family lots 1 through 13 along the Larimer and Weld Irrigation ditch. Such fence shall be shown on the approved Site, Landscape, and Utility Plans prior to recording of said plans. 2. A sidewalk be added on the west side of the private drive connection between Bull Run Apartment buildings 7 and 8. Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 8 6. Transportation: The applicant has been required to design the on -site arterial improvements to County Road 9E from Vine Drive north to the Larimer and Weld Irrigation ditch and the arterial improvements to Vine Drive from County Road 9E east to the proposed Merganser Drive. The applicant must either construct Vine Drive and County Road 9E to arterial standards adjacent to the property or the monies to complete the street improvements must be placed in escrow with the City prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. While the First Filing, Final PUD does not trigger an immediate need for the construction of off -site improvements to Vine Drive or Summit View, each of the dwelling units in this Final PUD submittal will have a proportionate share of the cost for the off -site improvements, currently estimated at $250,000.00 if Summit View is the primary route and $500,000.00 if Vine Drive is the primary route. These funds must be placed in escrow with the City prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Any unused portion of these funds will be returned to the applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C was submitted on June 20, 1997 (within 6 months of the May 19, 1997 approval of the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B), in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 161, 1996. Therefore, this application has been processed according to the requirements of the LDGS. 2. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C is in substantial compliance with the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B. 3. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C is in compliance with Ordinance No. 52, 1996 which rezoned the southern 60 acres of the property I-L, Light Industrial with a PUD condition and the northern 80 acres of the property R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition. In addition Ordinance No. 52, 1996 rezoned the property with a condition that any residential development of the property be at a density of at least 6 dwelling units per net developable acre (as defined in Ordinance No. 52). 4. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C meets the applicable All - Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System (variance granted to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" on May 19, 1997 with Preliminary PUD approval). 5. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 7 C. Architecture Final elevations of the Bull Run Apartments and the clubhouse/pool are provided on Sheets 8 and 9 of the plan set. The Bull Run Apartment buildings are predominantly 2-story and have a maximum height of approximately 28 feet. Building materials include red brick, light tan wood siding, wood shutters, and dark brown colored, high -profile heavy dimensional asphalt shingles. Each dwelling unit has a ground floor entry. The clubhouse building is a combination 1 and 2-story building with a maximum height of approximately 26 feet. Building materials include red brick and dark brown colored, high - profile, heavy dimensional shingles. 5. Wetland/Storm Drainage: As discussed during Preliminary PUD consideration, there is an 11.5 acre wetland west of this Final PUD application. This wetland serves as a significant habitat for waterfowl and wading birds. The Planning and Zoning Board's Preliminary PUD approval included a condition that the "good faith effort" continue between City Staff and the developer concerning the protection of the wetland. This Final PUD application has been designed to protect the existing wetland. First, the Final PUD application is located entirely east of the proposed Merganser Drive, approximately 600 feet east of the existing wetland. Second, the Storm Drainage system for the First Filing has been designed to avoid the wetland. No stormwater from the First Filing will be released into the wetland at this time. A decision regarding the acceptability of future filings releasing storm drainage into the wetland has not yet been made. Third, it appears that the 43 single family lots proposed with the First Filing will not impede groundwater flows feeding the wetland. Fourth, the City is also discussing with the applicant possibilities of acquiring certain remaining portions of the Waterfield Preliminary PUD west of the proposed Merganser Drive. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C is consistent with the Planning and Zoning Boards condition of Preliminary PUD approval requiring a continuation of the "good faith effort" between City Staff and the developer concerning the protection of the wetland. Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 6 C. All -Development Criteria As previously stated, a variance was granted to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" for the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B on May 19, 1997. The Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C satisfies all applicable All -Development Criteria. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: The Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B was determined to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This Final PUD request is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary. Therefore, the Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Design: A. Layout The property is bounded by County Road 9E (arterial) on the east; Vine Drive (arterial) on the south; the Larimer and Weld Irrigation ditch to the north; and the proposed Merganser Drive (collector/connector) and remaining portions of the Waterfield Preliminary PUD on the west. The 176 Bull Run Apartments are located at the northwest corner of Summit View and East Vine Drive. The 43 single-family lots are located south of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Ditch. The Bull Run apartments and single-family lots are separated by the future Senior Cottages site. All public streets comply with the new City Street Design Standards, including detached walks and street trees. B. Landscaping East Vine Drive and County Road 9E (Summitview Drive) will have 2" caliper, deciduous street trees at 40 foot spacing between the detached walk and the back of the curb. Merganser Drive and Garganey Drive will have 2" caliper, deciduous street trees at 40 foot spacing between the detached walk and the back of the curb. Goslyn Court, Black Scoter Court, and Bufflehead Court will have 1.5" caliper deciduous street trees at 40 foot spacing between the detached walk and the back of the curb. The private drives serving the Bull Run Apartments will be lined with 2" caliper, deciduous street trees. A combination of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs will be planted around each of the buildings and in open space areas between buildings. Picnic tables and BBQ grills are provided in open space areas for use by residents. Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 5 Third, the setback of two -building envelopes adjacent (east) to the Oppie property has been reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. This decrease in setback distance will be mitigated by the provision of a five foot high, solid wood fence and increased landscaping along the Oppie/Bull Run property line. A letter from the Oppie family stating their approval of the proposed mitigation is attached. Fourth, the orientation/locations of three buildings north and west of the Plummer School have been reconfigured to provide better building relation to the Plummer School and better future access for the Plummer School if needed. Fifth, the orientation of the proposed building along Merganser Drive has been modified to increase the setback of the building from Merganser as discussed by the Board at the Preliminary PUD hearing. Sixth, the shared private drive that was located on the property line between the Bull -Run Apartments and the Senior Cottages now must be constructed entirely on the Senior Cottages property. This may cause modifications to the layout of the Senior Cottages site. Any modifications will be reviewed at the time of future Amended Preliminary and/or Final PUD application(s). A letter from Jim McCory, owner of the Senior Cottages property, acknowledging responsibility for providing this private drive is attached. It is the Staffs opinion that each of the proposed changes are minor in nature and that none of the proposed changes will cause the development to be disqualified under the applicable criteria of the LDGS. Staff recommends that the Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C is in substantial compliance with the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B. B. Ordinance No. 52, 1996 Ordinance No. 52, 1996 rezoned the southern 60 acres of the property I-L, Light Industrial with a PUD condition and the northern 80 acres of the property R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition. In addition Ordinance No. 52, 1996 rezoned the property with a condition that any residential development of the property be at a density of at least 6 dwelling units per net developable acre (as defined in Ordinance No. 52). The Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B was found to be consistent with Ordinance No. 52,1996. This Final PUD is in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary. Therefore the Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C is consistent with Ordinance No. 52, 1996. Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 4 A. Preliminary PUD On May 19, 1997 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B by a vote of 5-0 including the following: Preliminary PUD approval for a total of 483 dwelling units (187 single-family lots, 120 Senior Cottages, and 176 Bull Run Apartments); a 5,000 square foot convenience store/gas station; a 10,000 square foot business services/office building; and a 6,000 square feet day care center. In addition, a 10 acre school site and 6.12 acre neighborhood park site were included for platting purposes only. The entire Waterfield PUD property is 140.09 acres. The overall average density of the Preliminary PUD was 3.95 dwelling units per acre (483 units/122.26 acres). • Approval of a variance to Criteria 2 of the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart of the LDGS by a vote of 5-0. The project achieved 52% of the maximum applicable points rather than 65%. • Approval of a variance to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" by a vote of 5-0. 49% of lots are solar oriented rather than 65%. • Approval of a request for eighteen 4-bedroom units as part of the Bull Run multi -family apartments by a vote of 5-0. • A condition that the "good faith effort" continue between City Staff and the developer concerning the protection of the wetland. There are six differences between this First Filing, Final PUD and the approved Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B. All of these are located in the Bull Run Apartments portion of the development and are a result of inaccurate building footprints being shown on the Preliminary PUD. First, the building footprints of a few buildings on the Preliminary PUD were mistakenly for 6 unit buildings rather than 8 unit buildings. The building envelope length of the errant buildings has increased by approximately 30 feet. Second, the setback of the two building envelopes along the County Road 9E right-of-way has been reduced from 120 feet to a setback that ranges from a minimum of approximately 65 feet to a maximum of approximately 114 feet. This decrease in setback is not detrimental, as it has been determined that a potential southbound County Road 9E right - turn lane at Vine Drive will not be elevated. Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final #7-95C September 18, 1997 P & Z Meeting Page 2 • meets the applicable All -Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. A variance granted to All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation" on May 19, 1997 with the approval of the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B. • is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • provides 176 multi -family dwelling units meeting the City of Fort Collins' definition of "affordable housing" for a period of at least 25 years. 30 points were awarded on the Residential Uses Point Chart at Preliminary PUD for this commitment. • provides additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas, and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the Bull Run multi- family development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood in regards to the 18, 4-bedroom units which were granted Preliminary PUD approval on May 19, 1997. • is consistent with the City's Transportation Policies. • has no direct impact on the approximately 25 acres of wetlands, buffer and associated wildlife habitat which exists on the remainder of the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B. ITEM NO. 4 MEETING DATE 9 18 9iiA 7 STAFF Mike Ludwig Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Waterfield PUD, First Filing, Final, #7-95C. APPLICANT: VF Ripley Associates 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Country Club Farms, L.L.C. 8108 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite M180 Englewood, CO 80111 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final PUD request for a total of 43 single-family lots, 176 multi -family dwelling units, and a 1,500 square foot clubhouse/pool on 27.5 acres. The overall density of the First Filing is 7.96 dwelling units per acre. The property is located at the northwest corner of E. Vine Drive and County Road 9E; and is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Final PUD request with conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Final PUD request: • was submitted on June 20, 1997 (within 6 months of the May 19, 1997 approval of the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B), in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 161, 1996. Therefore, this application has been processed according to the requirements of the LDGS. is in substantial compliance with the Waterfield PUD, Preliminary, #7-95B. is in compliance with Ordinance No. 52, 1996 which rezoned the southern 60 acres of the property I-L, Light Industrial with a PUD condition and the northern 80 acres of the property R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition. In addition Ordinance No. 52, 1996 rezoned the property with a condition that any residential development of the property be at a density of at least 6 dwelling units per net developable acre (as defined in Ordinance No. 52). COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT