HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY 23 - PDP - PDP160031 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
October 21, 2016
Brent Cooper
RIPLEY DESIGN, INC.
419 CANYON AVE, STE 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Harmony 23, PDP160031, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about
any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through
the Project Planner, Clark Mapes, at 970-221-6225 or cmapes@fcgov.com.
RESPONSES 11/23/16
PLANNING RESPONSE: Ripley Design Inc.
CIVIL RESPONSE: TST, Inc.
ARCHITECTURE RESPONSE: VFLA Architects
TRAFFIC RESPONSE: Delich Associates
DEVELOPER RESPONSE: Harmony 23, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: David Steinmann
LIGHTING RESPONSE: APS, Inc.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Per the Harmony Corridor Plan pg. 18 the 8 foot wide sidewalk
along Harmony should be located 30 feet from the edge of the road where
possible.
Response: The walk has been revised to be located further from Harmony Road where feasible. Since it
meanders, there are some areas where it is a little further than 30’ and some where it is less. There is a
pinch point where it crosses over the Boxelder ditch.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
2
10/21/2016: We are not sure if there should be curb and gutter along this
section of Harmony. We are going to discuss this more internally and will let you
know what the direction on this will be.
Response: We are still waiting on feedback from the City on this and can update the plans once a decision
is made.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: We are discussing whether or not curb and gutter should be
installed along this portion of roadway. Whether there is curb and gutter will
impact the roadway design and the tree setbacks. I will let you know what that
decision is once it has been determined.
Response: We are still waiting on feedback from the City on this and can update the plans once a decision
is made.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: There is a reimbursement that is due to the City for the widening
that the City did along the Harmony Road frontage when the roadway was
widened to 3 travel lanes. That will get reflected in the development agreement.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: The plans summited were based on Harmony and i-25 project
north proceeding and constructing prior to this project. Understanding that this
might not be the case the plans need to provide design independent of that
project. What does that mean –
- We will need to look at what road construction, widening, striping layout and
design needs to be completed by this project if constructed first. Along
Harmony, Straus Cabin (north and south).
- The sewer system plans (gravity lines, wastewater pumping station,
forcemain) will need to be reviewed and finalized as a part of these plans. This
could also create a problem because I believe the lot that the pumping station
was to be on was to be platted with the other project and the lot will need to be
platted in order for them to get a building permit for that building.
- This project will need to relocate utilities, get the off-site easements and
ROW needed for all the off-site work.
- The applicant and the developer have to understand that if we proceed with
this project going first and that doesn’t happen then the plans will need to be
changed and modified to show what they are now building and designing and
how they tie into the Harmony I-25 North plans. This will be a big change to the
road construction - cross sections, striping and lane alignments and you will
then be dependent on that project completing their improvements so you can tie
in.
Response: Since the 1st prelim submittal we have been able to clarify that H23 will go to construction prior to
H25. Therefore, we have moved the watermain, sanitary sewer and road design along the east side of
Strauss Cabin from the H25 set to the H23 plans. The Strauss Cabin Plan and Profile sheets now show
that additional ROW will be dedicated on the H25 property by separate document. The Lift Station set has
been previous submitted and approved with the H25 plans, but is being submitted again with this round.
The Lift Station construction is anticipated to start in early March 2017. Easement agreements for the Lift
Station access, lot area and forcemain are currently being finalized with the District
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: I need information on the size of the proposed club house so I can
3
finish the Transportation Development Review Fee calculation.
Response: The clubhouse is 7,200 sf. Would the clubhouse be an additional fee since it is an accessory to
a residential use? Please clarify.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: On the plat you are going to want to exclude out the two areas
where the shelters and decks are shown on the site plan. If not done now you
would need to do an easement vacation of the area in which those are to be
placed before you would be able to get a building permit.
Response: Noted. The plat has been revised.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Need ROW line along Harmony Road labeled on the utility plans.
Response: This has been labeled.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Where is the new waterline in Harmony going to be located? One
note says it is to be 15 feet south of existing edge of pavement, but another note
labels the same line as the pipe as edge of pavement. Also need more
information on what is going on Cinquefoil. Where are the curblines, ROW
lines, does row or easement exist for the new firehydrant?
Response: The “edge of pavement” note is pointing to the actual edge of pavement. The note on the
waterline states that it’s 1.5’ south of existing pavement. Maybe your hardcopy didn’t print the decimal
point clearly. The existing ROW on Cinquefoil has been added. This is an existing, not proposed hydrant
and is located within the ROW. Existing curb and gutter on the west side and edge of pavement on the
east side has been called out.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: The boxelder realignment plans. We will need to review and
approve these plans. Our biggest concern will be the design and work within
the ROW. These plans will need to be approved with this project.
Response: The Box Elder Ditch Relocation Plan Set is being submitted with this round for reference. This
set does not impact the road ROW and is being reviewed/approved with the Box Elder Ditch Company.
Construction is scheduled to start in mid-January 2017. The remaining portion of the realignment
(including ROW impacts) will be covered under the H23 plan set.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Letters of intent for off-site easements and ROW will be needed
prior to hearing. I don’t know what all these will be yet – we need to see what
utilities and infrastructure this project will be constructing (water, sewer, storm,
roads, and relocations).
Response: Agreed.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Letters of intent from the ditch companies for the work being
shown (improvements and crossings) will be needed prior to hearing.
Response: Agreed.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: We need to look at and get the interim and ultimate striping plans
laid out and figured out.
4
- How does this project impact Strass Cabin north of Harmony – what
widening is needed to accommodate this project.
- What are the turn lane length needed if it is just this side first, or this side
second.
- What triggers the change between interim and ultimate cross section – when
is the median required.
Response: The revised interim Strauss Cabin design is what we intend to construct with the H23
development. It is my understanding that this “interim” design will exist until H25 constructs two access
points off of Strauss Cabin onto their property. At that time the raised median will need to be constructed
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: As we did with the Harmony I-25 North project we will need to look
at if the ultimate west curbline that is to be designed and installed with this
project can tie into existing pavement or how much of the road will need to be
reconstructed with this project.
Response: With the utility installation, road widening, and change in road surface elevation we will be taking
up the entire road for most, if not all, of the frontage.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: We will have interim and ultimate striping plans, but the centerline
and west flowline along this project will be the ultimate design – so that just
needs to be clarified on the plans. As with the other project if this project is to
go first then we may have an interim east roadway edge, but will need to clearly
define what is ultimate and what gets torn out and rebuilt with the other project.
Again if this project doesn’t go first then the plans change and we need to show
how this project will tie into what the other side is doing to obtain the ultimate
section.
Response: Response: The interim and ultimate design has been further clarified on the Strauss Cabin Plan
and Profiles.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: A preliminary profile design will need to be provided for 1000 feet
beyond the end of this property with existing grades.
Response: This was shown 1000’ south of the site on sheet 10 of the 1st submittal (sta 36+00 to 46+00).
There may have been some confusion because we also showed the future proposed linework for this same
1000’ section and noted this it was presented for reference only.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: The radii at the intersection of Strass Cabin Road and Road A
and Road B are to be 20 per Table 8-2.
Response: These have been changed.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: The widths of Road A and Road B need to be identified
someplace on the plans besides just the typical cross section. In regards to the
typical cross section it shows a crowned drive section – the grading plans would
indicate that these drives slope to one side since sidewalk chases are only
being shown on one side of the drives.
Response: This has been added to the utility plan.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Road A and Road B need to be labeled on the plans as private
drives. If they are to be named that will need to be placed on the plat and the
plans.
5
Response: The has been added.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Once we get the striping plans figured out we will check the turn
lane design and distances.
Response: The revised layout is being submitted with this set.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: Let me know when you would like to meet to work through the
striping plans and improvement phasing and I can get that meeting set up.
Response: This meeting took place on October 31st, 2016.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: We are working on establishing a standard design for emergency
accessway with PFA. Once we have the final design direction on that I will
provide you with direction on the materials and design required.
Response: We have not received further direction on this, so any revisions will need to be incorporated with
our final design.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: The ECS and planning objectives both note that the Box Elder
Ditch will be relocated by the ditch company prior to construction of this project.
A letter of intent from the ditch company regarding this action is required prior to
hearing. If the project is approved and proceeds to construction, documentation
confirming the relocation of the ditch is required. If the ditch is to be relocated by
any entity other than the ditch company, additional US Army Corps of
Engineers, State Historic Preservation Office, and City of Fort Collins
requirements will apply.
Response: Please see the letter of intent and notification letter to the US Army Corps of Engineers noting
the realignment of the ditch by Box Elder Ditch Company - attached with this response.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: The ECS identified a 411 sf wetland that will need to be either
protected or mitigated with this project. If pursuing mitigation, as noted in the
planning objectives, on-site mitigation will make the most sense for this project.
If this project is approved, a wetland mitigation and monitoring plan will be
required prior to construction. Pretreatment of stormwater runoff is required
prior to entering a wetland mitigation area. However, given the amount of new
wetland area proposed with this project, there may be some flexibility in how
that is accomplished. Please arrange a meeting with Dan Mogen (Stormwater)
and myself to discuss further.
Response: We will be mitigating onsite and adding constructed wetlands. A mitigation plan will be
submitted with final design. As discussed, pretreatment will not be required, due to the amount of
constructed wetlands that are planned for the site.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please provide a letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers
verifying the extent and jurisdictional status of the wetlands on the site.
Response: The verification letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is attached.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
6
10/19/2016: To ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, please
include the following note on the tree landscape plan: “All tree removal shown
shall be completed outside of the songbird nesting season (Feb 1 - July 31) or a
survey will be conducted of the trees to be removed to ensure that no active
nests are present."
Response: Added.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: The top of bank for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch and 50'
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone need to be delineated and labeled on the site,
grading, utility, lighting, and landscape plans.
Response: Natural Habitat Buffer Zone has been delineated and labeled.
Response: This has been added.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
Please add the following statement to the notes on any sheets of the site,
landscape, photometric and utility plans that show the Habitat Buffer: “The
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape.
Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.” This will help preserve the intention behind the
buffer zones and the natural features into the future.
Response: Note added.
Response: This note has been added to the Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please update the signature block on the Utility Plans from
"Natural Resources" to "Environmental Planner."
Response: This has been changed.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: A detailed planting plan is required prior to hearing to ensure that
the wetland planting plan is realistic and that the project adequately reflects the
landscape of the Poudre River corridor. The details of all seed mixes, including
scientific names, should be specified as well.
Response: A representative plant and seed mix list has been provided for the wetland, river valley
landscape and upland native area. Please refer to the landscape plan and details.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Thank you for providing a photometric plan with this PDP
submittal. Current plans illustrate light spillage into the 50' natural habitat buffer
zone along the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. With respect to lighting, the
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural
areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site
sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not
spill over to the buffer area or any wetland mitigation areas.
There should be no spillover lighting encroaching into the 50' Natural Habitat
Buffer Zone along the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch or any wetland
mitigation areas.
Response: Pole locations and quantity have been revised to minimize any light spillage into this area.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: A Fugitive Dust Control Permit must be obtained from Larimer
County Environmental Health for development involving:
7
- land clearing of 5-25 acres;
- land development creating more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or
exceeding 6 months in duration
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: City Code and the Land Use Code require that any prairie dogs
inhabiting a site must be relocated or humanely eradicated prior to
development activities (see Section 3.4.1(N)(6) of the Land Use Code).
Additionally, should this project gain approval and proceed to construction, a
burrowing owl survey, in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife
standards, shall be conducted prior to construction by a professional, qualified
wildlife biologist.
Response: A burrowing owl survey was completed at the Harmony 23 site in late October of 2016 by
Professional Wetlands Consulting and no burrowing owls were observed. The Recommended Survey
Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls from the Division of Parks and Wildlife was
followed. A report summarizing the results of the burrowing owl survey will be provided is attached.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please note section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code, which
states that "projects shall be designed to minimize the degradation of the visual
character of affected natural features within the site and to minimize the
obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site."
To ensure compliance with this standards, please provide photosimulations
and/or viewshed analyses from multiple perspectives along both Harmony and
Strauss Cabin Roads.
Response: 3d views of individual buildings in the context of the overall development have been included as
part of this resubmittal. Additionally, we will provide views of the development as viewed from the public
right-of-ways adjacent to the property.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016:
If there are any existing trees on site contact the City Forester for an onsite
meeting to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information for the plan.
Response: The only trees on site are Russian Olive which don’t require mitigation per the City. Please let
us know if you would still like to do a site visit.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016:
Provide for the LUC 3.2.1 standards on the final landscape plan.
Response: Noted, these will be provided at Final.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/06/2016
8
10/06/2016: 2015 IFC CODE ADOPTION
The Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins are in the process of
adopting the 2015 International Fire Code. Building plan reviews shall be
subject to the adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of plan review
submittal and permit application.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/06/2016
10/06/2016: COMMERCIAL HYDRANTS
As a Multi-Family product, this project falls under commercial hydrant
requirements and a hydrant is required within 300' of any building unless the
building is served by a standpipe system. This distance is measured along the
path of vehicle travel. All buildings within the development appear to be
compliant except for Buildings F which is located a distance greater than 300'
from a hydrant. The project team will need to add another hydrant in that general
area to meet minimum standards. Code language provided below.
> IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to
provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet
to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter.
Response: The hydrant spacing has been corrected.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/06/2016
10/06/2016: FIRE ACCESS
Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of any building, or
facility as measured by an approved route around the perimeter. For the
purposes of this section, fire access cannot be measured from an arterial road.
As such, the clubhouse and nearly every large building is out of access. As
every building will be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, the out
of access condition is considered acceptable in most cases. Buildings X & P
which exceed perimeter access by well over 100' will require other mitigation to
offset the noncompliant condition. Code language provided below.
IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements
of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and
all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When any
portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the
building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, the fire code
official is authorized to increase the dimension if the building is equipped
throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system.
Response: This has been further coordinated with Jim Lynxwiler to bring into compliance. The building
being referred to by Jim as building P (Building H in the updated site plan) was shifted approximately 12’ to
the south to get it closer to the drive lane and shorten the hose length distance. The building previously
referred to as X ( Now Building P) was rotated so that it is parallel to the drive.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/06/2016
10/06/2016: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT
Per IFC Appendix D105, structures exceeding 30' in height trigger additional
9
fire access requirements as previously noted. The intent of the code is to
provide unrestricted fire access along one long side of the building. Due to their
setback and orientation, Buildings W and X are considered fully out of aerial
access, unless they can be shown to be less than 30' in height. All buildings
placed parallel to the drive aisle appear to provide access minimum access.
> IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition
shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the
building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The
side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned
shall be approved by the fire code official.
Response: Buildings W and X (now Buildings O and P) have been rotated so that they are parallel to the
drive and located within 30’ of the drive.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/06/2016
10/06/2016: AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
FYI - The 2015 code adoption process is likely to reduce the width of aerial
apparatus roads to 26' as written in the IFC (local amendments call for 30' width
where required).
> WIDTH - IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial
fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30
feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion
thereof.
Response: In light of this comment, many of the aerial apparatus roads have been reduced to 26’ where
they don’t interfere with adequate back-out distance of garages. Please refer to the plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/18/2016
10/18/2016: SECURITY GATES
Fire code requires the gate at the emergency access connection to Harmony to
comply with the following:
> IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access
road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they
shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and
the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times.
> IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all
of the following criteria:
1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet.
2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type.
3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one
person.
4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times
and replaced or repaired when defective.
5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire
department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall
be approved by the fire code official.
6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or
chain and padlock. A Knox Padlock will be required.
7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for
10
approval by the fire code official prior to installation.
8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with
UL 325.
9. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and
installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200.
Response: See Utility Plan – we are proposing two 12’ wide swing gates with Knox padlock.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/18/2016
10/18/2016: TURNING TEMPLATE
An AutoTurn exhibit is requested showing that fire apparatus are able to
negotiate all turning maneuvers within the development site.
Response: This will be submitted prior to P & Z.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
indicated on future plan sets however the applicant should also be advised that
additional on-site signage may be required at time of field inspection and final
CO. In addition, "Emergency Access Only" signage shall be affixed to the
proposed emergency access gate on both sides. Code language provided
below.
> IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2.
Response: These have been added and called out on the Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION & WAYFINDING
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise
needed to aid in wayfinding. Code language provided below.
> IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted
with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where
access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from
the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure.
Response: The developer will conform to the identification and wayfinding finding standards provided for in
the code section noted above.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: FIRE PITS & GRILLS
Fire pits & grills fueled by natural gas may be allowed in association with
multi-family buildings with prior approval of the fire marshal. Wood burning or
smoke producing fire pits & grills are strictly prohibited. Fire pits & grills shall be
located in a permanent/fixed location, such as a built-in kitchen or fireplace with
11
UL fixtures as appropriate. Connections shall have hard pipe, not flex pipe. Fire
pits and grills shall have a 10' separation to combustible construction and/or
vegetation. This distance is measured both horizontally and vertically from the
fire source.
Response: Note has been added to sheet 1.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Buildings. This location is different than most multifamily
neighborhood locations in the city. It is located in its own river valley landscape
setting that is not part of any cityscape or neighborhood. Even when the east
side of Strauss Cabin develops, this site will still be a landscape oriented area
with the horizontal line of the valley wall as backdrop.
Please consider a different approach with a much more horizontal directional
emphasis formed by deep overhanging eave features, possibly with floating
effects e.g. with reveals or windows to lighten the effect of the mass. The
massive vertical components as shown could perhaps harmonize more with a
dense, modern cityscape with additional attention, but they do not harmonize
with the landscape setting. Rather than vertical masses penetrating the roof
line, roofs should come down and cover the vertical masses with deep
overhangs, maybe with some variation in how far down they come. Any big and
small chance to add horizontality, such as with horizontal slat balcony railings,
could help.
Response: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss options regarding making the architecture of this
project more harmonious with the river valley landscape. Several design elements have been incorporated
to strengthen the horizontal aspects of the design including, a more prominent roof line, strong horizontal
trim and banding elements, wider top and bottom rails at the balconies and horizontally oriented siding
materials. The strong vertical elements that were being used to break up the roofline in our previous
proposal have been removed from any outward facing building elevations and have been used in a limited
and strategic fashion for identifying entries on the buildings interior to site and on inward facing elevations
only.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Follow up to 1 above: staff questions the narrative that the design
relates to the topography, as the topo forms a sweeping horizontal site backed
by the horizontal line of the hill in the public view. This is an opportunity and a
need for buildings more harmonious with the hill behind them. The monotonous
repetition of these massive buildings would be an intrusion upon this Harmony
Gateway landscape that staff believes would shock the community and create a
strong negative reaction. Discussion is warranted as a follow up to the meeting.
Response: see our response to the previous comment above.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: A different approach is needed toward required variation among
repeated buildings. They all look the same. One basic design is shown. Two
more distinctly different designs are needed. This matter is related to the
Modification request for the garage units.
Response: The project consists of 16 separate residential buildings, seven standalone garage buildings
12
and a clubhouse. Variation in unit mixes per building and adaptation to varying topography across the site
generated 11 unique residential building designs. Of the buildings designs or types that are repeated, we
have introduced a variation A and variation B. Variation A features an inverted “L” theme while variation B
uses series of anchored and “floating” boxes as the dominate design element. These design theme
variations are also uniformly distributed amongst the non-repeated building types.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Modification request. Staff disagrees with including these units
via a Modification request and then counting the garage units as design
variation. The monotonous repetition of the massive buildings negates the
garage units being 'equal or better', or 'nominal and inconsequential' as they
have a dramatic impact on the lack of variation.
Furthermore, more directly pertinent to the exact request, the striped edge along
the parking lot drive and garage doors is highly inconsistent with goals for
pedestrian orientation in multifamily neighborhood or district development.
If these units are not counted as design variation, and if a framework of much
clearer and more direct connections is provided, then these units might be
supportable by staff as a positive addition to the project.
Response: The mixed-use units (A-D) are no longer being counted as a housing type (2 housing types are
required in the project). However, they will effectively serve as a 3rd housing type and increase variation on
the site. A second housing type has been added at the northwest corner of the project that doesn’t need a
modification. These are two 4-plexes that have direct access to the public walk along Harmony.
Pursuant to discussions with City staff, the striped edge along the parking lot drive has been enhanced.
Five clear and direct connections have been provided to facilitate convenient access to the pedestrian walk
network. In addition, 5’ has been established between the striped walk and the garage. Landscape areas
are provided in the spaces between the garage entrances. This 5’ zone will better define the pedestrian
walk, improve pedestrian safety with more backing sight distance out of the garages and improve the
aesthetic of the streetscape.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please consider distinguishing building entrances more clearly.
The should be part of the additional variation among buildings.
Response: The higher parapet walls that break up the roof line have been strategically placed to bring
attention to the building entrances. These are the only locations that these design features occur. There
was considerable discussion regarding the entrances on the outward facing building elevations. While the
perimeter buildings can be accessed from both Harmony and Strauss Cabin roads these are not intended to
be primary entrances and are not as easily monitored by the “community” of this development as a whole.
As such, special care was taken to de-emphasize the entrances on the outward facing building elevations.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Streets, Access and Circulation. The plan would create over a
half-mile disconnection from north to south, separating the propose housing
from schools, parks, and employment to the west.
The development be well-designed with regard to safety, efficiency and
convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the
development and to and from surrounding areas. Sidewalk or bikeway
extensions off-site may be required based on needs created by the proposed
13
development. The circulation system within each development must
accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit,
throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas,
safely and conveniently.
Developments must extend a local street network to form intra- and
inter-neighborhood connections to knit developments together rather than
forming barriers between them. Normally, 2 street connections would be
required to the west. Requirements recognize the infeasibility of those
connections due to topography. 'Alternative Compliance' with the standard is
allowed with attention to fostering non-vehicular access, enhancing
neighborhood continuity and connectivity, and providing direct, sub-arterial
street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses,
and employment uses. 3.6.3 B and G2
The approved Brookfield development plan to the west included engineering
grading plans for a pedestrian bridge to this site. The owner of the property that
involves Lafever Drive to the west agrees that a connection would be highly
consistent with goals and needs in the area and would cooperate in a bridge
connection. This matter needs special, perhaps unprecedented attention and
effort given the topography and ditch company concerns. However, it should be
viewed as a tradeoff to overcome the constraints that preventing the two street
connections which would normally be required.
Response: An exhibit was done to analyze the distances of the routes from the center of our site to Fossil
Ridge High School to the north (attached). The exhibit took into account the design of the ditch overpass
that was done as part of the Brookfield development to the west of the ditch. This route starts at the public
walk along Strauss cabin and is a continual 5% ramp all the way to the top of the FCRID ditch. Then a
large overpass structure is conceptually incorporated at the top of the ditch to provide clearance that the
ditch company needs to get equipment under. Several ramp switchbacks are needed to get up and down
the overpass. At the west side of the ditch the walk is again constrained to a 5% ramp with steep slopes off
the sides that eventually connects to the street.
At 9,452 lf, this circuitous route is substantially longer than the routes south down Strauss Cabin Road and
west along Harmony. The route south route (Strauss Cabin to Rock Creek Dr) is approximately 8,354 lf.
The west route (Harmony to Cinquefoil Ln) is approximately 8,107 lf, more than a quarter-mile shorter.
Additionally, the connection via the overpass would be slower and harder to bike with all of the ramps and
switchbacks. There are also safety concerns of having a route used by kids that is set so far away from
highly visible areas. These findings contradict the desire for a more direct, convenient and safe route.
The developer has discussed the proposed path and bridge with the North Poudre Irrigation Company
(NPIC). The NPIC has referenced its strong desire not to construct these features due to the following
concerns:
Maintenance of the Ditch
Limitation of access to the ditch for maintenance
Impacts to the ditch service road
Maintenance of the bridge and path
Safety due to the public's close access to the ditch
The costs associated with an overpass were also analyzed. The location of the path and bridge would have
a significant impact on the building location and parking development. Adding the overpass would make
the project infeasible and impractical to build.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
14
10/19/2016: Landscape Plan – Larger trees are needed around the buildings.
Ornamental trees as shown would emphasize the massiveness and dominance
of the buildings in the landscape setting. Evergreen trees would be appropriate
on the north side of buildings along Harmony – Douglas-Fir or Spruce –
consistent with being slightly more upland above the valley floor.
Can the trees along Harmony be established as shown, vis a vis easements?
A few additional cottonwoods to form some denser clumps for a more
naturalistic effect as opposed to all individual specimens widely spaced which
would normally be appropriate.
Response: Larger shade trees have been provided where feasible next to buildings along the street
frontages. Evergreens are shown on the upland areas on the western part of the site. Cottonwoods have
been added and clumped in informal arrangements. In addition, Cottonwoods and the river valley
landscape have been extended down Strauss Cabin Road.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Gas Service A gas main Line will come from Strauss/Rock Creek
Drive; and needs an easement.
Response: Agreed. This will be dedicated by separate document.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Per discussions with Floodplain, the downstream site has a
no-rise and the pond spillway is specified at 4837.64' (could be raised up 0.1'
as proposed as it is less than historic elevation). The no-rise will need to be
modified to account for the modification proposed with H23 and freeboard will
also need to be verified.
Response: Agreed – the revised No Rise will be submitted at final design,
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please provide documentation and excerpts from the adjacent
development's drainage report to justify release rate and other details referred
to in this report.
Response: These have been added to the H23 report.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Water rights are required for a constructed wetland; please show
that water right requirements are being met. If these wetlands are considered
mitigation, water quality treatment must be provided before runoff reaches the
wetlands; that is, the wetlands can not be used for water quality or Low Impact
Development if they are considered to be mitigation.
Response: As agreed upon since this comment was issued, the constructed wetlands will handle the water
quality and LID. The mitigated wetland area will not be used in the water quality/LID calculations.
Response: The mitigated wetlands will not require any water rights because mitigation is at a 1:1 ratio.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: The Rational Method + 20% is acceptable for initial sizing
calculations. Please note that SWMM modeling will be required for final design
as the site is greater than 20 acres.
Response: As discussed since this comment was issued, there are two ponds and neither has a catchment
15
greater than 20 acres, so SWMM modeling will not be required for final design.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please see redlines and review calculations for proposed
detention volumes and elevations.
Response: These have been reviewed and corrected.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please show that 1' of freeboard is proposed from the spill over
the Boxelder Ditch (Pond A) and Strauss Cabin (Pond B) to the lowest building
elevation.
Response: This is now shown.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2016
10/11/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan,
an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based
upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since
the site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control
section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam
970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: These will be submitted with final.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/17/2016
10/17/2016: On the Plat, please include the floodplain boundaries and label
them appropriately.
Response: These have been added.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/17/2016
10/17/2016: On the Site Plan, please include the floodplain boundaries and
label them appropriately.
Response: These have been added to the site plan, sheet 2.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/17/2016
10/17/2016: On the Site Plan, please include a note that Life-Safety and
emergency response Critical Facilities are not allowed within the 500-year
floodplain.
Response: This has been added to sheet 1.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: We would like to set up a time to sit down and review phasing and
16
implementation strategies for the improvement's on Strauss Cabin and
Harmony Rd. The traffic study indicates needed geometric improvements at
Kechter and Strauss Cabin, and we would like include this as part of our
phasing discussion.
Response: This meeting occurred October 31st, 2016.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: The striped pedestrian walkway along the back private drive could
be improved to enhance pedestrian safety in this area. The backing sight
distance out of the garages is a concern as well as the visual variation of the
roadway and "sidewalk" to the driver- potentially use of different materials could
remedy this.
Response: Pursuant to discussions with City staff, the striped edge along the parking lot drive has been
enhanced. Five clear and direct connections have been provided to facilitate convenient access to the
pedestrian walk network. In addition, 5’ has been established between the striped walk and the garage.
Landscape areas are provided in the spaces between the garage entrances. This 5’ zone will better define
the pedestrian walk, improve pedestrian safety with more backing sight distance out of the garages and
improve the aesthetic of the streetscape.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016: The entry cul-da-sac feature could be operationally improved with
some design enhancements. A slight softening in the entry radii and yield
conditions at each entry point would assist in functionality. Also, consider
diagonal parking off of the feature to help with operation and sight distance.
Response: The flowline radius has been increased to 20’ and yield signs have been added.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/21/2016
10/21/2016:
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/17/2016
10/17/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Response: The developer will submit irrigation plans prior to building permits and shall comply with the
Land Use Code provisions.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please differentiate City and FCLWD water mains.
Response: This has been identified.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: Please provide a minimum 20' utility easement for the proposed
17
water mains on the site.
Response: A blanket easement is being provided, so U.E’s are not required.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/19/2016
10/19/2016: For final, please detail/profile the water main crossing the ditch.
The proposed 12" main will also need to be profiled.
Response: Agreed – this will be provided with final design.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/14/2016
10/14/2016: The plans propose 308 bicycle spaces to be enclosed in the
buildings. Is the location of the enclosed spaces in the individual units? If
proposed to be contained within the dwellings, 6’ shall be dedicated as bicycle
storage and shall be included and shown in a detail on the plans as per 3.2.2(C)
(4)(b).
Response: The enclosed bike racks are located in the common breezeways, garages and a stand-alone
bike enclosure. None are located in the individual units.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/14/2016
10/14/2016: A bike rack detail will need to be provided showing sufficient
and adequate spacing and design for the bicycles and how the racks will be
situated in relation to the sidewalk as per 3.2.2(C)(4)(b).
Response: A bike rack detail has been provided. The outdoor fixed racks are placed on concrete pads that
are 6’ to the back of the pad to ensure no bikes overhang onto the sidewalk.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/14/2016
10/14/2016: The garage spaces will only be credited to the minimum parking
requirements if spaces are available to dwelling occupants at no additional
rental or purchased cost beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price.
Response: Garage spaces will be available to tenants of certain unit types as part of rental rate to ensure
conformance with minimum parking requirement.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/14/2016
10/14/2016: The site lighting levels on the west side of the development are in
excess of the minimum required 0.1 foot candles at 20’ beyond the property line
as referenced in 3.2.4 (D)(8).
Response: Pole locations and quantity have been revised to reduce light level to 0.1 foot candles or below.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/14/2016
10/14/20 The mechanical/conduit/meters and vents need to be adequately
screened from view from above and below, and locations of all screening needs
to be included on both the site and landscaping plans as per 3.5.1(I). 16:
Response: These are planned to be screened at final once a more detailed landscape plan is generated.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAFIA DISTRICT
DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 S. WADSWORTH BOULEVARD
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80 1 28-690 1
October 74,2076
SUBJECT: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Harmony 23 Project, Corps file
number NWO-2 0l 6-0202 1 -DEN
Jake Steele
Ter:ra Development Group
6655 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 120
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Dear Mr. Steele,
This letter is in regard to your request for a preliminary jurisdictional determination for
waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) on properly known as the Harmony 23 properfy, located
on a 23 acre parcel at 40.522366oNI, -105.002134oW, in Larimer County, Colorado.
The map entitled "H23 Wetland Exhibit", received bythis office on September23,2016,
(copy enclosed) provides the location(s) of waters and/or wetlands on the properly listed above.
Boxelder Ditch flows across the project site and is considered a jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
The basis for this delineation includes application of the Corps' 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual (*d Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region) and the positive indicators of wetland
hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of an ordinary high water
mark.
Reference is made to the November 13,1986 Preamble to the Federal Register (Page
41217),Part 328 (c) artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andlor diking dry land to
collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering,
irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. The Corps of Engineers generally does not consider
the above types of aquatic resources waters of the U.S. except on a case-by-case basis. The Corps
has determined that the stock pond located in the northern portion of the project site is a
Preamble waters and is not waters of the U.S.
Discharges of dredged or fill material, including those associated with mechanizedland
clearing, into waters andlor wetlands on this site may require a Department of the Army permit
and authorizationby state and local authorities. This letter is a confirmation of the Corps
preliminary jurisdiction for the waters andlor wetlands on the subject properly and does not
authonze any work in these areas. Please obtain all required permits before starting work in the
delineated waters/wetland areas.
This is a preliminary jurisdictional determination and is therefore not a legally binding
determination regarding whether Corps jurisdiction applies to the waters or wetlands in question.
Accordingly, you may either consent to jurisdiction as set out in this preliminary jurisdictional
determination and the attachments hereto if you agree with the determination, or you may request
and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination. This preliminary jurisdictional
determination and associated wetland delineation map may be submitted with a permit
application.
Enclosed are two copies of the "Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form". Please
reviewthe document, sign both copies, return one copy to this office within 30 days of receipt,
and keep one for your records. This delineation of waters andlor wetlands is valid for a period
of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision prior to the
expiration date.
If you have any questions, please contact Angelle Greer at (303)979-4720, or by email at
angelle. v. greer@usace. army.mil.
Sincerely, 0",*
Senior Project Manager
Denver Regulatory Office
Enclosures:
Preliminary Juris distional D etermination f'orm ( z)
Wetland/Waters Delineation Map
Copies Furnished:
David Steinrnann
Professional Wetlands Consulting, Inc.
20 Rim Road
Boulder, CO 80302
l-
Professional Wetlands Consulting, h'lc.
Novemb er 21, 2016
Jacob Steele
Terra Development Group
6655 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Re: Borrowing Owl Survey for the Harmony 23 Property
Dear Mr. Steele:
I am writing to document that no burrowing owls were observed at the existing prairie dog burrows
located at the Harmony 23 site in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado during a burrowing owl survey
that was completed in October of 2016 at the property. A comprehensive field survey for the
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)was completed by David Steinmann with Professional Wetlands
Consulting, Inc. following the Recommended Survey Protocol and Action to Protect Nesting Burring
Owls, dated March 2007 , published by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, see Attachment 1. There
were no burrowing owls present nor were there any signs of burrowing owls observed at the project
site. Development at Harmony 23 property will not impact nesting burrowing owls.
The proposed Harmony 23 project site encompasses a 23-acre field of agricultural plains grassland
located at the southwest corner of Harmony Road and Strauss Cabin Road, shown on Figure 1. The
Harmony 23 property is surrounded by roads, residential development, the Box Elder irrigation ditch,
and undeveloped land. The legal description for the Harmony 23 project site is in Section 4,
Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Larimer County, Colorado.
The site was historically used for agriculture, with livestock grazing and haying being the most
recent activities. The Harmony 23 project is mostlytreeless andthe land consists principally of an
open f,reld with non-native grasses and other exotic species. The only trees are non-native Russian
Olive trees. Sagebrush is the dominant shrub, occurring mainly at the south end of the site.
It appears that black-tailed prairie dogs have encroached onto Harmony 23 from the adjacent land
property to the south and from the Box Elder Ditch corridor to the west. The existing prairie dog
burrows are concentrated near the south end of the property. Approximately eight open prairie dog
burrows existed on the property on October 24th and these burrows were located, surveyed, and
examined for burrowing owl activity.
The estimated size of black-tailed prairie dog population at the site is approximately 10 prairie dogs,
based upon the estimation method used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the candidate
species analysis for the black-tailed prairie dog which states "Estimates of black-tailed prairie dog
population density vary depending upon the season, region, and climactic conditions, but typically
range from 2-18 individuals per acre, with an average of 10 individuals per acre."
p Roa d . Boulder, CO 803 02
3031444-1715 . FAx 3031443-614I
20
Given that the total occupied area of the black-tailed prairie dog colony at Harmony 23 is
approximately 1 acre, and usingalayerage of 10 prairie dogs per acre, it is estimated that there may
be approximately 10 prairie dogs on the Harmony 23 site.
Burrowing owl field surveys were completed on three separate dates, in the evening on Octob er 24'h,
in the morning on October 29th' and in the morning of October 3lsth of 2016. Survey times were
from Yrhour before sunrise to 2 hours after sunrise, and2 hours before sunset to Yzhour after sunset.
Weather conditions were clear and good during the field survey work, with no precipitation and light
winds. If feasible, all the survey dates would have been one week apart, yet the need for a burrowing
owl survey was rcahzedin mid-October and the owl survey field work was started soon afterwards.
One owl survey observation point was utili zed on each survey date, with the survey observation
point being located near the south end of the site as shown of Figure 1. A photograph of the survey
area from the observation point is on Figure 2. The survey point had a clear view of the prairie dog
colony. Passive burrowing owl survey methods included scanning the site and nearby perches for
burrowing owls using binoculars, and listening for the burrowing owl. The possible owl perches in
the vicinity of the site were limited to power poles, fenceposts, and Russian olive trees.
A call-broadcast survey method to locate the owl was also utilized by playing the recommended
burrowing owl recording to hear if any burrowing owls responded to the recorded calls, as follows:
1 . 3 minutes of silence
2. 30 seconds call-broadcast of primary call (coo-coo)
3. 30 seconds silence
4. 30 seconds call-broadcast of primary call (coo-coo)
5. 30 seconds silence
6. 30 seconds call-broadcast of alarm call (quick-quick-quick)
7. 30 seconds silence
8. 4 minutes of silence
No burrowing owls were detected during any of the field surveys. The survey results indicate that
the burrowing owl is not currently present at the Harmony 23 site. The burrowing owl field surveys
followed the suggestions of David Klute, who is the Bird Conservation Coordinator with Colorado
Parks and Wildlife. The burrowing owl does not occur at the Harmony 23 project site, such that the
burrowing owl will not be impacted by the proposed site development work.
Please contact me with any questions.
'7-
David Steinmann
cc: Tal Hackmey, TJH Investments
HE3 Property at Harnony Road
FErt Cdffirs, C#klrffi
Figure 2. Photo from the burrowing owl survey point near the south end of the Harmony 23 site.
Attachment 1
REGOMMENDED SURVEY PROTOCOL AND
AGTIONS TO PROTEGT NESTING BURROWING OWLS
Western Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) are commonly found in prairie dog towns
throughout Colorado. Burrowing owls require prairie dog or other suitable burrows (e.g badger)
for nesting and roosting. Burrowing owls are migratory, breeding throughout the western United
States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico and wintering in the southern U nited States and
throughout Mexico.
Federal and state laws prohibit the harming or killing of burrowing owls and the destruction of
active nests. lt is quite possible to inadvertently kill burrowing owls during prairie dog poisoning
projects, removal of prairie dogs, destruction of burrows and prairie dogs using a concussive
device, or during earth moving for construction. Because burrowing owls often hide in burrows
when alarmed, it is not practical to haze the birds away from prairie dog towns prior to prairie
dog
poisoning/removal, burrow destruction, or construction activity. Because of this, the Colorado
Division of Wildlife recommends surveying prairie dog towns for burrowing owl presence before
potentially harmful activities are initiated.
The following guidelines are intended as advice on how to determine if burrowing owls are present
in a prairie dog town, and what to do if bur rowing owls are detected. These guidelines do not
guarantee that burrowing owls will be detected if they are present. However, adherence to these
guidelines will greatly increase the likelihood of detection.
Seasonal Timing
Burrowing owls typically arrive on breeding grounds in Colorado in late March or early April, with
nesting beginning a few weeks later. Active nesting and fledging has be en recorded and may be
expected from late March through early August. Adults and young may remain at prairie dog
towns until migrating to wintering grounds in late sum mer or early autumn.
Surveys should be conducted during times when burrowing owls may be present on prairie dog
towns. Surveys should be conducted for any activities occurring between M arch 15th and October
31't. No burrowing owls are expected to be prest nt between November 1't and March 14th.
Dailv Timinq
Burrowing owls are active throughout the day; however, peaks in activity in the morning and
evening make these the best times for conducting surveys (Conway and Simon 2003). Surveys
should be conducted in the earl y morning(112 hour before sunrise until 2 hours aftersunrise) and
early evening (2 hours before sunset until 1 12 hour after sunset).
Number and locations of survev points
Burrowing owls are most frequently located visually, thus, obtaining a clear view of the entire
prairie dog town is necessary. For small prairie dog towns that can be adequately viewed in their
entirety from a single location, only one survey point is necessary. The survey point should be
selected to provide unobstructed views (with binoculars if necessary) of the entire prairie dog town
(burrow mounds and open areas between) and all nearby structures that may provide perches
(e.9., fences, utility poles, etc.)
For prairie dog towns that can not be entir ely viewed from a single location because of ter rain or
size, enough survey points should be established to provide unobstructed views of the entire
prairie dog town and nearby structures that may provide perches. Survey locations should be
separated by approximately 800 meters (112 mile), or as necessary to provide adequate visual
coverage of the entire prairie dog town.
Number of survevs to conduct
Detection of burrowing owls can be highly variable and multiple visits to each site should be
conducted to maximize the likelihood of detecting owls if they are present. At least three surveys
should be conducted at each survey point. Surveys should be sepa rated by approximately one
week.
Conductinq the survev
. Weather Considerations Because poor weather conditions may impact the ability to detect
burrowing owls, surveys should only be conducted on days with little or no wind and no
precipitation.
. Passive survevs Most burrowing owls are detected visually. At each survey location, the
observer should visually scan the area to detect any owls that are present. Some
burrowing owls may be detected by their call, so observers should also /isfen for burrowing
owls while conducting the survey.
Burrowing owls are frequently detected soon after initiating a survey (Conway and
Simon 2003). However, some burrowing owls may not be detected im mediately
because they are inconspicuous, are inside of burrows, or are not present on the site
when the survey is initiated. We recommend that surveys be conducted for 10 minutes
at each survey location.
. Call-broadcast surveys To increase the likelihood of detecting bur rowing owls, if present,
we recommend incorporating call-broadcast methods into burrowing owl surveys. Conway
and Simon (2003) detected22o/o more burrowing owls at point-count locations by
broadcasting the primary male (coo-coo) and alarm (quick-quick-quick) calls during
surveys. Although call-broadcast may increase the probability of detecting burrowing owls,
most owls will still be detected visually.
o
We recommend the following 10-minute timeline for incorporating call-broadcast methods
(Conway and Simon 2003, C. Conway pers. commun.). The observer should scan the area
for burrowing owls during the entire survey period.
o 3 minutes of silence
o 30 seconds call-broadcast of primary call (coo-coo)
o 30 seconds silence
o 30 seconds call-broadcast of primary call (coo-coo\
o 30 seconds silence
o 30 seconds call-broadcast of alarm call (quick-quick-quick)
o 30 seconds silence
o 4 minutes of silence
r---
Calls can be broadcast from a "boom box", a portable CD or cassette player, or an mp3
player attached to am plified speakers. Calls should be broadcast loudly but without
distortion.
Recordings of this survey sequence (compact disc or mp3 sent via email) are available free
of charge by contacting:
David Klute
Bird Conservation Coordinator
Colorado Division of Wildlife
6060 B roadway
Denver, CO 80216
Phone: 303-291-7320
Email: David. Klute@state.co.us
ldentification
Adult burrowing owls are small, approximately 9-11 inches. They are brown with white spotting
and white barring on the chest. They have long legs in comparison to other owls and are
frequently seen perching on prairie dog mounds or other suitable perches (e.g., fence posts, utility
poles) near prairie dog towns. Juvenile burrowing owls are similar to adults but smaller, with a
white/buff colored chest that lacks barring.
General information about bu rrowing owls is available from the Colorado Division of Wildlife
website:
Additiona! identification tips and information are available from the U.S. Geological Survey
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center website:
h ttp : //rnnnrw . m b r- pwrc. u sq s. q ov/i d/fr a m I st/i 3 7 8 0 i d . ht m !
What To Do lf Burrowinq Owls Are Present
lf burrowing owls are confirmed to be present in a prairie dog town, there are two options before
proceeding with planned activi ties:
1. Wait to initiate activities until after November 1st or unti! it can be confirmed that the owls
have left the prairie dog town.
2. Carefully monitor the activities of the owls, noting and mar king which burrows they are
using. This is not easy to accomplish and will require considerable time, as the owls may
use several burrows in a prairie dog town. When all active burrowing owl burrows have
been located and marked, activity can proceed in areas greater than 150 feet from the
burrows with little danger to the owls. Activity closer than 150 feet may endanger the owls.
Reference
Conway, C. J. and J. C. Simon. 2003. Comparison of detection probability associated with
Burrowing Ow! survey methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:501 -511.
revised 02/2008
See a/so:" Controlling Prairie Dogs: Suggesfions For Minimizing RtSk To Non-Target Wildlife Species"
Colorado Division of Wildlife 03/2007