HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRICK STONE APARTMENTS ON HARMONY - PDP - PDP160019 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (32)From: Stephanie Blochowiak
To: "Ted Papenthien"; "TedPap123@gmail.com"
Cc: Pete Wray
Subject: FW: Questions Regarding the Brickstone Development proposed on Harmony
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:24:12 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Stephanie Blochowiak
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:37 PM
To: 'Ted Papenthien'
Subject: RE: Questions Regarding the Brickstone Development proposed on Harmony
Ted,
First, my apologies for this delayed full response. Yes, I am the Environmental Planner for the
proposed Brick Stone development project for 201 E Harmony Rd. Thank you for the detailed
message and specific questions. I appreciate you taking the time to review the plans for this project
and share your concerns; I know that information can at times be challenging to find. I am happy to
help however I can.
For simplicity, I am copying and bolding your numbered comments and questions and responding
after each.
1) “I would like to understand how your questions have been responded to in your
comments to the PDP dated July 22, 2016 – specifically in your Comments 1 and 2 and
regarding the appropriate buffer zone. You had asked that the appropriate buffer
standards from LUC 3.4.1(E) be adhered to and clearly and correctly marked on
appropriate documents. I would like copies of the formal responses and any updates to
site, grading, and landscape plans which include responses to your requests for things
like updating to reflect ‘top of bank’ lines, where the 50’ and 100’ buffer standards apply,
etc. Please let me know if these are available online yet.”
A. The formal applicant responses to all Environmental Planning comments including
comments 1 and 2 from the July Staff comment letter (PDP round 1 review) can be viewed
online on the City of Fort Collins Public Records website (City Docs) under “Current
Planning” and “Correspondence” here. The updated plans submitted in September (PDP
round 2 review) can be viewed under “Current Planning” and “Plans” here.
B. The edge of fringe wetlands was identified on updated plans submitted in September (PDP
round 2 review), as this was more appropriate at this location than measuring from the “top
of bank line.” A minimum buffer zone standard of 50 feet applies to wetlands less than 1/3-
acre in size, and this minimum buffer is now identified on the latest plans.
2) I have a specific question about the appropriate buffer standard. You commented that
buffer standards range from 50’ to 100’ for these features. As I read the LUC 3.4.1(E), it
states that the buffer zone for tributaries to Fossil Creek is 100’. As I look at the maps
and water flow from Mail Creek into Fossil Creek, it would appear that the entire length
of Mail Creek, including the ‘Impoundment’ would or should be considered part of that
Tributary. So my question is: should the 100’ buffer zone standard apply for the full
length of Mail Creek adjacent to the project? And if so can that be correctly updated on
the site plans? If not, I would like an explanation why not since it appears that all those
waters are effectively part of Mail Creek, a tributary to Fossil Creek as water from Mail
Creek flows adjacent to the proposed development and into Fossil Creek.
A. There are several questions here. I will do my best to respond comprehensively and start
with the standards outlined in section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, Natural Habitats and
Features, including appropriate establishment of buffer zones. Online link to this section:
here.
B. In establishing natural habitat buffer zones for a site under development review, the entire
ecological value of a site is taken into consideration. This is done through on-site
assessments by City Staff, in addition to a comprehensive report provided by a professional,
third-party ecological consultant. The assessment of ecological value is then used to inform
the development plan design to: (1) direct development away from highest value resources;
(2) minimize impacts through use of buffer zones; (3) enhance the quality and ecological
value of the natural feature; and (4) restore any ecological resource value lost due to
disturbance resulting from a development project. Staff’s preference is to protect sensitive
features and keep as much ecological value on-site as possible (as opposed to off-site
mitigation) to maintain and/or enhance the ecological value of a site. The buffer zone table
in section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the Land Use Code is a table of general standards. The general table
standards can be modified based upon site conditions; for example, instead of applying a
straight 50 or 100-foot buffer standard, the applied buffer can be varied and modified to
insure that the function and character of the natural feature is adequately protected and
enhanced.
C. For the proposed Brick Stone development project and site: after several on-site visits by
City Staff, and in evaluating the natural habitats and features in relation to the proposed
development plan, an average buffer of approximately 68 feet has been applied in order to
maximize protection and enhancement of the Mail Creek Impoundment, associated
wetlands, and the stormwater drainage channel near the western edge of the site. Overall,
the proposed natural habitat buffer zone in the September PDP (round 2 review) submittal
makes up approximately 35% of the development project site. As proposed, the most
ecologically valuable portions of the site would be retained, and the quality of habitat for
birds and other wildlife would be significantly enhanced on approximately 14,529 square
feet (0.33 acres) of the site. Approximately 150 shrubs and trees will be removed within the
Limits of Development of the buffer zone area. Within the buffer zone, approximately 390
shrubs and 37 trees are proposed to be planted to replace what was removed and to
enhance the ecological conditions in the natural habitat buffer zone. In its entirety, the
proposed planting plan would provide an increase on-site in quantity of vegetation and
species diversity.
3) Given the resident great blue heron, are there other considerations the development
should be addressing as to not impact it’s habitat?
A. Great Blue Herons are currently not listed as a sensitive, specially valued, threatened,
endangered or species of concern by the City of Fort Collins or relevant state or federal
agencies. However, if a development project site contained a heron nesting site, or rookery,
then a general buffer standard would apply (minimum 825 feet). Great Blue Heron rookeries
often include several large stick nests located in very tall, mature trees. Very small Great
Blue Heron rookeries can contain as little as 10 nests; an example of which can be viewed in
a large cottonwood near the intersection of Harmony Rd and I-25. The Ecological
Characterization Study (ECS) completed for the proposed Brick Stone development project
site did not identify any raptor nests or other stick nests on or near the site. Generally
speaking, given suitable habitat and climate, Great Blue Herons often adapt to urban
environments. The ECS can be viewed on City Docs under “Current Planning” and “Submittal
Documents” here.
Finally, regarding the proposed development, water flows and drainage, if the project is approved, it
would be required to meet current stormwater drainage and erosion control standards, which may
actually reduce or improve the quality of runoff into the Mail Creek Impoundment.
I realize the above information is lengthy, however, I did want to provide a comprehensive response.
I hope you find this email helpful. Thank you for your interest in this project and your commitment
to protecting our community’s critical natural features. Please let me know if you have any
additional questions.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Blochowiak, Environmental Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins Planning Services
281 N College Ave, Fort Collins CO, 80524
Direct: 970-416-4290
sblochowiak@fcgov.com
www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/
Click here to tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Ted Papenthien [mailto:Ted.Papenthien@woodward.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:48 AM
To: Stephanie Blochowiak
Subject: Questions Regarding the Brickstone Development proposed on Harmony
Stephanie,
I understand that you are the point lead for Environmental Planning for the Brickstone proposed
development on E. Harmony Rd. I left you a voicemail, but will summarize some of my questions
below. Hopefully we can discuss these at your earliest convenience.
As you probably are aware, the Mail Creek region adjacent to the property is home to much
waterfall year round and seasonal. There are great species that use this beautiful area including
kingfishers, resident Great Blue Heron, migratory Western Tanagers, migratory pelican and geese,
resident waterfowl and other species. The waters of Mail Creek are also under pressure from run
off from the various shopping center and other developments in the general College and Harmony
region. We are hopeful that the new development provides no adverse impact to this wonderful
waterway which flows through to Fossil Creek.
1) I would like to understand how your questions have been responded to in your comments to
the PDP dated July 22, 2016 – specifically in your Comments 1 an 2 and regarding the
appropriate buffer zone. You had asked that the appropriate buffer standards from LUC
3.4.1(E) be adhered to and clearly and correctly marked on appropriate documents. I would
like copies of the formal responses and any updates to site, grading, and landscape plans
which include responses to your requests for things like updating to reflect ‘top of bank’
lines, where the 50’ and 100’ buffer standards apply, etc. Please let me know if these are
available online yet.
2) I have a specific question about the appropriate buffer standard. You commented that
buffer standards range from 50’ to 100’ for these features. As I read the LUC 3.4.1(E), it
states that the buffer zone for tributaries to Fossil Creek is 100’. As I look at the maps and
water flow from Mail Creek into Fossil Creek, it would appear that the entire length of Mail
Creek, including the ‘Impoundment’ would or should be considered part of that Tributary.
So my question is: should the 100’ buffer zone standard apply for the full length of Mail
Creek adjacent to the project? And if so can that be correctly updated on the site plans? If
not, I would like an explanation why not since it appears that all those waters are effectively
part of Mail Creek, a tributary to Fossil Creek as water from Mail Creek flows adjacent to the
proposed development and into Fossil Creek.
3) Given the resident great blue heron, are there other considerations the development should
be addressing as to not impact it’s habitat?
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to discussing these and reviewing any
appropriate updated documents.
Ted Papenthien
498-3049
Ted.papenthien@woodward.com
***
The information in this email is confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by
return e-mail, delete this email, and refrain from any disclosure or action based on the
information.
***