Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89C - CORRESPONDENCE - APPLICANT COMMUNICATIONRICHIMOND ASSOCIATES Architects/Planners 420 WEST OAK STREET FT. COLLINS, CO 80521 (303) 224-3140 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PROJECT : A YZIL Transmitted herewith are: Q Project Drawings: # copies (?� Report: # copies IE Action: For information X For review & comment For review & return �] Other: �-12 -(Z� )ILDU4166i5T,�G42 K�.HtJ L'i�2a_ 'Jo} j N S0 r} G0, BY „1acK Jo�rso J COMPANY Nineteen Ten Prospector Avenue Suite Two Hundred Park City, Utah 84060 801 . 645 . 9000 Dr. Bill Musslewhite Northshore Veterinary Clinic 3041 N. Taft Avenue Loveland, Colorado 80537 Dear Dr. Musslewhite: 11 November 26, 1990 As per your request, this is a summary letter of my review of your plan and report for the Laurie Subdivision, a 6.4 acre parcel of land, submitted to the City of Fort Collins for preliminary plan approval. My review has focused on obtaining access to the 3 plus acres to the west of the draw which dissects the property in a south by southeast direction. Because you must have access to your property, the option to not access the area was not considered. Also, because both you and the City have exhausted the option of access from adjoining property owners, this was not considered. The draw's physical feature seems to begin only about 300 to 400 feet north of the property. It is filled and culverted just a little over 100 feet south of the property and then filled and culverted again about 100 feet south of that culvert. Taking this into account, the draw seems to have little regional pristine value. However, with its trees and its vertical geographic features, the draw has substantial onsite value. This value is one of the main elements that is taken into consideration, along with safety, visual impact, cost, hydrology and wildlife habitat. The following is a summary of the dominant options considered. option #1 Subdivide the land east of the draw and provide access to land west of the draw for future use. This reduces construction and easement costs, as well as reducing impacts, but loses revenue on four lots, and is only a temporary solution. Realistically you would probably still want to obtain a grading permit to construct an access road to the parcel for whatever use you intend in the future. Possible future uses could be Phase II of the subdivision, a private homesite for self or sale; sale to the City if they feel it should be preserved; or sale for development to landowners to the north. A small access road could follow the alignment shown on sketch of Option #2. . Land Planning . Architecture . Civil Engineering i • Dr. Musslewhite November 26, 1990 Page Two Option #2 Public road stops at cul-de-sac east of draw with a small low impact common drive meandering its way across draw to exclusive lots on west side. (Market analysis should be done to determine number of lots to go on west side, but would suggest three if they are to be exclusive.) Considerations: * Common Drive be 20 foot wide with minimum shoulders to lessen impact * No parking on drive * All homes served by drive be sprinkled * Little private meandering drive would give home owners exclusivity to home sites (HUD guidelines for financing normally not a problem to these buyers) * Drive in location shown on sketch would have about 16 foot of fill in draw. * Where drive cuts across steeper side slopes it will disturb a wider area during construction which will need to be revegetated. This occurs in three places - one for about 100 feet in secondary draw and the other two for 50 feet each side of draw. * No trees disturbed * Has minor impact on wildlife. * Possible variations reviewed: Use of steeper grades to reduce fill - grades in excess of 8% did not seem appropriate for this road as it winds its way down into the draw. Grades less than 8% left additional fill in draw. Looked at several alignment variations, all of which seemed to have larger impacts on disturbed areas. Dr. Musslewhite November 26, 1990 Page Three Option #3 Place public road on fill and culvert across draw. This is as previously submitted to the City for approval. Considerations: * Requires substantial fill across draw * Initial disturbance area extensive * Requires removal of some trees * Requires well thought out revegetation plan to blend in and minimize visual impact from surrounding area. (Should include ground water recharge systems to assist long term vegetation growth) * Existing trees above and below would help reduce visual impact * Wildlife habitat and travel would be impacted (the real wildlife impact, however, comes from the proposed homes and pets.) * Wildlife habitat mitigation plan should be detailed to show enhancements for cover. Cover can be developed, by utilizing larger rocks encountered during excavation of roadway as well as trees cleared for the roadway, in an arrangement to provide an opportunity for wildlife to use as havens. * Hydrology would also be impacted and was addressed in the previous submittal along with access to clean end of culvert. * Street is 20 foot wide across draw to reduce fill impact. No parking should be allowed or needed in this area since no homes adjoin this section. Adequate parking is provided in the cul-de-sac and long drives for the four homes west of the draw. * Cost would be higher than Option #1 or #2. * Possible variations reviewed: Road could be extended slightly to move cul-de-sac out of fill area, thus reducing some of the fill required. • Dr. Musslewhite November 26, 1990 Page Four Grades could be steepened to accommodate less fill height, but already at max. Culvert could be an open bottom plate arch pipe large enough to allow for wildlife, human & storm flows to easily pass through - Alignment variations of the fill and culvert option were reviewed. All alternatives created greater impacts except for one. This one crosses the draw about 70 feet above this proposed alignment. This Northern alignment would have less fill than the proposal, but would impact more trees. All in all there seem to be no distinct overall advantage or disadvantage. Option #4 Place public road on fill & culvert across draw as proposed in submittal, but then utilize retaining walls to reduce disturbed impacts. Considerations: * Require substantial fill across draw * Initial disturbance area extensive although less than the proposed Option #3 * Requires removal of trees, although some could be saved * Visual impact would remain high with little help by revegetating * Existing trees above and below would help lessen visual impact * Wildlife impacts would be the same as Option #3 * Hydrology would also be the same as Option #3 * Cost would be higher than Option #3 * Could provide dangerous areas for children to play on walls * Possible variations reviewed: i • Dr. Musslewhite November 26, 1990 Page Five Type of wall could be rock gabbion with 1:1 or 1/2:1 stepped face or reinforced earth walls with textured concrete faces stepped back at 1:1 or 1/2:1 Location of wall from edge of roadway will determine the height of the wall. The further from edge the greater disturbed area, but the less visual the wall will be and the lower the cost will be Option #5 Place fill for public road up to a 60 foot span concrete bridge which would cross draw Consideration: * Sewer, water & utilities would be hung from bridge deck and would be insulated. * Construction access easement would be needed to build west abutment or substantial disturbance will be required in draw for construction * Maintains draw bottom vegetation and wildlife travel remains unimpeded * No hydrological interference * Safety risk, since bridges have a tendency to be slippery when surrounding areas are not and since bridges tend to become a fun but dangerous playground for children * Aesthetically unique for subdivision * Becomes a massive visual monument for surrounding land owners. (Speaking as an engineer I like it, but as an environmentalist, I don't) * Initial costs are more than other options * Maintenance costs for City are more than other options, especially if salt is used * A geotechnical report is needed to determine foundation stability requirements • Dr. Musslewhite November 26, 1990 Page Six * Possible variations reviewed: Wood material type for bridge could be used which would be visually more pleasing and easier to install with less construction impacts. However, normally not accepted on municipal roads because they have substantially shorter life span. The span could be varied, but for the site it seems that about 60 foot is optional - Alignment could be changed from that shown on the sketch plan to various other locations. However, they would impact trees except for one location about 100 feet up the draw. Consideration would be the same for either location. Further study would be required to determine which alignment is preferable. Dr. Musslewhite, I have reviewed and examined many alternatives for access to your development. The best option is to access the property from adjoining property without crossing the draw. I am working under the premise, that since you and the City have worked so hard to accomplish this without success, it is sadly not an option. I am also working under the premise that the City is not ready to declare a taking, condemn or otherwise compensate you; therefore, I presume you have the right to use your land that is zoned for residential use only and that you must access it to use it. In other words, I have only looked at how to cross the draw, not if to cross it. Option #1 just delays impacts and could end up combining these initial impacts with future impacts as well when development occurs. You have indicated that Option #2 may not be marketable in Fort Collins at this time and the City has reservations because of emergency access concerns. Although Option #4 reduces initial impact, it does not save many trees, and produces a permanently visual impact. With this in mind, and, after reviewing the options, it is my opinion that the simple fill and culvert solution of Option #3, with a good revegetation and wildlife habitat mitigation plan is preferred. Option #5, the bridge, is a close second. Visual • • Dr. Musslewhite November 26, 1990 Page Seven impact from off the site will be mostly screened by the trees above and below the embankment or a bridge. I like bridges, but in this case, the road will eventually blend in with the draw's sides, whereas the bridge will be a permanent monument and maintenance problem. The 8% grades coming onto the bridge is another factor involving safety. Wildlife habitat mitigation should be identified and carefully planned to leave a net gain as a result. The final design will, of course, also need to work out some bugs, such as exact location of centerline, grade, cul- de-sac and earthwork balancing. During final design you may also want to incorporate small retaining walls on a site specific case to protect individual trees or tree clumps on the south side of fill. The bridge, all in all, is not a bad alternative and we would be happy to assist you with it if it is the final decision. I have sent pictures of four bridges that were under construction at one of our projects to give you a visual idea of impacts. Also attached is a copy of our company brochure that may be of interest for you and the City. Thank you for the opportunity of working with you. Please call if you have questions or need more information. Sincerely, Doyle E. Pergande Colorado P.E. #13230 DEP:mt Enclosures No Text No Text No Text • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT TRI-LAKES PROJECT OFFICE, 9307 STATE HWY 121 LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123-6901 rTo 29 `October 1990 RM ATTENTIpN OF Regulatory Branch Mr. Donald Richmond Richmond associates 420 West Oak Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Nationwide Permit No. CO-90-184 Dear Mr. Richmond: Your proposed development project which will require the filling of approximately 0.2 acres of wetland drainages as shown on the enclosed map and located in Section 3, T-6-N, R-69-W, Larimer County, Colorado has been reviewed by this office. Based on the information provided, this office has de- termined that the proposed work is authorized by the Depart- ment of the arms- Nationwide Permit found at 33 CFR Part 330.5(a)(26). Enclosed is a fact sheet which fully describes this Nationwide Permit and lists the Special Conditions which must be adhered to for this authorization to remain valid. Although an Individual Department of the army Permit will not be required for the project, this does not eliminate the requirement that other applicable Federal, State, or Lo- cal Permits be obtained as required. Please note that de- viations from the original plans and specifications of the project could require additional authorization from this of- fice. Should at any time it becomes evident that either an en- dangered species or its critical habitat exist within the project area, this office must be immediately notified. This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. all the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued or revoked prior to 13 January 1992. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public notice announcing the changes when they occur. Fur- thermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide permit is 1 0 0 Page 2 Permit No. CO-90-184 modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of the modification or revocation to complete the activ- ity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office or me at 303-979-4120 or 4121 and reference Nationwide Permit Number CO-90-184. Sincerely, A\`kLL TERRY McKEE Environmental Resource Specialist cc: Permit Files Omaha Permits Branch Colorado Department of Health U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency Colorado Division of Wildlife • FACT SHEET 126 33 CFR Section 330.5 Nationwide Permits (a) Authorized Activities. (26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into non -tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters; and other non -tidal waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, that are not part of a surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States (i.e., isolated waters), except those discharges which cause the loss of substantital adverse modification of 10 acres or more of such waters of the United States. For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 1 to 10 acres of such waters, including wetlands, notification to the district engineer is required in accordance with 33 CFR Section 330.7. (b) Conditions_ The following special conditions where applicable must be camD_lied with for the Nationwide Permit authorization to remain valid: (1) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake. (2) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by 33 CFR Part 330.5(a)(4). (3) That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. (4) That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water). (5) That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act) in toxic amounts. (6) That any structure for fill authorized shall be properly maintained- (7) That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status. (8) That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation. (9) That, if the activity, may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the district engineer. Furthermore, that, if the permittee before or during prosecution of the work authorized, encounters a historic property that has not been listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, he shall immediately notify the district engineer. (10) That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved tribal rights, included, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 33 CFR Section 330.6 ]Management Practices (a) In addition to the conditions specified above, the following management practices shall be followed, to the maximum extent practicable, in order to minimize the adverse effect of these discharges on the aquatic environment. Failure to comply with these practices may be cause for the district engineer to recommend, or the division engineer to take, discretionary authority to regulate the activity on an individual or regional basis pursuant to 33 CFB 330.8. (1) Discharges or dredged or fill material into waters of the United States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical alternatives. (2) Discharges in spawning areas during spawning season shall be avoided. (3) Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters). (4) If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized. avoided. (5) Discharges in wetland areas shall be avoided. (6) Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats. (7) Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be (8) All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety. • • RICxTI&VD ASSOCIATES AvchiteetsfPlanners 420 WEST OAK STREET FT. COLLINS, CO 80521 (303) 224-3140 ADDENDUM 1 To: Planning and Environmental Analysis of Laurie Subdivision P.U.D. As requested by the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department An access bridge to the proposed subdivision may cost in the range of $ 200,000 to $ 300,000 as required to conform to the road alignment in the Laurie Subdivision. The span on the bridge is estimated at approximately 140 feet with intermediate supports and buttresses at each end. Annual maintenance cost is apparently a function of total cost of the bridge. The engineering department can estimate the annual maintenance cost to the city if this was a public right of way bridge. Sincerely, Donald L. Richmond` Architect Larimer County Planning Dept. Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Sirs and/or Madams, On Jul y 10, 1990 1 i nventori ed a pi ece of property owned by Wi 11 i am Musslewhite D.V.M., located on South Shields Avenue in Fort Collins. This ground is proposed to be subdivided by Dr. Musslewhite in the near future. The inventory was done to assess the presence of nesting raptors and the presence of either state or federal threatened or endangered species. No raptors were observed nesting on the property; however, American kestrels were observed in the immediate area. Kestrels are quite well adapted to human disturbance and should not be adversly effected as long as the mature cottonwoods remain. I believe their retention is part of the plan for the P.U.D. No evidence of any threatened or endangered species was found. In addition, the property has not been designated critical habitat by either the Colorado Division of Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If 1 can provide you w!th any father information or data, please contact me at 667-8261. Sincerely, Richard Kahn Certified Wildlife Biologist