Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEMAY AVENUE ESTATES - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2006-08-16Administrative Hearing Officer c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 February 15, 2005 Dear Administrative Hearing Officer: Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 4.1(13)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code. Background The Lemay Avenue Estates PDP is a proposed single family housing development in the Urban Estate zone district. The development abuts Stanton Creek, which is a tributary of Fossil Creek, and therefore requires a 100 foot natural features buffer along the creek. The core issue of this modification revolves around whether it would be more desirable to have this natural features buffer in a tract outside lots, or whether it would be more desirable to designate a small portion of the lots (that abut the creek) as a natural features buffer easement. It is our understanding, after talking to Doug Moore of Natural Resources and Steve Olt of Current Planning, that either scenario works from the City's perspective. The preference of the development team is to keep the same number of lots while allowing the buffer to be located in a separate open space tract, rather than having natural buffer easements on each lot. The development team therefore requests a modification of standards to allow those lots abutting the creek to be smaller than the required minimum Yz acre lot sizes. This modifications is requested in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.1(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 4.1(13)(1)(b) Code Language. Section 4.1(D)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code states the following: "(b) Lot sizes shall be one-half (y2) acre or larger for dwellings that are not clustered in accordance with the standards set forth in this Division." Requested Modification. We request the following minimum lot sizes to be reduced from a minimum %z acre (21,780 square feet) to the following sizes: Lot Number Proposed Square Footage Lot 12 18,823 s.f. Lot 13 18,357 s.f. Lot 14 19,183 s.f. Marc Virata - RE: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric La out _ Page 6 Estates by the end of this month. Any initial comments or feedback you can offer would be most appreciated. It is my understanding that Development Review Staff wants to see a full-blown design of Lemay Avenue with the subdivision's plan set. This will include roadway plan & profiles, cross -sections, striping, etc. I cannot start on any such design until the typical section and horizontal geometry are established. Nick Haws, El www, northernengineeri ng.com CC: "Andy Reese" <andy@northernengineering.com>, "Mike McRoberts" <m ikem@northerneng i neering.com> NORTHERN ENGINEERING December 23, 2005 ADDRESS: PHONE:97O.221.4158 WEBSITE: 200 S. College Ave. Suite 100 www.northernengineering.com Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX: 970.221.4159 Mr. Marc Virata, P.E. City of Fort Collins Engineering Development Review 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Lemay Avenue Estates Request for Variance on Cul-de-sacs Mr. Virata, This letter is in regards to the Lemay Avenue Estates project. Stan Everitt of the Everitt Companies is the Developer/Applicant. The site is located adjacent to, and east of, Lemay Avenue in between Nassau Way and Carpenter Road. The project has already obtained its PDP approval, and is in the Final Compliance phase. A variance is requested to modify the vertical criteria for cul-de-sacs at Mountain Home Drive and Woods Landing Drive, as shown on the attached drawings (Sheets R2, R6, and R13). Chapter 7 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) addresses the Street Design and Technical Criteria for public roadways. More specifically, vertical design requirements for cul-de-sacs are depicted in Figure 7-19. The minimum and maximum flowline grades around the cul-de-sac are 1.0% and 3.0% respectively. The minimum and maximum pavement cross -slopes are 2.0% and 3.0% respectively. Everitt Companies has experienced difficulties in the field when cul-de-sacs are designed with the 2.0% minimum cross -slope. The problems center around inadequate drainage of the pavement resulting in failures at the asphalt/gutter seam and warranty/repair work, which is undesirable to everyone. We feel that these issues can be curtailed by increasing the cross -slopes on the design drawings. We are proposing a maximum cross -slope of 3.55% within the cul-de-sacs. Please note that this maximum slope is isolated, and only occurs adjacent to the low point of the cul-de-sacs. However, what this enables throughout the rest of the cul-de-sac is cross -slopes in the 2.5%-3.0% range, which are desired above the 2.0% minimum (or flatter). 4.0% pavement slope is acceptable for reconstruction, and used to be allowed for new construction of through streets. Therefore, we do not believe this is a major variance from the standards. In order to keep the cross -slope from getting too steep near the low point of the cul- de-sacs, we are also proposing a variance to Fort Collins' minimum flowline grade in cul-de-sacs. Adhering to the 1.0% minimum flowline grade around the entire cul- de-sac will lower the sump elevation, thereby increasing the maximum pavement slope near 4.0% or greater. We are proposing a minimum flowline grade of 0.50%, which used to be allowed in Fort Collins, and still is in other areas governed by LCUASS. Once again, this is not a major variance. Also note that the amount of curb and gutter at 0.50% is extremely limited, and occurs adjacent to the steepest asphalt cross -slopes. These sections of curb and gutter will be hand -built and poured monolithically with the inlet tops to ensure flowline grades are achieved. We would also like to clarify the flowline profiles where the typical residential local street sections transition into the cul-de-sacs. We are treating the sections of curb and gutter between the PC's and PRC's as curb returns. Therefore, these areas will adhere to the grade break and flowline grade criteria pertinent to curb returns. We feel justified in requesting the variances listed above. We have previously discussed Fort Collins' cul-de-sac requirements with Development Review Staff and the Engineering Inspector, and there has been an acknowledgement to perhaps modify the standards. The cul-de-sac design proposed with Lemay Avenue Estates is intended to improve the constructed product. Field evidence and testimony indicate that cross -slopes designed at 2.0% result in poor drainage and pavement failure. We do not believe this variance will be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. We also trust that this proposal will not adversely affect the design life of the roadway or increase future maintenance costs of the City of Fort Collins; in fact, we aim to achieve the contrary. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, VV/- AA4---- Nicholas W. Haws, P.E. Project Manager CC: Stan Everitt — Everitt Companies Aaron Everitt — Everitt Companies enc. NORTHERN ENGINEERING December 15, 2005 ADDRESS: PHONE:970.221.4158 200 S. College Ave. Suite100 WEBSIWEBSRE: rthernengineering.00m Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX: 970.221.4159 Mr. Marc Virata, P.E. City of Fort Collins Engineering Development Review 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Lemay Avenue Estates Request for Variance on Cul-de-sacs Mr. Virata, This letter is in regards to the Lemay Avenue Estates project. Stan Everitt of the Everitt Companies is the Developer/Applicant. The site is located adjacent to, and east of, Lemay Avenue in between Nassau Way and Carpenter Road. The project has already obtained its PDP approval, and is in the Final Compliance phase. A variance is requested to modify the vertical criteria for cul-de-sacs at Mountain Home Drive and Woods Landing Drive, as shown on the attached drawings (Sheets R2, R6, and R13). Chapter 7 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) addresses the Street Design and Technical Criteria for public roadways. More specifically, vertical design requirements for cul-de-sacs are depicted in Figure 7-19. The minimum and maximum flowline grades around the cul-de-sac are 1.0% and 3.0% respectively. The minimum and maximum pavement cross -slopes are 2.0% and 3.0% respectively. Everitt Companies has experienced difficulties in the field when cul-de-sacs are designed with the 2.0% minimum cross -slope. The problems center around inadequate drainage of the pavement resulting in failures at the asphalt/gutter seam and warranty/repair work, which is undesirable to everyone. We feel that these issues can be curtailed by increasing the cross -slopes on the design drawings. We are proposing a maximum cross -slope of 4.0% within the cul-de-sacs. Please note that this maximum slope is isolated, and only occurs adjacent to the low point of the cul-de-sacs. However, what this enables throughout the rest of the cul-de-sac is cross -slopes in the 2.5%-3.0% range, which are desired above the 2.0% minimum. 4.0% pavement slope is acceptable for reconstruction, and used to be allowed for new construction of through streets. Therefore, we do not believe this is a major variance from the standards. In order to keep the cross -slope from exceeding 4.0% near the low point of the cul- de-sacs, we are also proposing a variance to Fort Collins' minimum flowline grade in cul-de-sacs. Adhering to the 1.0% minimum flowline grade around the entire cul- de-sac will lower the sump elevation, thereby increasing the maximum pavement slope above 4.0%. We are proposing a minimum flowline grade of 0.50%, which used to be allowed in Fort Collins, and still is in other areas governed by LCUASS. Once again, this is not a major variance. A note has also been added to ensure adequate flowline slopes are obtained during construction. We would also like to clarify the flowline profiles where the typical residential local street sections transition into the cul-de-sacs. We are treating the sections of curb and gutter between the PC's and PRC's as curb returns. Therefore, these areas will adhere to the grade break and flowline grade criteria pertinent to curb returns. We feel justified in requesting the variances listed above. We have previously discussed Fort Collins' cul-de-sac requirements with Development Review Staff, and there has been an acknowledgement to perhaps modify the standards. The cul-de- sac design proposed with Lemay Avenue Estates is intended to improve the constructed product. Field evidence and testimony indicate that cross -slopes designed at 2.0% result in poor drainage and pavement failure. We do not believe this variance will be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. We also trust that this proposal will not adversely affect the design life of the roadway or increase future maintenance costs of the City of Fort Collins; in fact, we aim to achieve the contrary. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, N Nicholas W. Haws Project Manager CC; Stan Everitt Aaron Everitt enc. — Everitt Companies — Everitt Companies �7�14 4t?4f 4& Michael J. McRoberts, P.E. Senior Engineer Marc Virata - RE: Fossil Lake & Lema Avenue Estates U date 2 Page 1 From: Marc Virata To: Aaron Everitt; nick@northernengineering.com; Stan Everitt Date: 3/8/2006 11:46:26 AM Subject: RE: Fossil Lake & Lemay Avenue Estates (Update 2) Stan, Did you have an attachment to reflect the changes you're proposing? I didn't find an attachment in your response. Or is it a matter of changing "permit' to "agreement"? I may need to run these changes by Stormwater and our City Attorney. Thanks, Marc >>> "Stan Everitt' <Stane@everittcompanies.com> 3/8/2006 11:34:33 AM >>> The agreement is fine with the changes I made to pp 8. We will have an agreement with the ditch company rather than a permit. If you can have them ready later this afternoon I can come by to sign or e-mail them here and I can sign and bring executed copies to you today. Let me know how many. Stan ----Original Message ---- From: Marc Virata fmailto:mvirataOfcgov.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:50 AM To: Aaron Everitt; Stan Everitt; nick(dnorthernennineering.com Subject: Fossil Lake & Lemay Avenue Estates (Update 2) Just some further updates: Fossil Lake 5th: - The construction mylars were signed off on yesterday. Before having Nick pick them up for the County's signature, they are currently in our Inspector's office for review of the cost quantities sheet (it appears the inspection fee costs again will be proposed for reduction as the facilities are FCLWD). I hope to follow up before the end of the day with a note indicating the mylars can be picked up for the County's signature and what the bonding/inspection amounts are proposed by our Inspector. - The City Attorney completed his review of the DA and had some changes, mainly to page 8 and a spelling error on page 16. The document is attached for review with the changes shown. If this is acceptable, I can proceed with making final paper copies for signature. - Upon getting McCreek, LLC signature on the paper copies of the DA, I'll indicate to Steve Olt in planning that the annexation documents can be filed. Lemay Avenue Estates: - I'm currently working on some language after discussion with Matt Baker on the repay which will be more general in nature and not list specific dollar amounts. Please Note: I'll be out of the office at a conference tomorrow and Marc Virata -RE: Fossil Lake & Lema Avenue Estates U date 2 Page 2 Friday. Hopefully if acceptable I can get the final prints going for the Fossil Creek 5th DA today and if signed today, I'll be able to let Steve know that the annexation documents can be filed, as he'll be out of the office starting this Friday through next week. Thanks, Marc Here's just a quick update Fossil Lake: - construction mylars are in Engineering for final sign off (when signed off, I'll have our Inspector look at the cost quantities sheet) - development agreement draft is in the City Attorney's office for his review Lemay Avenue Estates: - Construction plan mylars have been fully signed off and can be picked up at the Current Planning front counter. (Nick, on the last four sheets taken from the Lemay Avenue plans, Basil accidentally signed off on the approval block. Can you have these mylars reprinted without Basil's signature and adding a note on each sheet indicating to the effect: "For Reference Only, Not For Construction". Also, please be sure that a copy of the plat (unsigned okay) in the set for reference.) - Our Inspector completed his review of the "Project Quantities and Cost Estimate Sheet" against the approved mylars. He kept the Infrastructure Amount the same at $764,292.74 and reduced the Inspection Fee from $61,968.80 to $41,228.40. The reduction was due to FCLWD/SFCSD costs factored into the inspection fee which we do not require. If these changes are acceptable, you can proceed with these amounts. - I received DA language from Stormwater and incorporated this into the draft. I'm currently looking to find Matt to talk about the DA language that we talked about Stan and then a final draft will be complete. Let me know of any questions or concerns. Thanks, Marc - The project quantities sheet was review >>> "Stan Everitt" <Stane(deverittcompanies.com> 3/6/2006 9:58:22 AM The City development agreement and the County Development Agreement look ok to me. Please do what you can to get these finished up and signed so we can finalize the annexation. Thank you. Stan _ �m Marc Virata - RE: Fossil Lake 8 Lema Avenue Estates U date 2 Page 3 -----Original Message ---- From: Anne Marie Romme Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 9:39 AM To: Stan Everitt Subject: FW: Fossil Lake County DA Anne Marie Romme Everitt Companies 3030 S. College Avenue P.O. Box 2125 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 226-1500 (970) 2234156 fax annemarier(5everittcom panies.com -----Original Message ---- From: Marc Virata fmailto:mvirata(5fcgov.com1 Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:44 AM To: Anne Marie Romme; mlafferty0larimer.org Cc: Aaron Everitt Subject: RE: Fossil Lake County DA Anne Marie, Thanks for the information. I've revised paragraph 40 in the agreement between the County and the Developer in one of the enclosed attachments. As the Agreement is between the County and the Developer, I wasn't sure if I should be making these changes as I haven't been the originator of this document, but again it is enclosed. I've also attached our revised development agreement with the Developer. This DA added Natural Resources language, clarified Stormwater portions and corrected some references I noticed. Track Changes was turned on for easier reference. I have not had our City Attorney review this document yet, but will after general review and acceptance from your end. Let me know of any questions or concerns. Thanks, Marc P. Virata, P.E. Civil Engineer II City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department Phone: (970) 221-6605 Fax: (970) 221-6378 mvirata(dlfcgov.com >>> "Anne Marie Romme"<annemarier0everittcompanies.com> 2/16/2006 11:32:03 AM >>> Marc, We are in agreement with the terms of the attached paragraph 40 please go ahead with those changes. Also, Stan wanted to know if you have completed the Development Agreement from the City and if it is available for review. Thanks. Anne Marie Romme Everitt Companies 3030 S. College Avenue P.O. Box 2125 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 226-1500 (970) 2234156 fax annemarier0everittcomaanies. com ----Original Message ----- From: Marc Virata jmailto-mvirata(&fcgov.coml Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:49 AM To: Anne Marie Romme; mlaffertvcWlarimer.org Cc: Aaron Everitt Subject: Fossil Lake County DA Anne Marie & Matt, I had a chance to look at the language in the attachment Anne Marie sent out. Paragraph 40 in the document is still problematic to us as it doesn't match our standard for that paragraph as it calls out among other things, that the County is to perform inspections that the City would prefer to assume for any work that commences prior to the effective date of the Annexation. I'm sending that paragraph (attached), which I had sent previously, in hopes that the agreement with the County can be amended to have that paragraph match our version. Thanks, Marc >>> "Anne Marie Romme" <annemarier0everittcomoanies.com> 2/9/2006 2:22:05 PM >>> Many apologies for sending the last message w/o the attachmentl!I I! Anne Marie Romme Everitt Companies 3030 S. College Avenue P.O. Box 2125 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Marc Virata - RE: Fossil Lake & Lema Avenue Estates U date 2 _ Page 5') (970) 226-1500 (970) 2234156 fax annemarier0everittcomuanies, com Lot 15 17,671 s.f. Lot 16 17,792 s.f. Lot 17 20,541 s.f. Lot 18 20,724 s.f. Lot 20 19,690 s.f. Our Logic. The difference between the proposed alternative plan and a plan that meets the code is very subtle. Upon development of the affected lots, in either scenario, the area within the natural features buffer will be fenced off from the yard areas of the lots. The only difference is whether this natural features buffer is all one tract, or if portions of it are made up of easements across the back of several lots. We feel that the difference is inconsequential. As described in the purpose statement in 4.1 of the LUC, the Urban Estate zone district "is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low -density and large - lot housing. The main purposes of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural or open lands." This proposed alternative plan does not detract in any way from satisfying this purpose. The development allows a transition from the Stanton Creek neighborhood to the north and the Greenstone neighborhood to the east. Greenstone is also zoned Urban Estate. Between Greenstone PUD First through Third Filings there are 15 lots (out of a total of 106) that are under a half acre, ranging in size from 16,399 square feet to 21,745 square feet. Clearly the proposed modification to reduce the minimum lot size on 8 of our lots does not affect the plan's ability to continue to satisfy the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Suggested Findings. a) The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good because there's no physical difference on how the lots would be fenced (or how the lots would visually appear) between the proposed alternative plan and a plan that meets the code. The only difference is on paper. b) The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, because, again, there's no physical difference on how the lots would be fenced (or how the lots would visually appear) between the proposed alternative plan and a plan that meets the code. The only difference is on paper. MAR 1 5 2005 March 2, 2005 Everitt Companies 3030 South College Avenue, 2"d Floor Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Mr. Stan Everitt, Executive Vice President Re: City of Fort Collins Staff Review Comments Sub-Drain/Under-Drain Systems 7224 South Lemay Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1032177 Mr. Everitt: EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INc. Our geotechnical subsurface exploration report for the above referenced project dated October 31, 2003 was submitted to Mr. Dave Brown at KEM Homes in November of 2003. We have recently received various City of Fort Collins Staff Review Comments concerning a sub -drain or under -drain system for the development. Our recommendations with regard to an under -drain or sub -drain system are provided with this letter. As a part of our subsurface exploration on this property, five (5) soil borings were extended to depths of approximately 15 feet below current site grades. Those borings generally encountered sandy lean clay overlying weathered claystone/siltstone bedrock. Ground water was observed in only one boring, at a depth of approximately 14 feet below present ground surface. As indicated in that report, we believe significant fluctuations in those ground water levels would be required to impact any of the site construction. In our subsection on "Below Grade Areas," beginning on page 8 of our report, we suggested that perimeter drain systems should be anticipated for below grade areas for site structures to reduce the potential for development of hydrostatic loads on the below grade walls and/or infiltration of surface water i.e. rain, lawn watering, and/or snow melt, into below grade areas. Although we suggested those perimeter drains could be "daylighted" it would be our expectations the perimeter drains would be more likely 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 224-1522 FAX (970)663-0282 Everitt Companies March 2, 2005 Page 2 Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. drain to interior sumps where pumps could be installed to remove that water if water accumulation is observed. It is common not to install pumps at the time of home construction unless the accumulation of water is noted in the sump areas. Generally, the water we are referring to is in small quantities and intermittent. It was not our intent in our October 2004 report to suggest that an area sub -drain would be needed for this development and we do not believe this to be the case. We almost always recommend the installation of perimeter drains around the individual units as a prudent precaution to intercept any potential surface infiltration adjacent to the homes. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you in this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Lester L. Litton, P.E. Principal Engineer cc: Shane Olt — City of Fort Collins Troy Jones — Mt. Torgerson Architects Marc Virata — City of Fort Collins George Schock — Northern Engineering January 7, 2005 Terry McKee Denver Regulatory Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128 Re: Request for Nationwide Permit Verification, Proposed Stormwater Outfall Structure Stanton Creek, Larimer County, Colorado Dear Mr. McKee: The purpose of this letter is to request verification that proposed construction of a stormwater oufall to Stanton Creek (a tributary of Fossil Creek) in Larimer County, Colorado, is authorized under a Nationwide Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This request is being made on behalf of Mr. Stanley Everitt of the The Everitt Companies, 3030 South College Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525, 970-226-1500 (fax 970-223-4156). Pertinent facts concerning the site and this request are as follows: • The proposed residential development for which the stormwater detention facility and outfall structure are required is located east of Lemay Avenue and north of State Highway 392 (Windsor Highway) in the SWY<, Section 18, Township 5 North, Range 68 West (Latitude 400 29' 36" North, Longitude 105' 02' 51" West). Figure 1 is a site location map. • Although no wetlands are located along the reach of Stanton Creek into which the stormwater detention facility would outfall, the creek itself is stipulated to be jurisdictional based on a distinct streambed and connectivity with Fossil Creek. • Total permanent impacts to the jurisdictional waters would consist of approximately 100 square feet and would include the mouth of a concrete pipe and riprap armoring. • Total temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters during construction would be approximately 100 square feet additional. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would include: — use of silt fencing and, as necessary, straw bales to prevent runoff of disturbed soil into the creek — restriction of operation of construction equipment to upland areas, except for disturbance within the areas of temporary or permanent impacts described above — temporary staging of equipment and stockpiling of construction materials and excavated soil in upland areas 0 The project would not require a cofferdam or diversion of Stanton Creek. X Letter to Mr. Terry McKee, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RE: Stormwater Outlet, Lemay Avenue Estates Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado _ January 7, 2005 • No adjacent property owners or downstream water rights would be affected. The detention facility has been designed so as not to change historic agricultural discharge to the creek. Please note that, although the delineation was conducted in December 2004, the winter season did not impede the determination regarding presence/absence of wetlands along the affected reach of Stanton Creek. Vegetation was clearly visible and consisted almost entirely of upland pasture grasses, with only scattered individuals of showy milkweed and curly dock. Distinct cattail wetland areas at the upstream and downstream ends of Stanton Creek adjacent to the property would not be directly or indirectly affected. Regarding Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblet), it is my professional judgement that the affected reach neither provides habitat for Preble's nor represents a potential movement corridor between other areas. This is based on the absence of habitat typically associated with Preble's onsite and in either the upstream or downstream locations close to the site. The adjacent development east of the creek and agricultural land onsite west of the creek further support this conclusion. The incised, weedy, and disturbed habitat along the creek also does not appear suitable for either the Ute ladies'- tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) or the Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis). Although the survey was conducted in winter, other plant species were still readily identifiable. Moreover, the very small extent of impacts to the creek, limited to a currently unsuitable area of degraded habitat, would not affect either species in the unlikely event that they do occur in upstream or downstream reaches. Please call with any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Allen B. Crockett, Ph.D. Senior Ecologist cc: Mr. Stan Everitt The Everitt Companies 3030 South College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970-226-1500 rim ironmcnt ii Sci:ut ;t> atit l I-,11'11ncu:, LLB 'in ecolu,�} and cncin, ::men! rnn+pam, ,. .. ._. PAWildlife `-'Wetlands%Everitt.5987=etland Letter.doc 0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT ➢ENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 January 21, 2005 Mr. Stanley Everitt The Everitt Companies 3030 South College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Proposed Outfall, Stanton Creek Nationwide Permit No. 7, Corps File No. 200580021 Dear Mr. Everitt: Reference is made to the above -mentioned project submitted on your behalf by Mr. Allan Crockett of Walsh. This project is located in the SW '/< of Section 18, T6N, R68W, Latimer County, Colorado. Based on the information provided, this office has determined that this work within Colorado is authorized by the Department of the Army Nationwide Permit No. 7, found in the January 15, 2002, Federal Register, Issuance of Nationwide Permits; Notice (67 FR 2077). Enclosed is a fact sheet, which fully describes this Nationwide Permit and lists the General Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, and Colorado Regional 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 this work, this does not eliminate the requirement that any other applicable Federal, state, tribal or local permits be obtained as required. Please be advised that deviations from the original plans and specifications of this project could require additional authorization from this office. The applicant is responsible for all work accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit. If a contractor or other authorized representative will be accomplishing the work authorized by the nationwide permit on behalf of the applicant, it is strongly recommended that they be provided a copy of this letter and the attached conditions so that they are aware of the limitations of the applicable nationwide permit. Any activity which fails to comply with all the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit will be considered unauthorized and subject to appropriate enforcement action. This verification will be valid until January 21, 2007. In compliance with general Condition 14, the attached "Certification of Completed Work" form (blue) must be signed and returned to this office upon completion of the authorized work and any required mitigation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus lutdsonius preblet) as a Federal threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. However, it has been determined that the proposed activity will not affect the mouse or its designated critical habitat. Also, this proposed activity would not affect the Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies' tresses orchid) or its proposed critical habitat. M Should anyone at any time become aware that either an endangered and/or threatened species or its critical habitat exists within the project area, this office must be notified immediately. If there are any questions call Mr. Terry McKee at (303) 979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 200580021. tin Enclosures Copies Furnished: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Environmental Protection Agency Colorado Division of Wildlife e) The granting of the modification will not affect the plan's ability to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare (as contained in Section 1.2.2) because: This proposed alternative plan continues to be consistent with the Land Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub -area plans; • This proposed alternative plan continues to encourage innovations in land development by allowing a creative way to obtain the requested natural feature buffer; This proposed alternative plan continues to foster the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services by allowing the existence of the natural feature buffer to happen without affecting the number of lots allowed in the development; This proposed alternative plan continues to facilitate and ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks; • This proposed alternative plan continues to avoid the inappropriate development of lands and provides for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage; This proposed alternative plan continues to encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation by transitioning an in-between density between the Stanton Creek neighborhood to the north (more dense) of the site, and the Greenstone neighborhood to the east (less dense); • This proposed alternative plan continues to increase public access to sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation by stubbing a trail connection to eventually connect to the City's regional trail system; • This proposed alternative plan continues to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development through the provision of the natural features buffer along Stanton Creek; • This proposed alternative plan continues to improve the design, quality and character of new development by adhering to the building standards in section 3.5; • This proposed alternative plan continues to foster a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all by adhering to the permitted uses in the zone district; • This proposed alternative plan continues to encourage the development of vacant properties within established areas; • This proposed alternative plan continues to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods by developing like uses next to like uses; • This proposed alternative plan continues to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features by providing the natural features buffer along Stanton Creek. We look forward for the opportunity to explain our request in person and/or answer any questions you may have about the request. Sincerely, Troy W. Jones AICY M. Torgerson Architects Marc Virata — RE Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric Layout Page 1 From: "Nick Haws" <nick@northernengineering.com> To: "'Marc Virata"' <MVIRATA@fcgov.com> Date: 6/24/2005 9:52:42 AM Subject: RE: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric Layout Marc, OK ... thanks. We will reduce the parkway, and add width to the travel lanes. Having the consistent street width will aid us on the design end. As for having the wider pavement section, I guess that's the City's onus anyways since this development will only have to pay for its local street half -section. Nick Haws, El www.northernengineering.com -----Original Message ----- From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.comj Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:47 AM To: nick@northernengineering.com Subject: RE: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric Layout Nick, The reduction of the median is a concern from our end because of both potential landscaping and pedestrian refuge width requirements. The 6.5' is the minimum we can accept to serve ped refuge and landscaping. If the varying roadwidth is a concern then the cross section with a 10' parkway should be reduced to V and the road widened in this section. We'd probably then do two 12.5 travel lanes (or a 12' and a IT). Thanks, Marc >>> "Nick Haws" <nick@northernengineering.com> 6/24/2005 9:00:53 AM Marc, Thanks again... Stan Everitt is aware of the situation, and I believe all parties feel this is a prudent approach. I like the sections you have suggested... except for one thing. It will require the eastern flowline to vary, and imposes additional roadway width on the eastern property owners. My preference is to hold a constant dimension from section line to eastern flowline. How receptive are you to a 5-6" median with 10' parkways at intersections? I would suspect that a 6-6" median still offers sufficient mass and protection for pedestrian refuge. By being 1-ft narrower, does that preclude the ability to landscape or something? FYI - The City of Loveland Marc Virata - RE: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric La out Pa a rl is now going down to median widths as narrow as 2-ft at intersections to maximize sight distance for unprotected left turns. The median widths currently specified in LCUASS preclude unprotected left turns due to sight distance deficiencies. Please confirm if you will allow the 5'-6" median width at intersections, leaving all other travel lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalk widths as you recommended below. It sure seems preferable not to have a meandering flowline (and wider than required street section) along the east side of the roadway. Nick Haws, El www.northernengineering.com ----Original Message ---- From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:36 PM To: nick@northernengineering.com Subject: RE: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric Layout Nick, We don't operate under a concept of rejecting "incomplete" submittals unless the incompleteness is particularly glaring. I couldn't justify a rejection in this regard, especially as you've noted that an additional round of review is understood. I'd trust that the owner is aware of this agreement and does not have an expectation for completeness and does not question the length of review time (additional rounds). Thanks, Marc >>> "Nick Haws" <nick@northernengineering.com> 6/23/2005 4:06:56 PM Marc, Thank you very much. Would you object to seeing the revised geometry you've recommended as part of the Final Compliance submittal of Lemay Avenue Estates next week? Basically, we could draft up the roadway in plan view and typical section, but only show existing vertical information for now. All 40 some -odd sheets of on -site drawings would include 100% construction -level detail, but the interim Lemay Avenue arterial sheets would be partially incomplete. I know this technically would not meet Marc Virata - RE Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric La out _.. Page 3 the requirements of a Final Compliance submittal; however, I think it will allow all of the on -site information to be reviewed in its entirety while also offering the follow-up review you mentioned (by all Depts.) on Lemay Avenue. Please confirm if you are amiable to this approach. I understand that this proposal will require more than one Final Compliance submittal before mylars would be approved. Nick Haws, El www.northernengineering.com -----Original Message ---- From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.comj Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:49 PM To: nick@northernengineering.com Subject: Re: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric Layout Nick, We discussed the cross-section questions this morning. First. I did want to mention that we are wanting to have the bikelanes adjacent to the property constructed with the project, it continues upon what Stanton Creek currently has and will improve the existing condition in a better manner until the rest of the road is built by Matt. We developed two different cross sections, at intersections such as Mountain Home Drive and Carpenter Road, and at areas outside of these interactions and associated transitions. At an intersection from the centerline of the street: - .5' of additional median to the 6' median on the other side of the street for a total median width of 6.5'. - 12'turn lane - 12' travel lane - 12' travel lane - 6' bike lane - 9' parkway - 6' sidewalk Total = 57.5' Past any intersections from the centerline of the street: - 9.5' of additional median to the 6' median on the other side of the street for a total median width of 15.5' - 12' travel lane - 12' travel lane - 6' bike lane - 10' parkway Marc Virata - RE: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric La out Page 4 - 6' sidewalk Total = 57.5' We did not have representatives of Traffic Engineering present at today's discussion, so the taper discussion did not occur. Our preference would be to have the plans revised with the cross sections shown above and then see how the transitions are accommodated. Hope this helps. Thanks, Marc P. Virata, P.E. Civil Engineer II City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department Phone: (970) 221-6605 Fax: (970) 221-6376 mvirata@fcgov.com >>> "Nick Haws" <nick@northernengineering.com> 6/17/2005 2:54:40 PM Marc, Attached are two PDF exhibits pertaining to Lemay Avenue Estates. As you know, I am trying to coordinate the subdivision's development plan set with the improvements to be made along Lemay Avenue by Matt Baker next year. One of the difficulties of my situation is the fact that the entire west side of Lemay Avenue has already been constructed to the City's old standards. For the most part, it appears to be in fairly decent shape, so I see no reason why anyone would want to tear it up. However, current LCUASS criteria are being enforced on Lemay Avenue Estates in order to get Development Review approval. This leaves an asymmetric, non-standard street section for Lemay Avenue along the development's frontage. Therefore, I am trying to come up with some sort of hybrid roadway design that may not necessarily meet all of the new LCUASS requirements to the T. Please see the typical section exhibit, which illustrates the old City section existing on the west side of Lemay Avenue, the new LCUASS section being imposed on east side with this development, and my proposed section intended to best suit as many needs as possible. I believe my Marc Virate - RE: Lemay Avenue Section and Geometric Layout . Page 5 I proposed section provides adequate sidewalks, parkways, travel lanes, and median/turn lanes. The biggest objection I could see arise at one of your transportation coordination meetings is the proposed 6-ft bike lanes (meeting the old standard). I would retort that the curb and gutter already exists along the west side of the road, so a 6-ft wide monolithic concrete section is not feasible on that side. I would also argue that having the eastern bike lane match the west side (2-ft concrete gutter with 4-ft asphalt) is a viable solution. We will still have full -width detached walks along the entire roadway. Also, I might ask those transportation planners to consider this location in the City's system, and also consider who will be paying for the remaining improvements south of our site to Carpenter Road. Other than the potential grievance with the reduced bike lane widths proposed, I cannot foresee any other major objections to this section. The 11-ft travel lanes are widely accepted throughout the City, and the 18.5-ft center median remains more than adequate. As for the horizontal layout, please refer to the proposed striping exhibit. You may notice that I am not including striping of the bike lanes for the interim improvements with Lemay Avenue Estates. This is because I do not feel it is appropriate to stripe them until the full section is completed to Carpenter Road. In the meantime, the width is still there, and all of the other travel lanes remain in the final location. You will also see that all tapers north of Mountain Home Drive meet current LCUASS requirements. However, south of this intersection where we transition back to the existing roadway I will be asking for a variance. I am proposing a 30:1 taper for the INTERIM CONDITION ONLY. A redirect taper ratio of 30:1 is inline with the posted speed of 40 mph utilizing CDOT's standards. Again, this is interim only, and truthfully, said taper will likely never be constructed since the full section of improvements is slated to occur next year. We are scheduled to submit Final Compliance drawings for Lemay Avenue