HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 3-96A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONIc Happy Heart Farm considered to be a "Land of Agricultural importance"? If not, why not? And if
it is, should this have a bearing on adjatxnt development plans and impacts?
• Are there sufficient data regarding the effectiveness of this particular mitigation design for
slonnw'aler contaminants?
• if the-tonuwaLcr mitigation design will require ongoing maintenance and oversight, who will be
responsible for this long-term role, and how does this affcel assurances that water quality will never
be compromised (a tingle mishap could be disastrous for Happy Heart Fann)?
• Have the requisite storm drainage casements been sccuredby the developer?
• Gil -CAI the nature of the water table in this area, how will the storim&aler management design affect
the surrounding area (especially with rep
irds to other nearby wetlands)?
• Has the Pleasant Valley Ditch Company approved the stormwatcr ntattagement proposal?
In summary, our impression is that the appellants in this case arc not asking that the Scronic Vicws project
be rejected outright. Rather. they are simply asking that some very Fundamental flaws in the project
design (and perhaps io llic process that approved it) he aderptaiely addressed. In light of what is at stake,
this seems to be a very reasonable request, and has our support.
Sin rely,
.;
Ramon Ajero
Conservation Clair
Poudre Canyon Group
ZO/ZO'd W920L6 'ON XVA NE310 A.LIO L0;80 3AI L6-EI-AW
«y
.: MAY 8 1997
— ' Poudre Canyon Group of the Sierra Club T)di os 2p, ]yugoiii L CO 80521 (970)193-e3 i4
May 71ir, 1497
Fort Collins Mayor and City Council
300 LaPorte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The Poudre Canyon Group of the Sierra Club supports the Happy Heart Farm (and tilt; Rogers Park
Nei.ebburliood Group) in its appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's approval of the Scenic Views
PUT). We support the appeal for two main reasons: 1) because the important community and '
environmental values thal Nappy Heart Farm represents are at risk, and 2) because of the apparent
procedural avcmights that alluwW the: project proposal to successmlly advance through the P&Z review
process.
We want to emphasize that Community Supporting Agriculture (CSA) is an important idea in our society.
As a GSA farm, Happy Heart embodies concepts that are very much in line wide our group's principles.
The farm brings people together in a positive activity. reinforcing community in a day and age where
community values are dwindling. It puts people in close contact with the land that produces lice food,
rctuovirrg (and thus exposing) lite layers of waste and inefficiency that are prevalent ill the pre -packaged
sanitized world of the supermarket chain. And it bringe people closer to the farm ethic mid the idea of
agriculture as a way of life - lessons that our community desperately needs to (re -)learn as we grapple with
issues of growth and urban cncroaclnuent in what has historically been an agriculture -based landscape.
Most important (to the issue before you, at least) arc the organic, biodytiamic principles which lie at the
heart of Happy Heart Farm's mission. By not using pesticides or chemicals of any sort, and by nurturing
the soil solely through the encouragement of natural processes. we submit that Happy Heart represents the
epitome of land stewardship. This utission, and lbc dedication bchiad it, is now in joopardy. The
retentio"tention ponds that arc part of the current Sccaic Views design hart high potential for
comprontisutg Happy Heart's water supply, through the introduction of chemicals that will be present in
the stormwater runoff. The dcsigu involves methods which are unproven at best, yet the City appears
willing to proceed with the experiment. Since Happy Heart Farm is perllaps the Cily'S most di%m-rning
water user with respect to ,rater quality, this stxnns especially ironic.
Given our understanding of the appeals process (and given that the PCG is not an appellant), we will not
attempt here to prtacnt detailed arguments regarding tine F Z approval. We do ask, however, that
Council gives thorough attention to the following questions and issues.
What is the size and nature of the wetlands that will be "relocated"? Has the site of these wetlands
been determinedby an impartial entity (this is important in light of the recently -revised Army Corps
of Engineer regulations that cm-er wetlands > 1/3 acre in size)?
Did the project really receive "density points for incorporating a park into the plan, and if so, does
this park still exist in the final design to the extent that this bonus remains justified?
How significantly did the plan change during the review process, and were the neighborhood and
general public adequately kept abreast of thew changes?
96Z9WOL6 'ON VA
NN310 AlIO L0:80 3(li L6—£I—AVW