HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 3-96A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL23
1 in run parallel to the canal here. And the first thing that
2 you do when you put your buildings in, is you develop these
3 grass buffer strips.
4 And what the grass buffer strips do, is they
5 filter the storm water as it runs across the property.
6 You'll get some kind of the particulates that come off the
7 roofs, especially in new construction. They drop in these
8 buffer strips and they get filtered out there. Then during
9 the construction phase, we have these gravel filter inserts
10 that are ahead of the storm sewer system which would end up
11 over here in the water treatment facility in the retention
12 pond.
13 But the gravel filters will stop a lot of
14 debris and particulate during the construction period. Then
15 this acts as a normal storm sewer throughout the rest of the-
16 year after the projects built this area down in here, we
17 call the retention pond. This is really where this wetlands
18 area is going to be sitting, right about in here.
19 And this.is two to three feet deep, and it's
20 been designed by J.R. Engineering to make sure that -all the
21 water that's filtered through the wetlands here is treated
22 properly, and it's safe to discharge through this double
23 pumping system back into the canal after a major storm. It
24 works. There's two different size pumps in here.. One is
25 for minor storms which is about 91 percent of the storm
38
1 ditch, they're concerned about the liability for this pump.
2 Who's responsible for its maintenance to keep it
3 from freezing up in the wintertime? To know when there's a
4 power failure to get it back on-line?
5 Who will maintain the pond and how? And if it
6 has water in it constantly? Where's the excess to get to
7 this pond -- and the pond? Again, where is it on the maps?
8 Homeowners Associations have a way of being
9 very transient and changeable like out-of-town development
10 companies.
11 It's important to note that the ditch company has
12. not signed off on these issues. And their letter is much
13 like the letter of intent that allowed this proposed project
14 to get to this point without storm drainage solutions in
15 hand.
16 To the point and, finally, very specifically to
17 the issue for us at Happy Heart Farm, is that this late and
18 radical and constantly changing idea of a so-called
19 retention pond that pumps right into the Pleasant Valley
20 Ditch is no solution at all.
21 In fact, from our perspective what is being
22 proposed is a -- is more a hazardous waste holding tank that
23 will concentrate the petrochemical buildup of 21 acres of
r
24 mostly parking lots, which used to be natural grasses, and
25 have us as the very first outtake on that ditch after this
J
1 issues.
11
2 Once we knew what the design issues were, and
3 we had the report put together, we asked Storm Water to hold
4 a meeting with the neighbors so we could present the storm
5 water report and the finding and overview to those
.6 neighbors. So that meeting was held in early February, and
7 the people that were there were: Evelyn Anderson, her
8 daughter, Mary Davidson, Bill Roberts, Dennis Stinson.
9 These were the three closest landowners, plus
10 we had a representative from Rogers Park Neighborhood, who I
11 think is also here tonight. At that meeting, the objective
12 was to explain the report to them because it's somewhat
13 technical.
14 We wrote it in a fashion though more as an
15 educational document, so that any future citizen that wants.
16 to know what water quality is all about in terms of storm
17 water, what a detention pond is versus an extended detention
18 pond, or what a retention pond does, the differences between
19 those, and how you mitigate the water quality issues. as a
20 developer or builder, would be in that report.
21 So it really is kind of an educational
22 document. And that's the reason we did it in the fashion
23 that we did. In our meeting we went through all different
24 tables. We addressed the issues that the neighbors had
25 about water quality. I went away from that meeting feeling
45
1 lived in Fort Collins for the past 28 years.
2 I have
a degree in botany and I've been in the
3 natural resources
science business for
the last 22 years. I
4 understand plant
communities, wetland
ecosystems, rare and
5 endangered plants
and animals. That's
my specialty.
6 I have
to start off, I was
a bit offended by the
7 developer's representative here. I found him a bit
8 condescending with his comments about basic hydrology. And
9 then I was kind of amused a few moments later. And that if
10 it was basic hydrology, why are we looking at redesigning
11 their water treatment program here in the last minute? '. So
12 it's obviously not very basic. It's.very important and
13 maybe many of us don't understand the details of it yet,
14 however, it is an issue.
15 I'd like to hit on a couple of points here. The
16 wetlands and also the rare plant issues. .That's the Ute
17 Lady Tresses orchid. Being that I live up in the northwest
18 part of this property, I view those wetlands on a regular
19 basis.
20 I had read a brief letter, report, regarding
21 these wetlands as basically cattails with some pasture
22 grasses. That, in fact, is not the case. These,..are -- This
23 is a very diverse community. It's cattails,, willows, fire
24 weed, buttercups and many, many other species.
25 I view this area as potential habitat for.the Ute
«a
1 solution to storm drainage.
2 In this case, we're very concerned that you are
3 what you eat, which is what -- which is, in our case, which
4 is what the farm drinks.
5 Now, I can assure you that we together tonight
6 are pioneering around our water again. Water quality issues
7 and their relationship to storm drainage are new territory,
8 but very timely issues to the storm drainage utility, to the
9 city, to the ditch company and to many people in the
10 community.
11 Water quality issues are not new for us at the
12 farm and are terribly important issues to my farm -sharing
13 families.
14 The ditch company has clearly stated that the
15 water pump from this holding area can be -- and I quote
16 here -- In no way contaminating, unquote.
17 What has been written in the LDGS under these
18 sections, and I quote Section A.19 and Water Hazards under
19 A-3.3, are probably not going to clearly cover this case
20 because we're breaking new ground. But it's timely that we
21 look at these issues together.
22 Where is the science that defines contamination?
23 The water quality expert for the city has told me that the
24 standards haven't been defined; that the science is unsure
25 on the effects on irrigation water and that the technology
29
1 be speaking for the Rogers Park Neighborhood Group-
2 I hope to group the concerns of the neighborhood
3 with our concerns at the Happy Heart Farm to help facilitate
4 the process tonight.
5 I will be speaking first and then as a part of
6 the neighborhood group representation there will be another
7 person speaking but we will still hold to your framework of
8 30 minutes there.
9 Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to wish you peace
10 tonight and for the holiday season as well. I'll be
11 covering, as I say, our concerns as the Happy Heart Farm
12 towards the end and speaking about the neighborhood as a
13 group first. But I wanted to show that the Happy Heart Farm
14 and the neighborhood group are in the same ballpark to
15 underscore and emphasize the interrelatedness of our farm to
16 the unique personality and nature of our neighborhood.
17 First of all, some history. Please carefully
18 note that the plan before you tonight up for final approval
19 is a significantly different plan from the one that we saw
20 at the so-called neighborhood meeting which was held almost
21 a year ago, January 18th, 1996.
22 It's also a very, altered plan from the one that
23 was granted conditional preliminary approval by this Board
24 way back on Earth Day, April 22nd, 1996.
25 It's a matter of record,that at both of those
2
1 MS. BELL: Let's go ahead and move on to the
2 next item of business tonight which is Scenic Views PUD.
3 And this item was pulled by staff. Let's go ahead and begin
4 with the staff presentation. Just a second. And Bob?
5 MR. DAVIDSON: I'll have to excuse myself.
6 Conflict of interest. I received notice and I have some
7 concerns about it.
g MS. BELL: Okay. Mr. Davidson will be sitting
9 out from discussion and voting on this item because he lives
10 within the notification area on this project. So we'll call
11 you back when the next item comes.
12 MS. WEITKUNAT: We'll wake you up.
13 MR. BLANCHARD: Madam Chair, we pulled this item
14 tonight and the procedure is going to be a little bit out of
15 the ordinary. Due to some redesigns, changing the detention
16 system to a retention system and issues with offsite
17 easements that we discussed with the applicant throughout
18 the final application in trying to reach a final
19 recommendation in order to bring .it to the Board, there's
20 been some changes that have occurred over the last couple of
21 weeks.
22 And as we wrote the staff memo and not all of the
23 staff members that were -- that needed to be involved in the
24 final discussions were available, the applicant has asked
25 that we go ahead and place it on the agenda tonight.
r
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: John Fischbach, City Man er '
Greg Byrne, CPES Directo
FROM: Bob Blanchard
,�-
Current Planning Director
DATE: May 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Scenic Views PUD, #3-96A -Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the Notice of Appeal of the March
10, 1997 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board granting final PUD approval for the
Scenic Views PUD.
BACKGROUND
The final application for the Scenic Views PUD, #3-96A was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board on March 10, 1997 by a 3-1 vote.
Section 2-48(a) of the City Code states:
(a) A party -in -interest may appeal to the City Council the final decision of any
board or commission to which this appeal procedure applies in the manner
provided in this Division. No action shall be taken in reliance upon any decision
of a board or commission that is subject to appeal under the provisions of this
Division until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted.
Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states:
(b) Except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds
for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed
one (1) or more of the following errors:"
The appellants base their appeal on the grounds set forth in City Code Section 2-
48(b)(1) which states:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002
01
1 saying that there are different techniques that we can use
2 in terms of site design to improve water quality and improve
3 water as it flows across the site. What we've tried to do
4 in this illustration is to point out all of the different
5 techniques that we're using on this site. It's very intense
6 storm water management techniques.
7 When you put them all together like this, you
8 create a synergy effect. When you have one of them alone,
9 it does this, you have another one, it does this, but when
10 you put them all together, the sum is greater than the
11 whole. And if the public would like to read the Storm Water
12 Quality Report, they'll get a clear understanding of that.
13 Basically what happens here is we get a
14 storm. Water goes down, starts to run across the property.
15 The first thing we try to do is to educate the residents and,
16 the public that storm water is not drinking water. The
17 canal is not drinking water, but it's a place that you don't
18 want to litter. And there's things you do not want to put
19 in the canal.
20 In the discussions.we've had with the.ditch
21 company, they have a long list of the problems that they
22 have maintaining the canal, keeping oil spills out of it,
23 and this, that, and the other thing. And the thing they
24 champion is education, education, education. So through our
25 sales office, we can educate everyone that comes on -site.
37
1 submit to you.
2 I have the actual written copy of the video
3 for you to turn into the records, in case you need to review
4 it or anything like that. And also a memo from the storm
5 water that I think the Board should really review -- to go
6 over that Dennis wanted you to see. I'm just here on his
7 behalf.
8 MS. BELL: Maybe we can have those brought up
9 here, and we can review them. And then we'll enter them
10 into the record. Thank you. Okay. Let's roll.
11 (The following is a videotape commentary
12 from Mr. Dennis Stinson.)
13 MR. STINSON: Ladies and gentleman, good
14 evening. I'm Dennis Stinson of 2820 West Elizabeth Street,
15 The Happy Heart Farm. To help facilitate these proceedings,
16 I will be addressing you tonight as the authorized
17 designated speaker for the City recognized Rogers Park
18 Neighborhood Group.
19 I will be covering my neighbor's concerns
20 within the allotted 20 minutes of time, and also speaking
21 about our concerns at the Happy Heart Farm in the same time
22 frame. Tonight's meeting is a continuance of the final
23 hearing which started on December 16th of '96.
24 It's important to. note that all of the
25 elements of our position which we made on that date are a
108
1 bottom of their pond. And we couldn't tell any difference.
2 There wasn't -- It's not measurable.
3 We had a water quality station there that
4 monitored 24 hours a day for two or three years, and we
5 could not. That's why we haven't actually gone out and
6 built a lot of these things.
7 MR. BYRNE: Okay, thank you. I don't have any
8 more questions.
9 MS. BELL: I just have one more question. And I
10. guess Storm Drainage would be the best person to answer it.
11 Now, we heard some testimony tonight that -- and we saw
12 pictures that currently, right where this retention pond is,
13 the water can be found at 2 feet. And so after we dig down
14 another, you know, 8 feet or whatever, it seems logical that
15 there's going to be standing water in this -- in this area
16 all the time because there's that much groundwater in the .
17 area. Is that -- Am I correct in assuming that?
18 MR. SCHLUETER: Well, there was this little
19' discussion at the break about this. I'd have that same
20 concern. Their -- The consultants are telling me that their
21 studies show that this may be just perched on the surface.
22 That the true- groundwater is, much deeper. The neighbors say
23 no, that's not true.
24 However, during the final review, that's why we
25 have this -- that contingent approval that this list that
�7
1 comes the likelihood that something could happen that would
2 pollute the water. And the only instrument that's available
3 to mitigate that, is the pond and it's natural filtration.
4 There's no other, you know, some kind of pollution measuring
5 devices that, you know, water quality measuring -- my guess
6 is that there are devices like that, but that would be very
7 expensive. Does the ditch company go out and monitor water
8 quality on periodic basis, or is that something they haven't
9 been doing?
10 MR. SCHLUETER: To my kriowledge.they have not
11 been doing that. What -- Edwin Dell did tell me he has had
12 problems upstream of this site of people dumping oil into it
13 and all their trash and that kind of stuff. And every
14 spring he has to clean it all up. So it's already occurring
15 in this area. If we can get one more stretch that the
16 people are more vigilant in taking care of it, maybe they
17 can help clean it up for him.
18 MR. BYRNE: Okay. Thanks.
19 MS. BELL: I want to ask a couple more
20 questions or just make sure I.understand. So let's assume
21 that everything is working right, but after X-number of
22 houses get in there and Homeowners Association is rolling
23 along, if the pump breaks, they will be fixing it?
24 MR. SCHLUETER: That's correct.
25 MS. BELL: Now, what I really want to focus
98
1 The question I would have is, what about an event that
2 occurred, say on this development, that could cause you know,
3 the kinds of pollution that could result in anthropogenic
4 effects on the water that Mr. Stetson's using.
5 MR. SCHLUETER: Well actually, I need a
6 dictionary to see what that word was..
7 MR. BYRNE: Well, I think the point there is
8 it's just, you know, something that's unhealthy.
9 MR. SCHLUETER: Actually, the probability of
10 having it here isn't any greater than anywhere else. And
11' actually in this situation, you have got a way to go to trap
12 any kind of spill because it goes into a retention pond.
13 You'd have to turn the pump on to pump it out. So, you
14 know, to me it seems to look like a better situation. We're
15 trying get regulations like for gas stations, so if they
16 spill or something like that, they can go to one place and
17 put something to block it off like sandbags or something
18 like that. We're not quite to that point yet, and that
19 should be coming out this year. In this case I think, you
20 know, it's.the on -site, the education part of it is a lot.
21 That's going to be part of our program as well. Education
22 sometimes is put down like it's not a big part of it, but it
23 really is.
24 MR. BYRNE: I guess the concern that I
25 certainly can understand, is that, with more intense use,
97
1 project. He has some concerns. The main one he had was in
2 the wintertime. What if we get a lot of icing in this
3 ditch, and at this point, it's being discussed but there,
4 you know, we don't get a lot of runoff in the winter. It's
5 pretty much frozen until we get about late February and this
6 time of March is when we start thawing again. And then he
7 can run it down the ditch. It's not going to refreeze in
8 this ditch.
9 MR. CHAPMAN: I was out there on the site
10 yesterday, and the ditch appeared to be maybe a third full,
it and I'm wondering do they maintain water in the ditch
12 through the winter, or is that just seepage?
13 MR. SCHLUETER: That's probably water from
14 other developments upstream, and the county, and -the
15 property itself,.just the snow melt.
16 MR. CHAPMAN: Well, so there already is water
17 in there in the winter, that's not something new?
18 MR. SCHLUETER: No, that's not new.
19 MR. CHAPMAN: That answers my questions.
20 MR. BYRNE: Just the question on water
21 quality. I think the term that Mr. Stinson used was an
22 anthropogenic which is stuff that's bad for people and
23 animals. And the point that I think you made earlier was
24 that using the retention pond and its natural filtration
25 will result on average better water quality than without it.
M
1 brought up a suggestion a little bit earlier about
2 eliminating two buildings to allow the wetlands to exist and
3 still keep the retention. pond. Is this a workable solution?
4 MR. SCHLUETER: I wouldn't recommend it. I
5 really like the idea that we are capturing that water from
6 CSU and treating it.
7 MR. GAVALDON: But wouldn't the wetlands help
8 treat it and get it to the pond, then it would be pumped to
9 the canal?
10 MR. SCHLUETER: I believe the extended
11 detention in the bottom with that wetland is a lot better
12 treatment than just running it.through an open field that
13 basically has some wet -- some of those little spots where
14 it holds water, and that's what it has been doing.
15 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you.
16 MS. BELL: Alex?
17 MR. CHAPMAN: Couple of more points of
18 clarification with respect to Dennis Stinson's videotape. I
19 think he made the statement, and I wasn't real clear that I
20 heard it, so correct me if I heard it wrong, that the ditch
21 company does not want the water. And the question is then,
22 is there an agreement with the ditch company that says it's
23 okay to pump this water into the ditch?
24 MR. SCHLUETER: The indications I have from
25 talking with Edwin Dow is that he is in favor with this
95
1 the Corps of Engineers' measurement is accurate. They're
2 real sticklers for detail.
3 MR. GAVALDON: And so to Glen, is there --
4 has Natural Resource looked at that and given their inputs
5 on it?
6 MR. SCHLUETER: Yes, they have. Rob
7 Wilkinson is also a wetland delineation expert. And .he's
8 been certified to do those kind of things. I guess whatever
9 their organization is. And I'm surprised a lot of times
10 when I go look at wetlands and they come back and tell me
11 what's the size of it because it always looks bigger to me.
12. But they go on three parameters: The groundwater, the
13 hydrology, the soils and the plant life. And that's how
14 they determine it. And that's why you have to be certified
15 to do those things.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Another question is to.
17 -- if you can help me on this. The probability of the
18 system working, your estimation -- what is the percentage of
19 your confidence that this will work? The retention pond.
20 MR. SCHLUETER: I'm confident it will work,
21 otherwise I wouldn't be recommending approval for this..
22 MR. GAVALDON: So it must be pretty high
23 confidence?
24 MR. SCHLUETER: Yes.
25 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Let's see. Alex
94
1 MR. GAVALDON: Glen or Bob, maybe I can get
2 your help on this,. but I would like to get back to this
3 wetlands difference. It seems that there's a significant
4 difference between 8,000 and 20,000 that the resident here
5 said that he's calculated, and the developer has gotten data
6 from the Army Corps of Engineers. And I'm just trying to
7 settle a discrepancy. I would like to ask the developer, do
8 you have that document available for the City?
9 MR. VEIO: Yes.
10 MR. GAVALDON: Would you be able to provide
11 that to them as our record?
12 MR. VEIO: That document is from the Corps of
13 Engineers, and it's in the preliminary plat submittal.
14 MR. GAVALDON: So we have it?
15 MR. VEIO: You have it in the City offices
16 now.
17 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. And the resident has
18 claimed that he did not see the Corps measuring, and I'm
19 just wondering how did we come up with such a discrepancy?
20 MR. VEIO: Well, probably the reason that
21 Mr. Hackney didn't see the Corps measuring is because he
22 didn't own the property at that point in time. He just
23 bought the property recently, and that was after the
24 property had been through preliminary approval and the Corps
25 of Engineers went out prior to his ownership, and I'm sure
i MR. SCHLUETER: That's correct.
2 MR.. BYRNE: And at that point, the efficacy
3 of this whole system has to be demonstrated to be working
4 properly?
5 MR. SCHLUETER: Yeah. We actually require a
6 certification from their engineer which amounts to them
7 going out into the field, surveying it, checking pipes,
8 inlet sizes, the pond volume. In this case, we are going to
9 be looking, does this really work?
10 MR. BYRNE: And what about if it doesn't
11 work?
12 MR. SCHLUETER: At that time he needs to come
13 up with the fix for it, and there's a number of ways you can
14 fix different -- of these issues, so I think it's entirely
15 possible to do it.
16 MR. DUVAL: The way that gets enforced is
17 that in the development agreement that, at the point, they
18 don't get the certification or they don't provide the
19 certification, then they probably won't get any more building
20 permits. Maybe even COs for those buildings that exist
21 there. So it depends on how we draft the agreement, but
22 usually that's the leverage that used to get the
23 improvements made because they won't be able to go forward
24 with the development.
25 MR. BYRNE: Okay. Thank you.
92
1 wanted to, but we do analyze the parts that they have
2 claimed.
3 In terms of the recreational points, the
4 important thing to understand, and I don't know if I would
5 want to hazard to guess, is that as I was explaining
6 earlier, those points are claimed not just for the detention
7 or the retention area that there's other areas on this site
8 that make up the totality of what they claim .and what was
9 finally awarded as eight percentage points.
10 And so to answer the question accurately, we
11 would have to rerun the calculation without any of the
12 detention area to see if they lost three points. The area
13 that I asked them to take out of the total calculation
14 amounted to that area of created wetlands. If you look on
15 the site plan, as well as the associated side slopes and
16 that cost them two points out of the total of ten.
17 So if you assume that there's an accurate --
18 or a relative measurement, it might drop them to somewhere
19 around 100 points, whether it would drop them below or not,
20 it's probably not fair to speculate, because we can run that
21 on the CAD system at the applicant's consultant's office and
22 get an accurate measurement of that.
23 MR. BYRNE: And then, Glen, just so it's
24 clear to me, at 25 percent of build -out, all the storm water
25 facilities have to be in place; is that correct?
91
1 pond and just let it run into the ditch the way it does now.
2 Has a developer thought about that?
3 MR. SCHLUETER: You have to ask him.
4 Actually, it's a lot more of a benefit to the City
5 downstream residents that it does go into this pond because
6 if it doesn't that ditch -- it spills places now, and it
7 would continue onto the east, too.So for ground control
8 it's definitely an advantage.
9 MR. CHAPMAN: That's all I have got right
10 now.
11 MR. BYRNE: Bob just -- I would ask for a
12 comment from you on the density chart. It seems like
13 clearly what the neighbors are hinting at is if, if this
14 park. area is not included in the density chart then there's
15 insufficient points to approve the project. And Mr. Ward
16 mentioned that there were other places on the chart that the
17 developer could practically have taken some points, but
18 chose not to, either because they weren't aware or they felt
19 they had enough, and they stopped. What is you're sense of
20 that?
21
MR. BLANCHARD:
Our process is
that when we
22
get a submittal in, usually the
applicant has
filled out a
23
point chart of some kind, and
then we analyze
the points
24
that they have claimed. We do
not go through
an exercise
25
and point out areas that they
could have claimed if they
we
1 he was making reference to the quality of water that comes
2 from the CSU Equine Center and depicting bacterial problems
3 and so forth in the detention/retention pond? Glen can you
4 speak to that issue?
5 MR. SCHLUETER: Actually, right now the water
6 comes across Overland Trail. does get somewhat filtered
7 through this wetland that is formed over the last probably
8 10 years, and then that would continue into the ditch right
9 now. So I imagine they're getting quite a bit of nasty
10 stuff from CSU already into the ditch that their using. And
11 that this now would go into the detention pond where it has
12 a lot greater chance of either dropping out or being taken
13 up by the wetland materials in terms of the actual wetland
14 part of the pond, so you know, it seems like it's going to
15 be better.
16 MR. CHAPMAN: So however polluted or nasty it
17 is now, it will be less nasty after going through this
18 designed wetland process?
19 MR. SCHLUETER: That's my belief.
20 MR. CHAPMAN: Okay. I guess another thing
21 occurs to me, if that continues to be a problem, looking at
22 the plat of the layout of the buildings, the two buildings
23' on the far north could be eliminated, and just leave that
24 wetlands where it is, and let it do whatever it does and
25 avoid taking that equine water into this retention/detention
89
1 and liability for anything that occurs on that property. I
2 think some comments were made that the City is going to have
3 liability and is going to have to deal with that in the
4 future. My opinion based on the thing called the Colorado
5 Governmental Immunity Act, the City of Fort Collins, I think
6 would have no liability for the kinds of things that might
7 occur on that property simply because we approve the
8 development. We're not going to have liability for that in
9 terms of torte liability because of governmental immunity,
10 but -- and that the liability, as Bob has said, would be on
11 the Homeowners Association.
12 MS. BELL: And so this is really a private
13 detention pond park. And so that's why there's not access
14 to it from any other way than through Scenic Views itself?
15 MR. BLANCHARD: It's not publicly dedicated
16 for access or for recreational purposes. It's designed to
17 be a facility for the residents of this community.
18 MS. BELL: That's -- that's a kind of
19 standard thing. There's a lot of examples of that?"
20 MR. BLANCHARD: I think there's a lot of
21 examples of that for detention pond and for private parks as
22 well.
23 MS. BELL: I'd like other Board members to
24 pick up -- I'm sure I haven't hit everything. Go.ahead.
25 MR. CHAPMAN: In Dennis Stinson's videotape,
88
1 MR. BLANCHARD: I'll start. Homeowners are
2 required in the guidance system as a way to guarantee
3 maintenance of those portions of a project that require
4 maintenance. And so in terms of liability maybe John would
5 be able to help, but I know .from my previous experience with
6 Homeowners Associations is that we had insurance policies
7 for liability purposes, and my assumptions is that the
`8 liability issue has to be dealt with, with the Homeowners
9 Association because they're the entity that's responsible for
10 the overall maintenance and guaranteeing that the project
11 continues to implement the way it's designed. The developer
12 sells the product, and once he sold the entire product, he's
13 no longer involved in it. That's typically the case unless
14 special arrangements are made. So unless John contradicts
15 it, I think you have to assume that the Homeowners
16 Association is the entity that -holds the responsibility for .
17 what occurs on the property that they're responsible for.
18 MR. DUVAL: Yeah. I would agree with that.
19 It's my understanding this project -- that the area that's
20 going to be used as the detention storm drainage area is
21 going to be owned by the Homeowners Association not by the
22 City of Fort Collins; is that true, Glen?
23 MR. SCHLUETER: That's true.
24 MR. DUVAL: That being the case, it's the
25 Homeowners Association will ultimately have responsibility
87
1 MR. BLANCHARD: And I checked the file, and
2 there's comment sheets from them, and the only indication on
3 their comment sheet is that the wetlands need to be
4 mitigated and replaced within the detention pond. So
5 without looking back at the preliminary file, which I did
6 not bring with me, without doing that, my assumption would
7 have to be that Natural Resources, and knowing their
8 tendency towards protection of wetlands in the city, that
9 they were satisfied with the measurements and with the
10 mitigation that has been proposed.
11 MS. BELL: Okay. About this definition of
12 dry, could you give us a definition of dry?
13 MR. SCHLUETER: My definition of dry is the
14 same as any laymen. It's not =- you can walk on it. You
15 can play on it. You can use it.
16 MS. BELL: So it was talked about here
17 tonight? Something about significant -- no significant
18 pools of water, things like that?
19 MR. SCHLUETER: Correct.
20
MS.
BELL: I think I had -- I don't know who
21
should answer
this.
This Homeowners Association question
22
about who is
going
to actually be the watchdog on this, and
23
whose going
to pay
for it, and whose going to be liable and
24
things like
that.
Who wants to go ahead and tackle that
25
question?
M.
1 We haven't heard much.discussion of that because what I
2 heard was a little contradictory and I'm, by no means, even
3 close to very knowledgeable on this. But you do need
4 certain kinds of plant materials to be a filtration system.
5 And the bluegrass or the kinds of grasses that will. be more
6 kind to the human body, will those be adequate? Could you
7 just elaborate on that a little bit more? What will
8 actually be -- plant product be in this wetlands to make it
9 effective?
10 MR. SCHLUETER: Actually I haven't had a
11 whole lot of discussion. Tonight's the most I've heard, -but
12 from what I'm understanding from our water quality person on
13 staff, is that it's the contact with the soil that is the
14 biggest -- takes out the most pollutants. And the grasses
15 themselves just slow it down as it goes through it. and
16 allows porosity into the soil. And if Roger can add to
17 that, maybe you can ask him later.
18 MS. BELL: Okay. And I just want to clarify,
19 Glen, that to your knowledge the Corps of Army -- you know,
20 the engineers did go on to site and we do have an accurate
21 measurement of this wetland that's being replaced?
22 MR. SCHLUETER: Actually it was then Natural
23 Resource Department that reviews that portion of it, and we
24 take their results. So I believe it has been reviewed by
25 Natural Resources several times.
85
1 start
digging
a hole,
if they have any of these, they're
2 going
to have
to deal
with it.
3 Actually, at 25 percent build -out of the
4 subdivision,he's required to have all the storm drainage
5 facilities in, so we will know way up front if he has to do
6 any fixes to his original design.
7 MS. BELL:• So you're saying we don't really
8 know whether the pond in question might be affected, but if
9 it is,he'd have to fix it?
10 MR. SCHLUETER: Right. We've used slurry
11 walls. It never encircled something like this before.
12 We've used slurry walls for cutoffs. We've used PVC linings
13 for ditches, clay linings for ditches. We have done underdrains,,..i
14 to dewater some of our detention ponds because a lot of our
15 ponds are down into the groundwater, and so we have to dewater.[xr...w
16 them. But we usually try to do it with gravity instead of a
17 pump. So I think it's entirely possible. It's just a matter
18 of making sure it gets built right.
19 MS. BELL: But will this pump be loud? I was
20 just wondering as I was sitting here trying to imagine if
21 pumping out quite a. bit of water?
22 MR. SCHLUETER: Electric pumps aren't very
23 loud usually, no.
24 MS. BELL: Is that -- really? Okay. About
25 the plant products created -- that will be in the wetlands?
84
1 sort of a drainage facility?
2 MR. BLANCHARD: I believe it was a detention
3 area at preliminary. And as is allowed under a guidance
4 system, they claimed appropriate points for that at that
5 time.
6 MS. BELL: So we don't really know where this
7 concept of a neighborhood park has come to into focus?
8 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, when I first went to
9 the neighborhood meeting, there was a conceptual plan as
10 neighborhood meetings sometimes are, that included area that
11 is much larger than what is under consideration right now.
12 There was property to the north, there was
13 property to the east that Mr. Veio.had:hoped, to.- develop, and
14 in that, .I seem to recall in the. neighborhood meeting
15 drawing,there, was. a park area shown. But you. know;, that was
16 not part of the original submittal.
17 MS. BELL: Okay. Back to Glen. A crucial
18 question seems to be, will the detention pond dry up the
19 water resources on the Happy Heart Farm or even downstream,.
20 further?
21
MR. SCHLUETER: Actually, the
way they are
22
isolating the
pond, you know, groundwater is
kind of a
23
science, but
yet it depends on -- like they're
talking about
24
fractures in
the subsurface and things like
that.. It
25
depends on a
lot of factors. And when they
get in there and "
83
1 final has to be in substantial compliance with the
2 preliminary. So you look at that aspect of it. But to go
3 back and say that this whole process is flawed because the
4 preliminary PUD may have had some procedural defect in it.
5 I'm.not saying it did, but even if you claim that, or
6 decided that, I think we are beyond that point.
7 MS. BELL: Thank you. Bob, it's been stated
8 that on the original approval there was a designated
9 neighborhood park. Could you clarify that information?
10 MR. BLANCHARD: To the best of any knowledge,
11 there was no designated neighborhood park. The park that
12 most people are talking about is the area that was shown to
13 be awarded points for recreation according to the guidance
14 system. And the other important thing to understand that
15 those points were not just awarded for the detention or
16 retention area.
17 If you look on your large blueprint site.
18 plans, they calculated, you know, they've taken advantage of
19 everything that meets the strict definition of the guidance
20 system. And the open space and the recreation area winds
21 throughout the entire development. It's not just a
22 detention area.
23 MS. BELL: But on the original approval then
24 at the preliminary, you're saying that this area was not
25 designated as a neighborhood park? It's always been some
82
1 his half of Orchard. And so that's the flaw he's talking
2 about.
3 MS. BELL: What I would like to know is, the
4 implication in the discussion on the videotape, was that
5 somehow flawed the process, and that it's typical that we
6 are supposed to have those things in place before the
7 granting of a preliminary.
8 MR. SCHLUETER: The last couple of years we
9 have requested those, but I'm not -- you might ask John if
10 there's any legal ramifications.
11 MR. DUVAL: Yeah. I think on that, wnat
12 you've had occur is that a preliminary was approved. The
13 appeal period, the 10 day or 14 day appeal period to the
14 City Council passed. The time period in which to file any
15 kind of judicial review or seek judicial review of the
16 decision on the approval of the preliminary was a 30-day
17 period from the date of approval.
18 So really the preliminary decision is a final
19 decision, in other words nobody appealed it. To challenge
20 it based on that particular flaw, if needed it was a flaw,
21 and that having occurred then there really is no -- at this
22 point, grounds to say that the preliminary was invalid in any
23 way or defective in any way. but now your here at the final
24 -- for approval of the final PUD.
25 The LDGS says that the preliminary -- or the
E41
1 you need a brief break before undertaking this, or -- I
2 certainly do. I'd like to take no more than five minutes
3 because of the hour getting late, but I do need to stretch
4 and use the restroom. Thank you.
5 (A brief recess was taken.)
6 MS. BELL: Welcome back. We're discussing
7 the Scenic View's Final.PUD, and at this point we have heard
8 from the applicant and from the residents in the area. And
9 we will be bringing it back to the Board at this point for
10 discussion. And.I would like to begin with a few questions,
11 and I hope that they'll encompass a few of the problems that
12 we've heard about tonight.
13 First on the storm drainage easements being
14 in place at the time of preliminary. Glen, could you
15 address that, please?
16 MR. SCHLUETER: Sure. The original -- at the
17 preliminary stage we asked for letters of intent. Actually
18 it's not argued by a lot of developers whether we even have
19 the right to do that. Mr. Veio did comply and did give
20 letters of intent. The one area that Mr. Stinson is talking
21 about is actually Mr. Stinson's land, that there was
22 supposedly -- Orchard right-of-way already dedicated.
23 During the preliminary review and between
24 preliminary final, it was discovered by the engineering
25 department that the Orchard right-of-way is not dedicated on
80
1 downstream. We have that right. But to exercise that right
2 we have to follow condemnation proceeding against
3 Mr. Stinson.. We have both the other properties and the
4 natural drainage under contract, so we don't have to present
5 easements for those properties.
6 Mr. Stinson has been adamant against this
7 project from day one. He doesn't want to see a development,
8 that's his right.
9 MS. BELL: Could you finish up, please.
10 MR. VEIO: Yep. So we've tried to negotiate
11 with him.
12 MS. BELL: 'Cause I kind of suspect that the
13 Board will ask many of the questions you're attempting to
14 rebuttal to.
15 MR. VEIO: Well, I would like to be able to
16 address your questions specifically about the negotiations.
17 I would be happy to mention everything that I said, and we have
18 the residents here that can verify what was said, as well any
19 other questions I would be happy to answer as well. Thank
20 you.
21 MR. BELL: Well, Mr. Duval, do you think that
22 that can conclude our public portion of the evening?
23 MR. DUVAL: I think'so.
24 MS. BELL: Okay. So we are going to bring
25 the discussion back to the Board at this point. Do any of
79
1 that it is too small. You don't have to do anything
2 Federally or State with this land, and it was the City's
3 Natural Resource Department that requested that we move the
4 wetlands area to the retention pond, or asked us if we would
5 and our development plan and we agreed to do that. So
6 there's really not an issue there.
7 It was done by an independent party and
8 certainly the Corps knows what they're doing. You know, the
9 reason we have a retention pond in this design is because we
10 were not able to negotiate an easement, a downstream
11 easement with Mr. Stinson and only Mr. Stinson. As you saw
12 in his tape, he has a lot of things he's objecting to. We
13 'have tried to discuss all of those issues in an intelligent
14 and objective fashion with him since -January of 1996 when we
15 first purchased this piece of ground.
16 We also were intent at'purchasing the
17 property to the east, and that's how we got in the
18 negotiations with Mr. Stinson and the adjacent landowners.
19 I don't want to go through all the bickering back and forth,
20 and the offers and the rejections and all that, but believe
21 me, we have done everything that we feel is reasonable, more
22 than fair, and willing to compensate for more than market
23 value of that land.
24
By Colorado
law, we have the
right to
use
25
that drainage easement and
drain the water
from this
site
78
1 So it's not something that's, based
2 necessarily on sketchy information. We did provide a copy
3 of the most recent letter from Earth Engineering consultants
4 which outlined the effectiveness and recommended the
5 possibility of going either with a slurry wall or some other
6 method to cut off the groundwater flow to the site.
7 And again that's not anything that's an
8 unknown or new technology. It's a little bit unusual in a
9 case like this for a detention pond or a drainage situation.
10 MS. BELL: Let us know that that's the end of
11 the rebuttal period.
12 MR. VEIO: Could I kind of wrap up some of the
13 comments?
14
MS.
BELL:
Can you do so in one minute?
15
MR.
VEIO:
I'll try. There were a lot of
16
statements made about
the
negotiations with the
17
neighborhood, and I
think
we owe it to the P&Z Board
18
members to explain
those
negotiations. Some other points
19
that the residents
made that
I think need to be cleared up.
20 The Corps of Engineers are the ones that documented. the
21 wetlands area.
22 We called them way before preliminary and
23 asked them to go out and to look at the wetlands, measure
24 it, and determine whether it needs a permit. They went out
25 and they measured it at 8,000 square feet, and they said
77
1 percent, which would be based on the rainfall numbers. A
2 couple of other things, I just wanted to clarify. On the
3 water quality, to characterize storm water as a hazardous
4 waste, I think is an extreme position. Granted that any
5 kind of urban development does create a potential for some
6 hazardous substances at some point or something, but the
7 runoff from this site wouldn't be any different than storm
8 water runoff from any other part of the city.
9 So in that respect, it's really not
10 different. And a lot of the best management practices both
11 for the construction phase and as permanent installations
12 and things, they have been researched by the EPA, been in
13 use for a number of years in the Denver area, and to some
14 extent in Fort Collins also. So they're really not a new
15 technology or anything. Let's see.--
16 MS. BELL: Does that pretty much conclude the
17 rebuttal?
18 MR. MEADEN:" One other thing -- few other
19 things I wanted to clarify with respect to the groundwater
20 conditions and things. There have been a number of studies,
21 and I know one gentleman mentioned that there were only two
22 test borings, and there have been, I don't know the exact
23 number of borings, but there have been about either three or
24 four studies that have been done out there with numerous
25 borings.
`l7
1 down. And that's an assumption that's made.
2 It could be made a little bit longer, a
3 little bit shorter depending on what works best for the
4 ditch company or within their constraints and basically
5 coming down the last column here as we're taking our
6 percentage here for each of these storm events for a year
7 and converting to a number of hours.
8 And on an average year basis, this would be
9. the number of hours here that you would have average water
10. spilling above the water quality value volume here. So we
11 got 217.7 there which comes out to about 9 days there. And
12 we've got basically the same scenario repeated here. The
13 top column here is with the site only, and.the bottom column
14 here, or the bottom table is including the site and runoff
15 from the area to the west from CSU.
16 And this number here is substantially higher
17 just because you have the.extra runoff volume coming in, and
18 that's going to tend to fill up the water quality volume and
19 start spreading out much more frequently. So if you're
20 looking at number of days for the site only, it would be
21 about 9.1 days and for the site and CSU and everything that
22 would be coming in from upstream, it would be about 48.5
23 days here and that's more -- closer to around 15 percent or
24 so.
25 So it's substantially less than the 71
75
1 foot depth where it's starting to spread out into the main
2 portion of the pond.
3 And when you get into a larger -- larger
4 storm then you are hitting that 40 hour period here. So
5 that's when it's starting to spread out to the main portion
6 of the pond. So we have got a time here to draw down based
7 on the low -- on the low rate pump which pumps out the. water
8 quality volume.
9 And then the area that starts spreading out
10 into the main portion of the pond, is kind of represented in
11 this -- in this columnhere if you take that volume divided
12 by the 500 gallon a minute pumping range, then you get the
13 number of hours that would take to draw that down. And for
14 like a two-year storm, for example, it's about 14 hours in
15 pumping time.
16 When you get down to 100-year storm, then
17 it's about 72 hours so we are saying it's going to take
18 about 3 days to pump that volume down.
19 MS. BELL: You have about 5 minutes, just to
20 let you know.
21
MR. MEADEN:
Okay. This column over here --
22
we're basically taking this
time that it takes to
draw down
23
and adding 24 hours to it.
We don't want to pump
into the
24
ditch when there happens to
be a big storm coming.through
25
there so, we are waiting 24
hours before we start
drawing it
74
1 basically has -- we did an analysis based on the number of
2 storms per year, that's based on the rainfall distribution
3 and things, and that part kind of correlates to the 70
4 percent, or the 71 percent for the rainfall. And we have an
5 average number of storms per year.
6 We've got a runoff volume. per year that's
7 based on a rational C co -efficient which is kind of a --
8 it's kind of a hydrologic parameter and converts it to
9 runoff volume from rainfall and everything that's kind of in
10 accordance with the City criteria. So we have a runoff
11 volume that's associated with each one of those storms and
12 our pond depth.
13 In this column here is in inches and that
14 basically shows the depth which would be above.the water
15 quality volume. And depth below the water quality volume
16 would have water in it more often and for longer periods of
17 time. But it would not be what I would call like the
18 recreational portion of the pond which would be on the
19 fringes or the fringe areas of it.
20 And then we've got the draw down time to draw
21 that water quality volume down is in this column here, so
22 when you get into a real small rainfall say .01 to .1
23 inches. It only takes about 10.1 hours to draw that volume
24 down. So that's basically saying that when you get a
25 rainfall that small you're not even getting up to that three
73
1 quality ponds and things for about four or five years now.
2 It's kind of evolved based on experimental studies and
3 studies they have done. And we've got a water quality
4 volume that basically covers a depth of two to three feet.
5 That would be below the main portion of the
6 pond. And that's designed to empty in a period of about 40
7 hours to provide what they have found to be an optimum or an
8 optimal drain time for the water quality purposes to get out
9 sediment and other parameters to the extent practical and
10 things. And the area above that volume would be flooded
11 much less often.
12 Normally, the water quality volume would be
13 designed to drain or to discharge in a period of 40 hours.
14 So you have a gravel filter and a perforated pipe that will
15 go around it and that will normally drain out relatively
16 slow by gravity to a normal storm sewer outlet or channel or
17 something downstream. In our case since we don't have a
18 gravity outlet, we have a pump there.
19 That's basically going to pump that volume
20 out at a rate of 70 gallons a minute which will empty that
21 volume out in a 40 hour time. When you get to a larger -- a
22 larger duration storm, then you're going to start filling up
23 that low level volume, and you'll be going up and filling up
24 a little bit above that.
25 And if you look at this, this chart here
72
1 direct your comments towards, you know,
how
much uncertainty
2 is there. We know from recent history
that
sometimes we try
3 to do some of these storm water things, and they don't
4 always work out quite the way we had planned. So there's
5 sort of a departure from practicality and -- what's
6 theoretically possible and practically possible..
7 MR. VEIO: Okay.
8 MR. MEADEN: Yes. My name is Roger Meaden.
9 I'm with JR Engineering. I was involved a lot in the design
10 on the drainage system and the retention pond for the site.
11 I did want to clarify a few things with regard to the 71
12 percent number and things. There's a.couple of distinct
13 issues that we need to think about when we are talking about
14 the storms.
15 The 71 percent -- do we have that slide here?
16 We have this one also that would be kind of -- the 71
17 percent here is basically based on percipitation events or
18 rainfall events which isn't necessarily the amount the time
19 -- what I'll call the recreational portion of the pond would
20 be wet. In the pond, we are going to have a. water quality
21 volume which would be at a depth of three feet, the way it's
22 currently designed.
23 That's designed in accordance with urban
24 drainage. The urban drainage and flood control district
25 criteria down in Denver has used this procedure for water
71
1 straight site planning things beyond -- the things that are
2 related to the detention pond, I think that our
3 interpretation, staff's interpretation has been that the
4 preliminary is, in fact, in substantial conformance.
5 The final is in conformance with.the
6 preliminary. The only modifications in the design that were
7 made, were made as a result of the Planning and Zoning
8 Board's direction for the condition of approval for changing
9 the circulation between the housing types. So as far as
10 LDGS and the point chart is concerned, I think that this
11 project is in pretty solid shape.
12 If we want to go through some of that in more.
13 detail, we can. Otherwise, I'll let Bill get into some of
14 the technical discussion of the detention pond.
15 MS. BELL: Looks like there's about 10 more
16 minutes.
17
MR. VEIO: I think what I like
to
do is to
18
have our hydrologist, who couldn't be with us
in
Denver
19
because it snowed like crazy that night, have
him address
20
some of these technical issues on how much water
is going to
21
be there, and the design of the pond, and how
it
works and
22 so on.
23
MR. BYRNE:. I
think just
for my education,
24
you know,
one of the things
that keeps
on coming up is the
25
certainty
with which this can
be done.
If you could sort of
70
1 calculations and additional administration.• There were
2 additional points that could have been taken for providing
3 neighborhood facilities beyond the required amount for
4 providing handicapped accessible units which are part of
5 the plan, but were not taken points for.
6 So if there is a technical issue on points,
7 even if we decide that the open space recreational points,
8
the way they've
been
granted over the years, were suddenly
9
not going to
do that
anymore tonight, then we
shouldn't just
10
dismiss this
project
out of hand on the basis
of the density
11 chart because there are a number of other points that could
12 be claimed by this project, if the applicant had been aware
13 that the typical interpretations might not-ever•be in
14 effect anymore.
15 So I think just on the basis of meeting the
16 points, there are 150 to 175 points that would be possible.
17 If all ofthe possible categories had been utilized to their
r
18 utmost, based on the intended project, so -- and we don't
19 want.to get into all that in detail.
20 I just want to be sure that it's known that
21 it's -- there are other ways that points could be taken on
22 this project that we didn't complicate the application with
23 because we were comfortable that given the way the point
24 chart has been interpreted over the years, there were
25 adequate points here. The other factors as far as the
69
1 And I'm not a scientist„ I don't know all of
2 this stuff that we have talked about all the statistics ,,.but
3 I can logically figure out, that any area that starts with
4 water in it, that starts out wet, when you start digging
5 down, you're going to get it wetter not drier, no matter
6 what you do. And I would like to recommend that we deny on
7 those basis. Let me turn these in for you.
8 MS. BELL: Thank you. Are there any other.
9 folks who wish to approach the Board and discuss this matter
10 tonight? Okay. I'm going to close the public input portion
11 and bring it back to the applicant for his turn to do a
12 rebuttal. John, what do. you think is an appropriate amount
13 of time based upon the information that we heard?
14 MR. DUVAL: I would say 15 minutes.
15 MR. WARD: Okay. I think most of the points
16 Bill will go over in detail. I can address questions on the
17 point chart. One thing that should be remembered is -- the
18 applicant went through the point chart, filled it out on the
19 basis that other projects have been given points under the
20 LDGS.
21 There are many detention ponds, the private
22 park out at Oakridge, the recreation area at Village East
23 are two of the more visible ones around town.
24 But not all of the possible points.on.the
25 point chart were taken because they involved elaborate
68
1 were, to be discussing a single-family project that would
2 allow him to affordably create a park at the end of Orchard
3 where he would make a cul-de-sac and a neighborhood area that we
4 could all enjoy. Put in a park, a real park, a real
5 pavilion and picnic tables that wouldn't be under water all
6 the time.
7 This actually was, in my opinion, since he
8 never did try to contact us during the week and waited until
9 just before this final to contact us, shows how willing Mr.
10 Veio was, willing to negotiate with us in the first place for
11 a much more permanent, safer, attractive solution for this
12 retention pond.
13 I don't feel we ever even negotiated the
14 retention pond. I'm kind of the opinion tonight it was
15 never up for a compromise in.the first place. This
16 multifamily unit in the retention pond has never been an
17 issue in the compromise. We were always working towards the
18 park with the single family unit in a way to -- he puts it,
19 the.bottom line is money, whether I can make it or not.
20 And that's nothing we've ever discussed. I
21 will go ahead and submit these. I think I made all of my
22 points that I was going to. I would like to just reiterate
23 that this retention pond, no matter how it has been
24 presented, will be placed in an area where there's already
25 existing water.
67
1 said, but I think you've heard 'it all many times.
2 What my husband and my mom and I have done,
3 we went through the neighborhood on Saturday to try and
4 catch as many folks as we could home. We managed to get
5 surveys from 18 members of the neighborhood that kind of
6 addressed this situation. I'd like to submit those when I'm
7 done here.
8 What -- the point that I wanted to address
9 mostly was the fact that the landowners and the neighborhood
10 have been trying to negotiate with Mr. Veio for well over a
11 year. And he has never come down on the density or changed
12 the project plan in any way to suit the neighborhood when
13 the lower density in one area over my grandmother's land and
14 changed it in the plot plan, or run the storm water
15 easements to improve the future neighborhood was drawn up
16 and discussed.
17 Mr. Veio's response was -- this was last
18 Wednesday. "I -will let you know by Friday March 7th,
19 Saturday the 8th at the latest." And when we wrote this up,
20 he never left a message or tried to contact any of us. He
21 did reach me this morning, approximately 11:00 o'clock, and
22 stated that at that time, financially, it just wasn't.
23 feasible to do a single family portion of this plan which
24 was the basis of our negotiations since December..
25 The entire basis as he drew it up was that we
n
In
W
1 was no compromise with the developer reached.
2 I did hear that -- he said it would be dry 71
3 percent of the time, which means that it's going to be wet a
4 third of the time, more or less. And then one final point
5 is that if the wetlands are indeed a great deal larger, than
6 the developer said they're going to go take up an awfully
7 much larger area at the bottom of this retention pond. Is
8 that going to, in fact, leave any area at all for recreation
9 even assuming it is dry?
10 That's, you know, how many points get removed
11 for taking up the whole bottom of this thing with wetlands.
12 And one final thing was, Mr. Veio, the developer, himself,
13 said that he really didn't like the retention pond very well
14 at all. He would prefer to have a detention pond and a
15 park. And I'm not quite sure why, but it seems that there
16 must be some reason why he has now decided that the
17 retention pond is the,way to go.
18 I would really urge you to reject this on the
19 retention pond. Thank you.
20 MS. BELL: Thank you. Next.
21 MS. HAZEL: Hi, Madam Chairperson and Board
22 members. My name is Tara Hazel, and I have been given a
23 small lot right adjacent to my grandmother's property .that
24 would be located in this area. I.would just like.to say
25 that I would reiterate everything that everyone else has
M
1 and he's gone back to Denver. Who deals with that situation
2 at that time? What if it isn't a park at all, and his eight
3 points that he has now, -which it sounds like it makes a
4 difference between the density that he's proposing.
5 What happens at that point in time? The
6 developer's gone. The development's built and the park
7 doesn't exist. Also, the point about pollution I thought
8 was an interesting one. In the developer's water quality
9 plan, he talked about the grass at the bottom of this
10 detention pond being part of the filtration system, and I
11 don't have that in front of me any longer.
12 It was stolen along with my purse earlier
13 this evening, but it seems to me like it was 15 or 20
14 percent of the pollutants were supposed to be filtered by
15 the grass at the bottom of this thing, which also doesn't
16 make me think it's going to be much of a recreation area.
17 This isn't where I would want to put a blanket down and play
18 with my granddaughter on the grass that's filtering the
19 pollutants off the parking lot and the rooftops, not to
20 mention the water that might be coming from CSU.
21 Another point is, this was sold at the
22 neighborhood meeting as a neighborhood park. At this point
23 in time there is no other access to the park besides through
24 the Scenic Views Development. All the land around. it on.
25 the other side is private property at this time since there
64
1 or three feet of water left in there after a major storm.
2 He said something about it would take 7 hours to pump out 21
3 inches, I'm not quite sure, and that's assuming all the
4 pumps and everything are functioning as they were designed,
5 and there aren't any foul-ups there, but that still leaves
6 several days..
7 It sounds to me like, when there could be
8 significant kept water in there, that could present a hazard
9 for small children, especially, at the bottom of a slope. I
10 wonder who is going to be liable for accidents? Is it going
11 to be the Homeowners Association? Is it going to be the
12 developer? Is it going to be the city? Where is this
13 liability going to be assumed?
14 If it is the Homeowners Association, it
15 sounds to me like they're going to have to purchase .a pretty
16 substantial bond. One wonders if the homeowner's dues is
17 still going to keep this in the area called affordable, if.
18 they have to pay for this kind of bond and maintenance
19 person .to take care of the pump. I'm also concerned about
20 who is going to be liable, and. what happens if this .thing
21 doesn't work?
22 What if this retention pond, that is supposed
23 to be a park turns out to be wet and muddy at the bottom
24 most of the time? What happens? Who takes care of that?
25 The development's already built. Developer has his money,
63
1 as it pertains to soluble pollutants, has not been resolved.
2The developer to date, has no agreement with the ditch
3 company at this time. If you agree that this retention pond
4 withstanding water one out of three days, April through
5 September, that's what it works out to. If you look at it
6 mathematically at six months of the year, one out three days
7 you can use it, if you're lucky. And it's not mud.
8 MS. BELL: Bob, you need to finish up, like
9 now.
10 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. Basically, if you see
11 this as a recreational, you give them the credit, they pass.
12 If you don't give them credit for recreational space, they
13 don't pass. You can't approve them. Thank .you.
14 MS. BELL: Next.
15 MS. DAVIDSON: My name is Mary Davidson, I'm
16 Evelyn Anderson's daughter. She owns property next to the
17 proposed retention, pond. And my daughter and her family are
18 also proposing to move into this neighborhood at some time
19 in the future. I have some real concerns around safety
20 issues with the pond. One of main ones is that there could
21 well be several feet of water in this pond.
22 This water, is it going to be at the bottom
23 of a slope? It is proposed to be a park. Kids are supposed
24 to be able to play there. Kids will be used to going to play
25 there. I don't know how many days that there might be two
62
1 So it doesn't really lend itself to a very
2 good example. And we also are talking about groundwater
3 with a cutoff trench around the pond that's not deeper than
4 the pond. Even if it's lined, what good does it do. I live
5 in the neighborhood south of that. I've saw reports. We
6 have perched water tables. We have bedrock one and two feet
7 below the surface and it's cracked.
8 We have water come right up through there.
9 We have a canal alongside of me, behind me, that is plastic
10 off -- it has plastic to seal it off, it has clay, it has
11 gravel, and it has pipe taking the water from the canal away
12 from our neighborhood. But yet we still wind up with the
13 water table rising whenever we.have a lot of rain.
14 So I don't see how this can happen at all
15 with the trench. The pond itself is not --
16 MS., BELL: Are we getting confused on how I
17 wanted to do that
18 THE CLERK: It goes off, but it's not loud
19 enough. 'I can't make it any louder --
20 MS. BELL: Because I wanted to have it at
21 three minutes and then four again. You need to finish up.
22 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. In summation, a 12 inch
23 -- a 12 feet deep retention pond with a pathetic definition
24 for dry, cannot possibly be construed as a recreational area
25 if you're still in touch with the real world. Water quality
61
1 A significant permanent -- a significant
2 permanent or long lasting area of deep, soft oozing mud is
3 okay, I guess 4 to 12 inches of deep, suck -your -shoes -off mud,
4 is not my idea of a recreation area unless you -- you're
5 into swamp buggy competition. A large hole 12 feet deep and
6 no place for children to be playing, especially if it's
7 filled with water, especially with sidewalks leading down
8 into it.
9
85 percent dry, which
this report says, can
10
be muddy and
can be many
individual
pockets of standing
it
water. Page
2, section
1.1, second
to the last typed line,
12
15 percent means
55 days
per year of
standing water of
13
significant
area. They
also -- what
they also don't tell
14
you, if you
look at the
chart for water, April through
15
September is
the most water
we get,
and that's when this
16
retention pond would be
under water
most of the time or very
17 muddy.
18 So the time when people would most use it as
19 recreational, it wouldn't be available. So in other words,
20 we can. use it as recreational if we want to picnic in 20
21 degree weather during the wintertime, very good. I also
22 noticed that with the picture of the Denver retention pond,
23 that was taken this month.. If I look at the chart also,
24 April is the lowest precipitation month, .41 inches. How
25 coincidental.
M
1 dry state. Water quality and a plan which addresses
2 particulates, but no real resolution or guarantees regarding
3 soluble pollutants other than education.
4 The actual wetland which is up for grabs,
5 depending on who you talk to for area, as far as retention
6 pond goes, the P&Z has had many proposals, development
7 proposals, questionable bonus points awarded -- detention
8 ponds which don't retain water. Now we are being told that
9 retention ponds are also okay for parks. That's a new one
10 on me.
it Now the Planning Department will have you
12 believe it's acceptable to classify retention pond which
13 does not retain standing water as recreational space for
14 families and children. This project requires you to grab
15 points for the retention pond as recreational space in order
16 for it to attain its minimum 100 points required on the
17 residential density chart.
18 How can a retention pond be classified as
19 recreational if it retains water and will be muddy most of
20 the year? The definition of "dry" is a very loose term
21 indeed. Dry by the City definition, or in this report, I
22 should say, the definition means no significant permanent
23 pool of water. Well what is significant? And what is
24 permanent pool of water? This is page 4, section. 2.1,
25 paragraph 2, last sentence.
59
1 presentation as a citizen, which he is doing.
2 So the City and
the City
Attorney's opinion
3 on that is that like -- that's
not only
true with Board
4 members, it's true with council
members
and all Boards of
5 Commission members in the City
of Fort
Collins. So they
6 have a right, a constitutional
right to
make their
7 statements known in these issues.
8 MR. VEIO: Well, most ethical board members
9 that I've seen when they abstain from vote, they also
10 abstain from the floor. Thank you.
11 MR. DAVIDSON: That's one interpretation.
12 This approval tonight -- are we starting the four minutes
13 again?
14 MS. BELL: Uh-huh.
15 MR. DAVIDSON: This approval tonight hinges
16 on three main points as I see it. The retention pond and
17 how it functions as designed, the water quality, and the
18 actual wetland area that really exists. And most of my
19 remarks will be referred to --.referring to the report, The
20 Storm Water Quality Management Control Plan by Rocky
21 Mountain Research Institute.
22 Retention pond which does not -- a retention
23 which does not retain water and will be a muddy quagmire 60
24 to 70 percent of the time is rationalized as recreational
25 space due to three picnic. tables and a very misleading term,
58
1 that we are talking about tonight, but that also points out
2 the fact to me that perhaps,there was some compromise that
3 could have been made long before this make -shift solution
4 has come to the table. I still think there's a possibility
5 that we can have -- you know, the original design that was
6 presented at the preliminary hearing with the park and with
7 the water going in the storm drainage, so thank you.
8 MS. BELL: Thank you. Next.
9 MR. DAVIDSON: Bob Davidson, 1203 Cascade
10 Court, Fort Collins. I can put some picnic tables and
11 gazebos on the ground between the north and south lanes of
12 I-25, does this qualify as a recreation area? I notice too,
13 that the Denver retention pond had sidewalks all the way
14 around, probably because it was the only dry spot you could
15 walk.
16
MR.
VEIO:
Excuse me, Madam Chairman, isn't
17
this gentleman a member
of the Planning and Zoning Board?
18
MR.
DAVIDSON: Private citizen also, sir.
19
MR.
VEIO:
And if he is --
20
MS.
BELL:
Excuse me. Mr. Duval, could you
21 clarify this issue for us?
22 MR. DUVAL: Yes. Under the City's charter,
23 he's declared a conflict of interest. He has to remove
24 himself from participation in the Board's decision; however,
25 as a citizen, he has a constitutional right to make his
57
1 70 percent of the time. And I'm hoping I'm understanding
2 right, that this particular retention pond is going to be
3 moist most of the time. And that's not an environment that
4 I would,let my children play in.
5 So as a park, to substitute for the 10 points
6 for the park, I just don't see that being a valid
7 substitution. I'm always concerned when mechanical things
8 are the system that we are relying on pretty heavily because
9 mechanical things fail. The other thing I'm concerned about
10 is the fact that CSU's interest of draining across this area
it is becoming the neighborhood's problem.
12 And I appreciate the fact that this problem
13 has emerged, but I don't think it should be at the
14 neighborhood's expense through the retention situation. The
15 bottom line is for me -- it's being presented that this will
16 work, but there's even a more workable situation and that is.
17 obtaining easements and getting the storm water where it's
18 supposed to go, in the storm water drainage.
19 And what I'm not hearing is the compromise.
20 I recently worked with a developer that came through on
21 consent very recently. And we compromised, and I don't hear
22 that happening in this situation. I'm hearing that there's
23 a lot of meetings going on, and I'm hearing there's a lot of
24 discussion, but it sounds to me like one of the original
25 concerns was density. And I understand that's the issue•
56
1 things that's really concerning me is the illogical
2 comparison that we were offered in a pretty substantial
3 portion of the developer's presentation.
4 The fact that there are kids playing in a dry
5 area, to me is pretty evident that it's not dangerous. I
6 wouldn't be concerned with my children playing in an area
7 like that either; however, when he said that the time that
8 it did fill up, there was quite a bit of water in there, now
9 that's the time I would be a little concerned. Now new
10 water source -- I lived in an.area where a mechanical system
11 failed and created a water -- I don't really want to call it
12 a flood, it not only brought out the earthworms, but it
13 brought out the kids.
14 They were interested in that and it was new,
15 it was fun and exciting. And it is the parent's
16 responsibility to make sure that their children are
17 monitored all of the time. But I still don't want to see a
18 neighborhood tragedy. The other piece to that, which has
19 also not been mentioned, I like to point it out again, the
20 size comparison. He said it was one -fifth. The retention
21 pond he's talking about is one -fifth the size of the slides
22 that he showed us.
23 And it's just not -- it's an illogical
24 comparison. Also, if I understood him correctly, the Denver
25 pond bed that we were shown -- he said that it would be dry
a
55
1 pond will -- would have to be redesigned to handle a larger
2 offset for the wetlands that would be destroyed, and
3 secondly, that as of February llth, the Corps of Engineers
4 did reissue the nationwide permits.
5 Basically anything over a third of an acre,
6 up to three acres does require Corps notification. The
7 Corps would have to be consulted, and with these new
8 revisions to the regulations -- an environmental assessment
9 would have to be completed, so it would have to bring in the
10 Corps for consultation.
11 I would request that that be done, I would
12 request the formal delineation be done, so that we know
13 exactly how many acres of wetlands are being impacted here.
14 And again, that would subsequently affect the design of this
15 pond, which again, you know, maybe it will work, but I'm
16 very unsure about a lot of information that's been provided,
17 and I would request that a strong bond be put on that.
18 So with that, I would just ask that this
19 information be considered and that until the proper data
20 have been collected, that this be put on hold.
21 MS. BELL: Thank you. Next, please.
22 MS. YERBIC: Hi, I'm Gayle Yerbic, and I
23 live in the neighborhood, and I want to state up front that
24 I haven't really been following this issue that closely.
25 I'm just responding to what I heard.tonight. And one of the
54
1 make. Again, we want to be unbiased in this and make sure
2 we have a system that does work. The issue of bond, I
3 think, is crucial. A detention pond is one thing, that's
4 pretty commonplace. Retention is very unusual. You know,
5 the slides were fantastic. I don't know what football field
6 that was taken of, but that's fine.
7 We can take things out of context. We can
8 get the best pictures in the world. I'm not impressed. I'm
9 talking about real, real site specific information that I
10 have yet to see. The other issue is wetlands. I would like
11 to spend a couple of minutes on that. I'm on the north
12 boundary of this property, and I've come into this process
13 kind of late in the game.
14 Eight thousand square feet has been a number
15 that's been thrown out. And just recently I went out there,
16 and I actually paced off the wetland. I am a biologist. I
17 have done wetland delineations. I understand the systems
18 quite well. I paced it off. I mapped it.. I digitized it
19 and that acre is closer to 20 thousand square feet, a.half
20 of an acre. And I haven't seen -a formal delineation to
21 prove otherwise.
22 I just know there's eight thousand square
23 feet have been mentioned. So I happened to go out there and
24 my opinion -- in my opinion it's closer to half an acre.
25 The significance of this is twofold. One is that now the
53
1 Dennis went into quite a few items here, and so I don't want
2 to spend time rehashing some of those points.
3 I would like to state that I'm very
4 supportive of those points with particular concern with
5 retention pond. I think the -- excuse me, the issue of
6 potential groundwater seepage into that pond. That
7 question has really not been answered. I'm concerned if it's
8 -- whether bedrock that this is going -down to -- that there
J
9 haven't been enough borings on that site.
10 There has only been two borings for an entire
11 three or four acre site. And that the possibility of
12 fractured bedrock is not uncommon so that seepage into this
13 area is quite possible. I don't see the data.to reflect
14 anything different than that. And I would request that
15 additional studies be conducted in those areas to assure all
16 of us that this pond would be structurally, have structural
17 integrity and not have problems down the road.
18 I'm also very concerned about the homeowners
19 being the watchdogs of something that's built by a
20 developer that will be out -of -sight, out -of -mind shortly
21 after this project is up and running. I believe it should
22 be an independent consultant that should be hired or
23 selected by the City and that -- reports information back to
24 the City that it not be the Homeowners Association.
25 I think that's a very important point to
52
1 then the existing neighborhood and much higher than would be
2 considered under the new land use plan.
3 And that allotted density variation hinges
4 upon the assumption of a park. This 16 foot deep hole in
5 the ground is most certainly not a park, and the park hinges
6 on storm drainage easements that have never been granted;
7 therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we urge in the strongest
8 way that you deny the final approval to this project on
9 substantive and procedural grounds.
10 And we hope to hear a motion to that end.
11 Thank you.
12 MS. BELL: Thank you, Dennis. Okay. I guess
13 we're ready to move on to the other folks_.that are here
14 tonight that want to speak to us. I think 4 minutes will
15 probably be appropriate, and you'll hear a little beep at 3
16 minutes and at the 4 minute point., So someone would like to
17 step forward and begin. And I'll remind you that we have
18 two podiums, so the next person who wants to speak could be
19 preparing. Just state your name and sign in for the record,
20 please.
21 MR. HACKNEY: My name is Phil Hackney, I live
22 at 720 South Overland Trail. I'm an adjacent landowner
23 that, just for the record, has not been invited to the last
24 four meetings.' I don't know why but I've been kept out of
25 that loop. Maybe my concerns aren't an issue with Mr. Veio.
51
1 questionable as to the effectiveness of it as a water
2 quality function and without any baseline studies. It is
3 left to the Homeowners Association to watch what happens
4 after the hole is in the ground and to fix it somehow when
5 it fails.
6 It does not mitigate for the size and
7 diversity of the existing wetlands that would be destroyed.
8 The hole is dangerous in its depth and steep sides and
9 dangerous in its concentrations of hazardous residues. This
10 hole is no solution at all. It is a whole set of dangerous
it problems and liabilities that the city and the ditch company
12 assume, not with the developer, but with the Homeowners
13 Association if they sign off on this.
14 These are the substantive issues that tenet
15 with this retention pond. At the very least, this hole
16 should be monitored and bonded heavily for 5 years before
17 any buildings are constructed. Any consideration of
18 approval must be conditioned. Above all, this open pit is
19 not a park. It is an unworkable attempt at solution to
20 procedural error at the beginning of this process.
21 When the required Storm Water Utility stamp
22 was affixed to the preliminary approval; when the necessary
23 easements were never there; easements weren't granted
24 because the developer would not reconsider any elements of
25 plan, including the density that is completely different
6101
1 Mr. Veio's project must mitigate for the loss
2 of that long established water quality area. It has been
3 stated by others in the record on December 16th that rebuilt
4 wetlands just never do quite as well as the naturally
5 diversified ones that nature puts in. Even if it's by
6 accident. And we strongly disagree with the developers
7 contention of size of this wetland. This has implications
8 in two very important regards.
9 First, how much wetlands he must transfer
10 into an already pretty full retention hole. And secondly,
11 'that the existing wetlands now may fall into the size needed
12 for further study under the Corps of Engineers Federal
13 Regulations called, I believe, Permit Number 26, effectively
14 including this piece that we estimate being larger than the
15 requisite one third of an acre.
16 We want verification of the area size
17 calculation by an independent source before any further
18 action is taken on that wetland. I will sum up. This
19 project's final approval rests upon the assumption that a
20 very big hole, in the very wet ground of our last. remaining
21 open space in our neighborhood can be substituted for
22 originally, what was a park.
23 It is a bad, temporary solution to storm
24 drainage problems. This huge hole is destructive of
25 existing natural water relationships. It is highly
49
1 and other living things.
2 Anthropogenic possibilities in this storm
3 drainage scenario. Our position is this, we are sure that
4 there is a relationship between the water quality of our
5 farm, its mission and its produce and the community that we
6 are a part of, and that we serve. We will not be a storm
7 drainage hazardous waste experiment. The Happy Heart Farm
8 and the Rogers Park Neighborhood demand that thorough
9 baseline studies such as event mean concentration statistics
10 be applied before, not after, this proposal is final.
11 And that the studies be paid for by the
12 developer, and that we really take these studies to the
13 community to dialogue the values of water quality, not just
14 hear the relative numbers in parts per millions. The health
15 and well-being of our farm, our neighborhood, our community;-
16 and our river are at stake. It is time and the place to
17 draw the line.
18 There is an existing line of water quality
19 that is established already in our neighborhood that was put
20 in place by Mother Nature herself. The developer contends
21 she did this accidently. This is 'an existing wetland on the
22 northwest property boundary of this project which has been
23 there for nearly 10 years. It is the diverse and effective
24 biological response to water quality of the water volume
25 that flows through that area. J
48
1 this retention pond. We are not satisfied with the
2 Homeowners Association being left with monitoring of the
3 experiment to sort of watch to see what really happens.
4 The other critical unresolved substantive
5 issue, still water quality. Water quality issues in the.
6 relationship to storm drainage are new territory, but very
7 timely issues to ,the Storm Water Utility, to the City, to
8 the ditch company, and to many people in this community.
9 Water quality issues are not new to us at the Happy Heart
10 Farm, are terribly important issues to my farm -sharing
11 families.
12 The ditch company has clearly stated that the
13 water pumped from this holding area can be, quote,. "In no
14 way contaminating," end quote. But where's the. science that
15 defines contamination? The water quality expert for the
16 City, has told me that standards have not been defined, that
17 the science is. unsure of the effects of some drainage on
18 irrigation water, and that the technology is unproven.
19 He has also stated that any datafication
20 would be expensive, lengthy, and extremely variable and
21 difficult to state except in'highly relative terms. He also
22 stated that the Happy Heart Farm has the most direct need
23 for water quality.issues to be addressed that he has
24 personally ever heard of in this city, and that it is true
25 that there are anthropogenic, meaning not good for people
47
1 liability for the thing when it fails. The Homeowners
2 Association -- the Homeowners Association is given a list of
3 things to watch.
4 A set of instructions on how the pump, and a
5 set of instructions which are called the non-structural BMPs
6 or BUMPS to post on the bulletin board as the main way to
7 mitigate the soluble pollutants that the structural BMPs or
8 BUMPS, in this case the permanent retention part of this,
9 and its skimmers and the transferred wetlands biological
10 controls that they will try to hit and miss at.
11 But the Homeowners Association has no
12 instruction because there aren't any on what to do if and
13 when something goes wrong with this theory, or the wet/dry
14 pond, or the transferred wetlands plants that might not make
15 it, or the pumping that could necessarily be pretty
16 constant.
17 The Homeowners Association, not the developer,.
18 will be liable as with the City and the ditch company•when
19 this fails if they sign off on this radical plan. But it
20 will be the neighborhood, the ecosystem, and the Happy Heart
.21 Farm, that will pay the cost in losses of health and safety.
22 So we have real concerns with safety hazards
23 of the pond, concerns with the effect on water volumes in
24 the ditch, volumes in the groundwater basin and water
25 volumes in the down slope ponds that could be affected by
46
1 How much water and for how long is unknown
2 with really no way to calculate these amounts before the
3 hole is dug. And yet, this holds real consequences as to
4 maintenance, seasonal flow function levels, and other
5 liabilities for the ditch company. As we stated in
6 December, the ditch company does not want to carry those
7 liabilities.
8 A large part of the pond is supposed to stay
9 dry except in storms, and that portion of the hole is to be
10 for the sedimentation of the pollutants that stick to
11 particles that come with the storm water running from the
12 rooftops and parking lots. This sedimentation process will
13 allow heavy metals, bacteria, and other particulate
14 pollutants to settle out onto the ground and the vegetation
15 to be concentrated there.
16 And then the neighborhood kids can come slide
17 down the steep banks and roll around in that concentration
18 of hazardous waste, if it ever really gets dry enough in
19 there to work that way. The soluble pollutants: gasoline,
20 oil, pesticides, are to be handled mostly by an educational
21 campaign monitored by the Homeowners Association.
22 I see it that way because it is not the
23 developer who is to designate for monitoring, maintaining,
24 or repairing the pond and its pumps. It's the Homeowners
25 Association that has stipulated to this task and the implied
45
1 purported function to deal with the soluble pollutants, at
2 least in the part, as it states in the developer's
3 prospectus. Lots of questions rise to that surface almost
4 like water seeking its own level.
5 The plan itself states that the so-called
6 water quality pond, the retention part of the pond, must
7 have water permanently in it. And at this pond and the
8 wetlands will be charged with groundwater and runoff.
9 Nowhere is there a statement that the bottom of this pond is
10 to be sealed, or that it butts into an impervious layer of
11 bedrock.
12 In fact, to the contrary, that it has to have
13 groundwater charging the permanent pond. Now the wet pond
14 and the dry pond are the same hole, just with varying
15 degrees of depth. And all the depths are below the existing
16 surface of this natural basin which has been shown to always
17 hold lots of water at just two feet below grade. The point,
18 water seeks its own level.
19 Since the deepest part of the hole must have
20 groundwater constantly charging it, the entire hole will
21 constantly have water in it. Lots and lots of it. The hole
22 pond will be permanently wet unless the pump is running
23 constantly which it will need to because the pump will be
24 pumping the entire basin's water, and.where? Into the
25 Pleasant Valley Irrigation Ditch all year long.
44
1 we raise serious objections to this hole as a
2 neighborhood around the safety of this so-called attractive
3 nuisance, which in December, was shown to be eight feet
4 deep, now in this incarnation is 11 feet deep in most
5 places. In the pond, the deepest part, the current revolution
6 of this. hole has been plotted out. It's a state-of-the-
7 art water quality pond; it has water permanently in this, and
8 it is 16 feet below the surface grade.
9 The temporary solution is becoming a bigger
10 and bigger hole that gets deeper and deeper, and the plan
11 for the hole is full of holes. Let's start with the
12 so-called structural BMP, or Best Management Practices, or
13 BUMPS for short. 11 feet down there, a portion of the hole
14 is to be for the sedimentation fallout of the particulate
15 group of pollutants that will come with storm water running
16 from the rooftops and parking lots of this proposed
17 development.
18
This part of
the pond
is proposed to stay dry
19
except in storms because it
will be
sealed off from the
20
subsurface water basin that
it sets
in within an impervious
21
8 foot slurry wall on the sides.
This
so-called extended
22
detention part of the pond
is 5 feet
above the so-called
23 retention pond.
24 So in that part or 16.feet down, which must
25 be kept permanently wet so that it can try to perform this
43
1 downstream such as the stock watering pond that has been
2 used by farmers before me and myself at the Happy Heart
3 Farm. Note, that my pond is presently full, and has been
4 all winter, even before the recent snows.
5 It's historically full in the winter and the
6. fall, the driest times of the year. That pond on my land is
7 a part of the agricultural significance of Happy Heart Farm
8 and just digging that hole will have affects on that water.
9 Will this retention pond dry up my historical agricultural
10 use of this water? Bringing that subsurface water to the
11 surface makes it surface water.
12 And this could have implication to state
13 level agencies. Specifically to the Poudre River Commission
14 as surmounts in ownership. Any pumping into the Pleasant
15 Valley Ditch will have impacts on volumes in that ditch.
16 And if pumping is to be done during the winter season, as
17 will probably have to be done seasonal maintenance of the
18 ditch will be effected.
19 All this without any baseline study as to
20 amounts and results of those amounts, and this is just in
21 the digging of the hole so far. Let me state again, that
22 this hole should in no way, be misconstrued as a park. Its
23 purpose really, and its design, is to function as a
24 temporary solution to the unresolved challenge of the Storm
25 Water Utility -- Storm Water Drainage Utility.
42
1 easements that never were granted. This project should be
2 denied on these procedural grounds.
3 Now the substantive concern which we have
4 shown on the December 16th 196 and to the present are all
5 ready a matter of record, which we shall review and try to
6 clarify tonight. But all these are merely reactions to the
7 poor temporary solutions that have since been posited around
8 the initial lack of the required storm drainage easement.
9 Please note again, that all these arguments
10 which we presented on December 16th of 196 are a matter of
11 record for this continuance tonight. We shall restate some
12 of the strong objections we made then, and hopefully make
13 them more current to this which we think is the fourth
14 generation of this retention pond's design.
15 This huge thing, 3 acres big .and 16 feet
16 deep, is proposed to be dug in a basin that has, since
17 records have been taken, been shown to be full of water.
18 The slides we showed you then, show that the water is two
19 feet below grade, even at the driest times of year. We are
20 tremendously skeptical that this hole can be dug without
21 filling with water in the process which will then need to be
22 pumped into the ditch if the hole proceeds.
23 He will be pumping the subsurface water of
24 the entire basin. This attempted drainage of this natural
25 basin will effect all of the pond's and the natural flows
41
1 pond of the original plan design submitted at the.
2 neighborhood meeting and to this Board at preliminary, was a
3 part of a designated neighborhood park which had since
4 become more and more.a neighborhood hazardous waste holding
5 facility.
6 This.so-called park is in its present
7 incarnation, a three acre, 16 foot deep hole in the ground,
8 that is proposed to function', really, as a storm drainage
9 pollution waste filtration system. We will most definitely
10 say more about the substantive reasons why this temporary
11 bad solution won't work for us'as a neighborhood. But
12 germane to the procedural category.is this:
13 This dangerous detention pond is not a park.
14 And it was a park that this Board and the neighborhood was
15 shown. And it was a park which granted this developer 10
16 points of density that allowed him to bring a preliminary
17 plan before you that is of a much greater density than '
18 currently exists in the surrounding neighborhood. It is a
19. much greater density than would be allowed if this project
20 is considered under the newly approved City Land Use Plan.
21 Among many other items, it was,the
22 disagreement over density which prevented the granting of
23 storm water drainage easement. The preliminary approval of
24 density of this plan was granted based on points of a park.
25 That park's design and function was based on storm drainage
122
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
3
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
4'
5 I, Leslie G. Arnold, a Court Reporter and Notary
6 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing
7 hearing, taken in the matter of Scenic View PUD, was held on
8 Monday, March 10, 1997, at 300 West Laporte Avenue,
9 Colorado; that said proceedings were transcribed by me from
10 videotape to the foregoing 121 pages; that said transcript
11 is, to the best of my ability to transcribe same, an
12 accurate and complete record of the proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to,
14 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
15 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
16 the case.
17 Attested to by me this 5th day of May, 1997.
18
19
20
21
e lie G. nold, CCU t Reporter
22 4 42 Westbrooke Court
ort Collins, Colorado 80526
23
24 My commission expires September 6, 2000
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
22
23
24
25
121
Well, let's see, we have still one more item, don't we?
Okay.
(Matter concluded.)
*
*
120
1 there still some places that there's some question marks.
2 It's kind of unfortunate. I guess if it's in a different
3 portion of town that wasn't affecting agricultural property
4 of the nature that it is, I would feel a whole lot more
5 comfortable.
6 So in that regard,,I feel it's kind of
7 unfortunate that we're having to experiment with the best
8 technology that we have available with this property. I do
9 also.feel a little bit uneasy about some of the things I
10 heard tonight, about a sense from the neighborhood that
11 there really hasn't been much of a sense of compromise
12 throughout this process.
13- I feel pretty badly about that and since, you
14 know, there's some real unhappiness on the part of the
15 people who feel that they really didn't -- weren't heard
16 from the very onset. I won't be supporting this motion.
17 Time for a vote, please.
18 THE CLERK: Chapman?
19 MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.
20 THE CLERK: Gavaldon?
21 MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
22 THE CLERK: Byrne?
23 MR. BYRNE: Yes.
24 THE CLERK: Bell?
25 MS. BELL: No. The PUD passes three to one.
119
1 really inclined to support the retention pond. I would
2 prefer another method of approaching this. I think we could
3 come up a lot further ahead; however, this is the best
4 solution given the situation that is out of our privy.
5 At the same time I feel confident about the
6 Homeowners Association and the Articles and Incorporations,
7 covenants, and bylaws are going to sound and fees are going
8 to be reasonable. I feel that the process will ensure that
9 this is public record and it does work.
10 I feel that there's been good input from the
it citizens here, and I don't want to downplay it, but I think
12 you all had made a big difference to it and making it work
13 and bringing the attention to the developer as that in
14 respect, I think there is more efforts that the developer
15 will need to ensure for the neighbors that he is a good
16 neighbor and the neighbors are going to have to help ensure
17 that it's maintained to be a good neighborhood and the
18 quality is there.
19 Because I felt that there has been
20 significant improvement since December, and I think all the
21 hooks and things are in place, but your efforts are still
22 needed in this, and hopefully that will continue.
23 MS. BELL: Well, I guess I feel that it's
24 kind of unfortunate that we have such a large project. I
25 know we have heard a lot of good testimony. It still --
118
1
MR. BYRNE: For those folks that
are here, I
2
know there's been a lot of energy devoted, and
I just think
3
it's important to sort of recap the thinking at
least on my
.4
part. It seems to me that the central issue is
really the
5
density of the project. And that was not the --
that was
6
really not the question before us this evening.
I think the
7
question before us this evening was:
8
Does the retention pond scheme,
as outlined
9
by the developer, work? And I think from the question
and
10
answer that we have just gone through for like
the last
11
couple of hours to the extent that we can know
it's not a
12
perfect science, but it's a pretty decent science.
It seems
13
as though that the plan is feasible.
14
There's reasonable checks in place as the
15
project builds out 25 percent.
Everything's got to be in.
16
place. And if it's not working,
then things have to be
17
corrected. There is sort. of an
ongoing question about water
18
quality, and I think that's one
of those things that perhaps
19
the ditch company could provide
some measurement of water
20
quality periodically just to make sure that increase, you
21
know, to get people's confidence
that there's not something
22
going on there. That we didn't
expect to have happen.
23
MR. GAVALDON: I
have a few observations from
24
the discussion tonight, I'm satisfied
with Glen's inputs on
25
about the water quality and the
storm drainage, and I'm not
117
1 than that.
2 MR. GAVALDON: So you have two or three years
3 under your belt with all the information for maintenance,
4 structures, fees, and to ensure that you have a viable
5 Homeowners Association in place?
6 1 MR. VEIO: Right. And we like to pick
7 somebody on those boards that's environmentally sensitive
8 too. That helps to keep the property and the canal clean
9 that way.
10 MR. GAVALDON: Which would be among the
11 owners in that area?
12 MR. VEIO: Absolutely.
13 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
14 MS. BELL: Okay. Do we have any other
15 questions, or are we ready to move into a motion? Then
16 let's have one.
17 MR. CHAPMAN: I move that we approve Scenic
18 Views PUD final 3-96A, with the condition as stated in the
19 staff report which is the standard requirement to get the
20 Planning and Zoning Board -- I'm sorry to get the utilities
21 approved?
22. MR. BYRNE: I'll second.
23 MS. BELL: It's been moved and seconded that
24 the final, the Scenic Views PUD be approved. Are .there any
25 other comments?
116
1 you'll be involved in it and you'll have a ground
2 opportunity to put all those efforts in place, setting the
3 fee structures, Articles of Incorporation, bylaws and
4 covenants. How long would you be involved in it before you
5 handed it over in your projections?
6 MR. VEIO:. Well, as far as the condominium
7 declarations, those become a public document. What we do as
8 a development company is we specify what our philosophy is.
9 And in that Storm Water Quality Report, that's our
10 philosophy of how that property should be maintained and
11 cared for. So that philosophy gets transferred into that
12 publicly recorded document. And we adjust the voting rights
13 in such a fashion that it's going to be difficult for those
14 homeowners to change our philosophy.
15 MR. GAVALDON: So you'll have the opportunity
16 of putting all of the structure into place and divisions. of
17 responsibilities, and depending on how you cluster the
18 organization, all that would be foundation to the program?
19 MR. VEIO: 'Absolutely.
20 MR. GAVALDON: So how long do you feel you
21 would be involved in it, in your marketing projections?
22 MR. VEIO: Well, the marketing projections, I
23 think, it's probably going to take us somewhere between two
24 years and three years to sell all those units out. But I
25 think we will be involved in Fort Collins for a lot longer
115
1 maintenance, he's going to be on top of it.
2
MR. BYRNE: Plus they
would certainly have an
3
indication that it's not
working properly.
4
MR. VEIO:
Oh, sure.
We maintain they have to
5
keep service records of
how many hours
it was in service.
6
How many days it was in
service. So
we know the expected
7
life of the motors. We
compare that
to the number of hours
8
it's been run. You can
figure that
sort of thing out.
9
MS. BELL:.
So that's
just the Homeowners
10
Association would have to budget as
part of they're, being an
11
entity to maintain this
facility?
12 MR. VEIO: Yeah. Just like the sprinkler
13 system. They have to do that for the sprinkler systems.
14 They have to replace those periodically throughout the life.
15 of the development. This isn't any different.
16 MS. BELL: And looking at a realistic budget
17 to keep the price of homes within the range that your
18 proposing? That can all be done?
19 MR. VEIO: Yes.
20 MR. GAVALDON: I have a question back to
21 Homeowners. When the development started, the developers do
22 still hold the majority of the so-called voting shares in a
23 development until you get a majority of homes sold where the
24 homeowners will pick up the responsibility over the
25 developer. In your estimation, how long would you feel that
114
1 mechanism was going to be -- there's a maintenance person
2 on -site, and if that doesn't work, then there's a ditch
3 rider who comes, and if that doesn't work, then they get in
4 touch with the City?
5 MS. BELL: But that's my point. Who is this
6 maintenance person? Who's paying them and -- it's the
7 home
8 MR. BYRNE: So the maintenance person is kind
9 of the -- he's the guy -- he's the man on the spot?
10 MR. VEIO: The maintenance person is
11 responsible for all the ground maintenance in the complex.
12 When the home owner's budget is put together, there's a
13 reserve amount that's set aside for replacement of all
14 machinery. And that amount is allocated out of the monthly
15 assessment fee. So that creates the fund that you're
16 looking for.
17
And what you do is you estimate the life of
18
those
pumps and
you escrow that percentage of life each
19
month
so there's money there when it goes out, if it
goes
20
out.
The other
thing to keep in mind is that these
pumps
21
they
last quite
a number of years. They really do.
The
22
maintenance man
will be checking it, monitoring it,
oiling
23
it on
an annual
basis, to be sure, generally two or
three
24
times
a year.
y
25
So if there is anything that's going
to need
113
1 I don't know a good word to call it, but we have similar
2 things regarding trees and different things where there's a
3 fund that's created
4 MR. DUVAL: You know an example -- maybe this
5 is an example, is what we do in our franchise agreement with
6 cable TV. For example with TCI or whoever is our cable
7 operator is we require them to post a letter of credit that
8 we can draw upon if we ever have to complete an upgrade of
9 the cable system or something like that.
10 So you can do something similar to that,.
11 where the City, if it turned out that no one was performing
12 as they were required to do, or should be doing, that the
13 City, stepping into, then, would be able to draw on some fund
14 or letter of credit or some security in which to pay itself
15 for going in and making the repairs and doing the work.
16 MS. BELL: That seems like it might be
17 logical since this system is going to be, as we've heard
18 Glen say, you know supposedly it's going to be helping quite
19 a bit. It's going to be preventing flooding. It's going to
20 be cleaning up the water, you know, if it can't be done
21 because there's no funds, or there's not a mechanism there
22 with the Homeowners Association to complete that, I think
23 there should be something in place to help maintain that
24 for, you know, for a reasonable period of time.
25 MR. BYRNE: Well, didn't we hear that the
112
1 been good, and you don't see it happening, but you know, you
2 only have to go back to the 180s and it did happen quite
3 frequently.
4 MS. BELL: So that question is kind of up in
5 the air. I think I heard you say it might be possible for
6 us to put some sort of condition in there that would be part
7 of the agreement?
8 MR. DUVAL: Yes, you could. I guess what I'm
9 struggling with is, what should the terms of that condition
10 be? How is the City going to draft it into its development
11 agreement to be effective in a practical way to enforce, you
12 know, what your concerns are. And I understand your
13 concerns, it's just something we haven't done before, at
14 least I haven't been involved in.
15 Ms. BELL: It's not like it's just.a pump.
16 It's a pump. It's a wall. I mean it's, as has been
17 testified to tonight, there's a lot of parts to this system
18 which makes it a hole, which makes it work. And so, you
19 know, I'm pretty sure it will be. fine for five years or so
20 -- ten years, who knows. Then there will be that inevitable
21 point down the road where things are not working and, you
22 know, how does that all happen?
23 MR. DUVAL: Is what your thinking about is.
24 requiring an initial deposit of some sum of money.into --
25 MS. BELL: Yeah. Like in a mitigation fund.
111
1 have changed. Situations have changed. The Board last year
2 -- two years ago decided that in order to take care of the
3 landscaping that's in the medians along the street, that we
4 would go out and purchase raw irrigation water and see that'
5 it got piped into the system that feeds that, and so yeah,
6 I think Homeowners Associations can be responsible.
7 And I would ask Bob and John, what do you
8 find that when Homeowner Associations are formed and the
9 covenants are correctly written, do they frequently fail to
10 perform?
11 MR. DUVAL: Sometimes. That depends on the
12 economic situation. There are certainly lots of examples in
13 the recent economic bad times in the 180s when a lot of
14 Homeowners Associations did fail. By that situations where
15 you saw homes and condominiums and so forth being foreclosed.
16 upon, and it was, you know, it was a pretty terrible
17 situation.
18 So it's always possible that things can fall
19 apart. So there's no guarantees that the Homeowners
20 Association will always be there and will always make the
21 right decisions.
22 MR. CHAPMAN: I guess I was asking for some
23 kind of an assessment as to -- not whether or not it was
24 possible, but is it frequent?
25 MR. DWAL: Well, in recent years things have
110
1 MR. DUVAL: Yeah. You're talking, you know,
2 30, 40, 50, -- I don't know how many years, but it could be
3 difficult to try to figure that all out in the beginning
4 here.
5 MS. BELL: I just know that in the
6 neighborhood that I lived in for seven years or so, we.ended
7 up having some significant storm drainage issues from the --
8 what happened at the time of development -- some things that
9 did not get done properly. And, you know, it was a
10 significant amount of money that homeowners were then
11 assessed to have to take care of this problem.
12 And. that just really seems like a burden
13 that's not fair. And I might be sort of leaping into
14 something.here, but I mean it's part of the report and I'm
15 trying to understand, especially it was brought up in the
16 testimony tonight about these -- are supposed to be
17 affordable. What are the dues going to need to be like in
18 order to maintain someone professional.
19 This person is going to have to be fairly
20 professional I think to handle this. I don't know. I'm
21 seeing all kinds of heads shaking. Does.anybody have a
22 response to that? Okay. Go ahead.
23 MR. CHAPMAN: I'm also on the Board of
24 Directors for our Homeowners Association, and it's been in
25 existence for, I guess, eight or nine years. Board members
109
1 And in my mind it would be a much more
2 prudent kind of thing to set up some sort of a fund. And I
3 don't even know, John, if this is possible, but I'm going to
4 float this out there, some sort of a fund by the applicant
5 that would pay for the ongoing services of somebody
6 knowledgeable in this besides a Homeowners Association, to
7 try to, you know, monitor this and educate people, and
8 monitor pond discharge, track the effectiveness of the pest
9 man.
10 I mean, this is pretty extensive what we are
11. talking about here, and I'm sorry but I just don't see the
12 typical Homeowners Association being able, on a long-term
13 basis, they might be able to pull it off initially, with the "
14 initial Board and whatnot, but it will get lost., So, John,
15 is there -- is it possible for us to put some sort of a --
16 it would be like a fund of some sort, you know.
17 MR. DUVAL: Well, this is probably something
18 that would be -- if you've made it a condition of your
i
19 approval, it's something that would have to be negotiated
20 and probably set forth in the development agreement. And,
21 you know, it's theoretically possible that you could. You
22 set up a fund of some kind. You can get into issues of how
23 much is it going to be. A long a period of time is it going
24 to be needed for.
25 MS. BELL: Forever, I guess.
108
1 the slides,
you know, you don't
feel like it's coming in on
2 you or it's
surrounding you. I
think it makes it feel open,
3 and I think
that's the way we are
going to perceive it.
4
MR. GAVALDON: So
the one at Scenic View is
5 going to be
as open in relative
size?
6
MR. VEIO: Right.
I say it's going to feel
7 much more open
because it's not
as deep and the relative
8 size would
be about two thirds of.the size of the base we
9 saw in that set of slides.
10 MS. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you very much.
11 MR. VEIO: Thank you.
12 MS. BELL: I have another. I don't know
13 whether it's a question, comment or what, about this
14 Homeowners Association responsibility, but I've read through
15 this. I've lived in a number of neighborhoods with
16 Homeowners Associations. I've been on the Board of
17 Homeowners Associations before.
18 And Boards change, and oh my goodness, all
19 sorts of things happen, and you very easily, I know from
20 definite experience, lose track of what is a really pretty
21 specific plan here for a Homeowners Association to have to
22 deal with, and I don't know. I don't know what I want to
23 say about that except I'm rather skeptical and need to have
24 a little bit more assurance about how this is all.going to
25 be monitored.
107
1 very similar. It's not going to look at lot different.
2 MR. GAVALDON: Even though the acreage is
3 almost 5X, so your taking the depth compared to the slope
4 and you're saying well, we got two thirds comparison but in
5 actuality, you are almost 5X. I'm just trying to understand
6 this so I can make a reasonable judgment.
7 MR. VEIO: Well, if I had a blackboard, I'd be
8 happy to show you how you calculate volume. You have an
9 inverted pyramid. And as you go up the inverted pyramid,
10 all your volume is up at the top, so that's where that pond
11 creates a significant amount of more volume than our pond
12 does, but at'the base it's only maybe a third bigger than
13 ours.
14 MR. GAVALDON: So you're looking at the
15 bottom like at the bow portion of it?
16 MR. VEIO: Right. That's maybe a third larger
17 than what we are taking about.
18 MR. GAVALDON: Is that consistent in
19 comparison?
20 MR. VEIO: I think it is,. I think you got a
21 good feel for it.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Even though 30 feet versus say
23 16 feet?
24 MR. VEIO: I think the 30 feet feels maybe
25 more ominous, feels taller -- irrelevant, but I think from
106
1 retention pond.may not have .been a fair comparison.
2 Is there something closer to the size of this
3 that you can elaborate on. Because I feel that there is
4 some concerns about that so I can get that addressed.
5 MR. VEIO: I think the easiest way to make
6 this comparison is that we measure both ponds in terms of
7 acre feet. So the pond -in Denver was 75 acre feet but you
8 got to remember, it's 30 feet deep.. So it's nearly twice,;,
9 the depth as the pond we are proposing and as these ponds go
10 up at a..four to one slope, the bulk of volume is about
11 15 foot to 30 foot.
12 If we took it on a square footage basis,. and
13 we looked at actual bottom of the ponds, we estimate is
14 about two thirds the size of those slides.
15 MR. GAVALDON: But it just seems by sheer
16 numbers there is a discrepancy, and it's significant in
17 size. Is there an example in Denver that is closer to this
18
to compare to?
19
MR.
VEIO: I suppose there is. I don't
have a
20
list of them, so I
couldn't tell you off -hand.
21
MR.
GAVALDON: Because I'm trying to
compare
22
apples to apples,
and I think I have an orange.
23
MR.
VEIO: Well, the square footage
on the
24
base of the pond that we showed you in the slides .is
about
25
-- our pond would
be about two thirds of that size,
so it's
105
1 area, and the two to .three foot depth area is the water
2 quality volume. So you would have water standing in there
3 periodically, but it wouldn't be a permanent pool.
4 MR. VEIO: Perhaps I could clarify this, too.
5 MS. BELL: It's on page 12 of your report.
6 MR. VEIO: In that design, theoretically
7 wetlands take'two feet to three feet, but analyzing our site
8 we really only need to have about that much water on a
9 regular basis to keep the wetlands going. So you don't
10 really have to have, two or three feet, but the retention
11 pond volume is deep enough, it's two or three feet.
12 And we think only a couple of inches are
13 going to be necessary in there to get that wetlands to
14 habitate. If we find that that's not going to do it, then
15 we have two to three feet of capacity to add additional
16 water.
17 MR. CHAPMAN: That helps. Thank you.
18 MS. BELL: So there's a potential that there
19 could be two to four feet of water? You're hoping not, but
20 there could be? Okay.
21 MR. GAVALDON: I have one final question.
22 This is going back to the comparison that was shared in the
23 slides, the Denver example. It appears, from some
24 citizen's views, that an example of this magnitude in Denver,
25 almost five times what we have here, this example of
104
1 would be basically three feet above that, and then it
2 flattens out. That part is intended to be dry most of the
3 time, other than during floods.
4 MS. BELL: Okay. Any other questions related
5 to that?
6
MR.
CHAPMAN:
Roger, I'm sorry, I had
7
difficulty
following that.
The very bottom of the retention
8
pond, as
I understand it will be sort of a triangular shape
9
permanent
wetlands.
And what's the depth of that water?
10
MR.
MEADEN:
That would be where you'd be
it
about 16
feet from
there to
the very top.
12
MR.
CHAPMAN:.
The depth of water?
13
MR.
MEADEN:
The depth of the water is
14
basically
going to
be zero.
You might have an inch or so
15 there.
16 MR. CHAPMAN: So there wouldn't be a
17 permanent wetland?
18 MR. MEADEN: It will be a wetland, but not a
19 permanent standing water.
20 MR. CHAPMAN: In the report that we.received
21 here, I thought that it said there would be two to three
22 feet of water normally standing in that bottom wetland
23 treating area; is that incorrect?
24
MR. MEADEN:
Yes. That
would
be. It's the
25
wetland bottom itself would
be bottom
of that
water quality
103
1 MR. MEADEN: Yeah. Basically, the area in
2 the bottom of the water quality area of the pond is intended
3 to be flat. There wouldn't be any standing water per se, or
4 we are not designing to hold any certain amount of standing
5 water. Realistically overtime, you're going to have some
6 high spots and things that will develop, so you might have
7 like an inch or two of water standing or something like
8 that. But it's not something that's intended to hold any
9 certain depth or anything. It's intended to be flat.
10 MS. BELL: So you're saying an inch or two of
it water will maintain the wetlands to the degree that they
12 need to be functional?
13 MR. MEADEN: Right. It's intended to be a
14 flat bottom, basically. And over time, it will develop some
15 high spots and low spots and things. So realistically
16 you'll have maybe -- you might have an inch of water, or two
17 inches of water standing in portions of it or something like
18 that. But most of it will not be standing water, and won't
19 be dry either. It will be relatively soggy in the very
20 bottom part.
21 MS. BELL: So from the center on out, how
22 many feet are we kind of talking about?
23 MR. MEADEN: The very bottom is sized at
24 about 8100 feet, which is intended to offset the loss of
25 wetlands. And then remaining portions of the pond, which
102
1 example. It's not a wetland though. It's just a detention.
2 MR. SCHLUETER: A good example that's real
3 similar to this is in the Nelson Pond -- Nelson Pond --
4 Nelson Farm Pond, that's what it's called. And it's got a
5 wetland in the center of it. It's got water in it all the
6 time. We mow up to the edges. He leaves like -- I think
7 it's a 10 foot buffer around it so that the geese aren't
8 constantly walking out onto peoples' lawns and that kind of
9 stuff.
10 We have several of those around town. In
11 fact, we may be going back and retrofitting a lot of our
12 detention ponds. and putting in a extended_ detention
13 component as�part of our water quality when we reach in
14 100,000.
15 MS BELL: And this Nelson Pond, is that a
16 recreation?
17 MR. SCHLUETER: It's an open space similar to
18 this one for the residents around there.
19 MS. BELL: So it's used in a recreational
20 fashion?
21 MR. SCHLUETER: Right. And it's all dry land
22 grass, and it's mowed only four times a year, I think four
23 or five times a year.
24 MS. BELL: Could you address this issue of
25 how much water you're thinking to have.
101
1 filtration, the water cannot get out of there unless it's
2 pumped, so that way they can control the amount of water in
3 there, and at the same time, have a good viable source of
4 water to support the wetland.
5 MS. BELL: So the answer is, yes? There will
6 always be some amount of water in there because .there has to
7 be in order for there to be a wetland, and for it to
8 -function properly. But because there will be a pump there,
9 it will keep it at an adequate depth, so that it shouldn't
10 be dangerous.
11 MR. SCHLUETER: That's correct.
12 MS. BELL: And what would that adequate depth
13 be, that it will be at most of the time? I guess it would
14 -- what you're saying then is it would be at this depth at'
15 all times except when we have a storm event, at which point
16 it would be more than that.
17 MR. SCHLUETER: I guess I would have to defer
18 that to Roger, what he's expecting to keep for a' depth.
19 Most of our ponds, they fluctuate so much, that I don't know
20 what he's planning to do here.
21 MS. BELL: Of course, that's what's unique
22 about this compared to what we talk about. in other parts of
23 the city is that there really is this groundwater thing,
24 and it isn't -- they're trying to make a wetland out of it
25 like over in Oakridge where we got kind of a similar
100
1 on for the next couple of minutes is this issue of the
2 groundwater. It's been a little unclear all evening, and
3 it's really what the neighborhood brings up quite a bit is
4 this issue. Is there really going to be because the ground
5 water is quite high, and that's a point of record, I guess.
6 In the digging of this; and even after that,
7 is it logical to believe that there's pretty much always
8 going to be water at least in a portion of this, which would
9 make the bottom portion, that 16 foot portion, at least,
10 pretty much kind of muddy, like I think Mary -- I forget
11 which person was talking about that kind of sloping down in
12 there and. would it always be kind of boggy in there?
13 MR. SCHLUETER: Okay. Actually on the four
14 to oneslope, that's why we have a four to one slope because
15 you can walk on it, you can mow it with a big tractor. You
16 don't have to worry about tipping it over, that sort of
17 thing. So as far as slipping down into this thing, it's
18 like walking anywhere on the slope.
19 There is the lower part. The pond is
20 intended to be wet to support the wetland habitat and the
21 plants in there. The water -- the groundwater source to
22 feed that is.not coming from the bedrock. It's coming from
23 the D-watering system on the site. So it is groundwater
24 surface water on the site that will feed that part of the
25 pond. And without the bottom being opened to the
40
1 shown from the proposed detention pond to the existing
2 drainage system, which abuts my property.
3 And those signatures were not obtained. This
4 error should have kept the project from proceeding to the
5 preliminary hearing of this Board. It is an integral part
6 of that level of hearing before this Board. And it is
7 integral to the real planning of such a large scale project.
8 But rather than conjecturing on how that
9 happened, or placing blame for it, it would be more to the
10 point as to what should have been done to correct it, rather
11 than taking the proper action which would have been to start
12 over again. With that important required element in place,
13 the,Storm Drainage Utility has chosen to offer so-called
14 solutions to the developer that are, in their own words,
15 temporary, bad solutions.
16 But that continued to receive that
17 department's approval stamps, including the big hole before
18 you tonight. Our position is this: This project should
19 have been rejected, sent back to the point where it should
20 have been in the beginning with the requirement that the
21 storm drainage easements be in place as a first step in
22 really planning this project.
23 An important correlating point proceeds from
24 the generations of temporary solutions that have since been
25 divined to the- storm drainage problem. The small detention
39
1 About traffic congestion, flow patterns, and
2 safety, noise and stress levels. The storm drainage runoff
3 from this project was questioned at that time. These issues
4 were addressed by the City Planning Staff and approved as
5 being in compliance by this Board. But specifically, the
6 designated park area was a completely different picture than
7 what is being passed for one tonight.
8 Also, questions concerning the need for an
9 Overall Development Plan, met with somevery difficult to
10 understand and rather shaky procedures. It's most important
11 that the Storage Drainage Utility stamp required to bring
12 this project to preliminary hearing was granted in error.
13 Because there never was a continuant easement granted
14 contrary to information provided by the developer.
15 This error should. have kept this project from
16 proceeding to the preliminary hearing of this Board. And I
17 note, for the record, the project comment sheet, this one is
18 dated 3-14-96 to Mitch Haas, the planner at the time, and I
19 think this was from Matthew Fater, I can't really read the
20 signature.
21 But it does state that a letter of intent
22 from each affected party owner is needed by the plan
23 revision date, here noted as April 3, 196. And that off-
24 side drainage construction easements are needed for the
25 construction of this swale. The design of the swale must be
38
1 part the official record for the final hearing of this
2 project. That all of those points remain a concern to the
3 neighborhood. I will review those. points which we maintain
4 are grounds to deny final approval of this project. And we,
5 therefore, ask that a motion be made to that effect.
6 Our points that night and this evening fall
7 into two categories. The first being the failure to follow
8 prescribed City rules of procedure as it applies.to the
9 elements of the LDGS. And the second category of concerns
10 relate to the substantive issues which are parts of this
11 project and which we feel strongly put the neighborhood at
12 risk.
13 The categories are very much related and
14 overlap. We shall address the procedural concerns first.
15 Some history -- please carefully note that the plan before
16 you tonight up for approval is a,significantly different
17 plan from the one that we saw at the so-called neighborhood
18 meeting, held more than a year ago on January 18th 196.
19 It's also a very altered plan from the one
20 that was granted conditional preliminary approval by this
21 Board way back on Earth Day, April 22nd of 196. It's a
22 matter of record that at both of those meetings, citizens
23 raised numerous questions about neighborhood compatibility
24 of such a huge density. About the inevitable loss of
25 irreplaceable wetlands and wildlife.
36
1 make.
2 MS. BELL: Okay. If we hear some new
3 information we will, of course, do that. Okay. We are now
4 ready to hear from the public on this matter. Now I
5 understand that we have a video that we're -- that the Board
6 is going to want to see. And so what I'm wanting to know
7 is, do you have -- is this video part of the organized
8 neighborhood presentation, or is it separate from that?
9 Do we have people that want to speak on their
10 own behalf, or those who represent a group? What are we
11 looking at? Okay. There's two people who want to speak on
12 their own behalf -- four people who want to speak on their
13 own behalf. Is there anybody else? Five people? Okay. So
14 we have the video and then five people who want to talk?
15 Is that what it's kind of looking -like?
16 Okay. Why don't we begin then with the video -- oh, what?
17 Okay. Keep in mind, I think the video runs nearly the 30
18 minutes in length, so if you could just keep your, remarks
19 brief that's fine.
20 MR. HAZEL: My name is Steve Hazel, and I'm
21 here representing Dennis Stinson. Dennis is acting as the
22 authorized designated speaker for the Rogers Park
23 Neighborhood Group. Unfortunately, he's out of town and
24 unable to attend this evening. So prepared this video for
25 review by the Board in advance, and turned it over to us to
35
1 those are. That gets a little too technical.
2 MR. GAVALDON: What is the percentage of
3 usage available to the Denver retention pond as you had said
4 some 97 percent here, your projections?
5 MR. VEIO: Let me answer that a little•more
6 clearly. I'm going to bore you to death with these charts.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Just a summary will be fine.
8 MR. VEIO: In our pond, as an example, what we
9 did is we looked at the rainfall that occurs in Fort Collins
10 on that site month by month. And what we find is that
11 71 percent of the time that pond is dry. And when we
12 compare the Fort Collins rainfall patterns to Denver
13 rainfall patterns, they're almost identical. The only
14 difference is in April and May.
15 April and May we get a little more snowfall
16 here and a little more water in April and May, but the rest,
17 of summer we get a little less water than Denver does. So I
18 would say the impacts -- the usage of that pond is about the
19 same as we have here, almost identical
20 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
21 MS. BELL: Okay. Are there any other Board
22 questions or can we move on to public input? Okay. Thank
23 you.
24 MR. VEIO: I would -- Madam Chairman I like to
25 be able to respond to any of the comments that the -neighbors
34
1 bottom of the pond shortly after it gets excavated and
2 planted. Where most of the water is going to come from on
3 our site is from CSU. This table that we have up here shows
4 the impact of CSU's water on our site. Now remember, I said
5 that 91 percent of the storm events do not create on -site
6 water on our site.
7 What we're seeing here is we're getting 21
8 inches of water in that pond. That's CSU's water. That's
9 water that should have an easement, but doesn't. It comes
10 to my site. I've got to do something with it. So I'm'
it putting it in this retention pond. And I can pump that
12 water out in 7 hours. And with the 24-hour delay, I can
13 pump it out of there in 31 hours.
14 So again, we are right back to having a
15 recreation base in that basin very quickly. Yes.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Back to your Denver example.
17 Is this similar impacts from another large area that you're
18 mentioning that CSU is impacting this area. Is there
19 comparing data?
20 MR. VEIO: Yes and no. That particular site
21 also has a canal that is adjacent to it. It has a
22 substantial amount of runoff like we're getting from CSU,
23 and we've got to put it somewhere. And that's one of the
24 purposes of that pond. It's a place to hold it. The
25 release rates and all that I can't see how comparable all
33
1 park very quickly again.
2 We can get into how often it rains and how
3 many days -- I don't want to get into all that. When we --
4 am I getting too much detail for you?
5 MS. BELL: No. What I'm also curious about
6 is, we have a lot of testimony about high groundwater, and
7 so I'm presuming that there should.always be some kind of
8 wetness if you're going down 12 or 16 feet in the area, when
9 we heard it's wet 18 inches. So could you address that?
10 MR. VEIO: Sure. I don't have that slide up.
it When we build the retention pond, basically we are
12 excavating a hole all around the perimeter. And when we .,
13 excavate that hole, we build the slurry wall that Glen was
14 referring to. This is a concrete wall that goes down eight
15 feet below the groundwater: Below the earth surface and
16 down into the' bedrock.
17 And what it does is, it builds a wall, a•
18 permanent wall around the base of the basin. So the water
19 can't come in, and water can't come up. It keeps the water
20 out. And it will still be moist in there probably because
21 it will take a while for it to dry out over time. But
22 basically the groundwater is not going to come up there
23 because the water goes down -- the wall goes down into the
24 bedrock and the water cannot go through the bedrock wall.
25 So the groundwater will disappear in the
32
1 the public hasn't seen, or had a chance to really study.
2 The first table here shows that if you add -- to get the
3 amount of runoff -- to get actually enough water from the
4 storm water, to create any level of depth of water, you have
5 a half an inch of rainfall.
6 And what we see when we look at the rainfall
7 statistics for this area is that 57 percent and 33.8 percent
8 or 90.9 percent of all the storm events in Fort Collins do
9 not generate enough water for runoff from the actual site
10 itself. So 90 percent of the storms that we get, or 90
11 percent of the storm days we don't have any runoff from our
12 site; however, when we look at the next 6.6 percent.of the
13 storms, then we are getting between a half inch and one inch
14 of water on the ground.
15 And that translates into a pond depth of one
16 foot. So in six percent of the storms, we have one foot of
17 water all across the park.
18 MS. BELL: What do you mean all across --
19 MR. VEIO: The wetlands area. And you have a
20 foot above that all the way across the detention area. .Now
21 with the pumping system there we're proposing that would
22 take about an hour and a half to get rid of that water,
23 that's it. So if you. have a foot of water with the pumping
24 system that we have, in an hour and a half it's gone. So
25 what that means is that we are going to get the use of that
31
1 MS. BELL: Presumably, the high water table
2 also helps take care some of that?
3 MR. VEIO: I'm sorry, I didn't here you.
4 MS. BELL: The high water table also provides
5 more of a moist soil condition than --
6 MR. VEIO: That's true. When we put the
7 slurry wall in, it will tend to dry up the groundwater, but
8 it's still going to be fairly moist at the base. It will
9 stay that way. .
10 MS. BELL: So some of the questions that you
11 didn't answer yet, are related to how much water will be
12 there when. So if you could address these, I think those
13 are primary concerns of the Board and the neighborhood the
14 time before.
15 MR. VEIO: Okay.
16 MS. BELL: In easy to understand language.
17 MR. VEIO: You're asking for a lot.
18 MS. BELL: I guess to make it simple for my
19 understanding is -- I would imagine there would be different
20 water amounts in the created wetlands versus the detention,
21 being that there might be more water more often in that
22 16-foot portion than in the 12-foot portion. Is that a
23 logical assessment?
24
MR.
VEIO:
That's true, that's
true. What I
25
have here are some
tables
to -- that you may
have seen, but
1 MR. CHAPMAN: Okay. The other point I wanted
2 to make, you're talking about making tables out of metal.
3 I've seen some neat concrete ones that might be a thought.
4 MR. VEIO: We thought those would be ideal for
5 the picnic benches, they're heavy, they don't go anywhere,
6 you can anchor them down, and I haven't seen a pavilion
7 where they've done those that I like the aesthetics of it,
8 but I'd certainly be open to that.
9 MR. CHAPMAN: That's all I had. Thank you.
10 MR. BYRNE: You mentioned grass as far as
11 lining the pond, would that necessarily have to be irrigated
12 then, or how do you keep the grass alive?
13 MR. VEIO: The grass is -- first of all you
14 have the natural rainfall in the area which will keep it
15 going, obviously.. You have two sources of water on the
16 site. You'have the storm water which comes across the canal
17 and hits the riprap just on the embankment on this side of
18 the canal. Then it drains down here into this wetlands
19 area.
20
There is this other storm water pipe
that
21
does the
same thing from the opposite direction, so
you have
22
it being
fed by those two pipes. In addition to that, we
23
have an
irrigation well on our property that allows
us to
24
irrigate
all this property if that amount of water
isn't
25
sufficient.
29
1 ground.
2 The run off from the CSU Equine Center comes
3 across the road in a ditch, runs through a little wetland,
4 and then ends up either soaking into the ground or going
5 into the canal?
6
MR. VEIO: That's right.
7
MR. CHAPMAN: In the proposal that
you have
8
before us, the
rain that falls on the property will
9
essentially fall
on impervious services, run off
into the
10
grass swells,
be cleaned up to some extent there,
and then
11
drop into the
retention pond and be cleaned up further.
So
12
it won't soak
into the ground perhaps as much --
or it will
13
not soak into
the ground as much as it does now,
but will
14
end up the ditch, cleaned, as will be the Equine
Center
15
water.
16 MR. VEIO: That's right.
17 MR. CHAPMAN: Is that a good summary?
18 MR. VEIO: That',s a very good summary: The
19 only thing I would add to that is in a storm -- a.heavy
20 storm condition, in the existing state, you get a lot of
21 overflow into the canal, and onto the adjacent properties.
22 That will not happen with this design.
23 MR. CHAPMAN: There will be flood mitigation
24 as a part of that.
25 MR. VEIO: Absolutely
28
1 MR:.VEIO: There's a maintenance man that's
2 responsible for the entire site. Because of the size of the
3 development and number of homes that will be there, a
4 maintenance man can be on -site all the time as a resident
5 there. And one of their duties -- we have a long list of
6 duties that are identified, as well as spelled out in the
7 Storm Water Quality Management Report.
8 And. their duties are to check the pumps on a
9 regular basis, especially before we head into the rainy
10 season, and to make sure that they're operative. And then
11 if they're not, the ditch company suggested the first thing
12 you do is, you call me. And the ditch rider will be down
13 there in a flash. And if he cannot solve it, he said to
14 call this gentleman over here.
15 So there is a procedure, a definite
16 procedure, to make sure those things are always operative.
17 MR. GAVALDON: So that would be a part of the
18 homeowner's bylaws or declarations?
19 MR. VEIO: That's correct.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you.
21 MR. CHAPMAN: Just a couple of -- really one
22 clarification, I guess, and then a point. Currently, when
23 it rains, the water runs across an open field that has some
24 grass in it, and eventually ends up in -- whatever runs off
25 into the canal. Some of it, no doubt, soaks into the
27
1 MR. VEIO: I think the depths are very
2 realistic.. I think the slides give you a very accurate feel
3 of what that depth feels like, and it doesn't feel like
4 you're down here in some coal mine or tunnel, you just don't
5 feel that way.
6
MR.
GAVALDON: Do you have similar prevention
7
techniques in Denver
that you have -- that your proposing
8
for the Fort
Collins
retention pond?
9
MR.
VEIO: Prevention in terms of what?
10
MR.
GAVALDON: The walls, the pumps --
11
MR.
VEIO: Yes, yes --
12
MR.
GAVALDON: Similar apparatus -- go ahead.
13
MR.
VEIO: Yes. In the State Water Quality
14
Control Act,
once
a city reaches 100,000 in population, as
15
of the 1990
census,
then it becomes subject to a lot of
16
these improvements
that we are talking about here. Only
17
three cities
in Colorado meet that test: Denver, Lakewood,
18
and Aurora.
Fort
Collins will be having to meet that test
19
in the year
2,000
at the next census.
20
So
these standards don't apply to all the
21 municipalities as yet.
22 MR. GAVALDON: So on at the pumps and the
23 information that you had shared, what is the -- has there
24 - been any data about breakdowns, or any problems with impacts
25 on this retention pond in Denver?
26
1 detail, but I think that will give you the idea. Thank you.
2 MS. BELL: That concludes your presentation
3 then?
4 MR. VEIO: Yes.
5 MS. BELL: Are there questions by the Board?
6 MR. GAVALDON: I have one question if I may
7 ask._ The Denver example, what is the square footage of that
8 that you showed in your slides?
9 MR.•VEIO: I don't know the square footage.
10 They measure them in acre feet. That particular pond is
11 about five times the size of ours.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Our's is 167,000 square feet
13 according to the drawings.
14 MR. VEIO: I go by acre feet. So --
15 MR. GAVALDON: So what is Fort Collins then?
16 I don't have it.
17 MR. VEIO: Ours .is about 14.2 acre feet, I
18 believe.
19 MR. GAVALDON: 14.2. So it's over 60 acre
20 feet the Denver one?
21 MR. VEIO: It's around 70-something acre feet.
22 MR. GAVALDON: 77 something. So the
23 perceptions and the depth and all that is somewhat relative?
24 Is that a fair assumption that you share -- that you agree
25 with?
25
1 worse than 100-year storm, we will never have water going
2 down the natural channel and flooding people down the
3 stream.
4 The major benefit to the city and to the
5 residents here of this type of system, is that you get
6 better water quality that's going into the canal than you
7 have now. And it's a flood control measure. And the city's
8 own studies for the West Palm Basin, the engineering
9 consultants estimated that it was going to cost $2.7 million
10 in property damage downstream over the next 50 years by
li putting the retention pond in.
12 We don't have that problem. It will not _
13 happen. All those residents will be saved that anxiety,
14 that trouble, that property damage. There are other
15 elements here that impact water quality. The water quality
16 outlet structure itself sits at the bottom of the wetlands
17 area. There is a riser pipe here that's perforated.
18 The size of these holes are determined
19 through other very complex engineering calculation to trap
20 particulate and filter water. In addition to that, we have
21 a steel mesh skimmer. We have gravel filters. So the water
22 that will pass through into this pipe and go into the canal
23 is much cleaner than it is today. So that's kind of a
24 summary.
25 We can talk about a lot of those things in
24
1 activity.
2 This little seven horsepower pump will get
3 rid of any water. Then there's a big, big guy here when we
4 get the flood. And that will pump it out at a very fast
5 rate, but it could take 8 hours to 24 hours depending on how
6 bad the storm was. Then we have grass swells that we are
7 putting in, again; these are kind of depressions in a
8 V-shape that trap storm water, stop particulates. They rest
9 in the grass, and those that don't, will gradually work
10 themselves down into a detention area.
11 We have an underground storm sewer pipe that
12 traps the water from CSU. The big problem with the
13 development site isn't so much the water that we are trying
14 to trap for our development, but it's all the water from
15 CSU.
16 CSU has never obtained an easement to drain
17 across this. property. We've discussed the issue with them.
18 We're getting somewhere, but we are not there yet. So what
19 we did is we designed this facility to capture all of CSU's
20 water, treat it, put it back into the canal for future use
21 downstream.
22 This detention pond as it now sits will hold
23 the 100-year storm. Twice the 100-year storm for our site,
24 and once the 100-year storm for the CSU water that comes
25 across. So we will never have, unless we have something
22
1 We can do this with our marketing program
2 where the ads will run in the newspaper. The public
3 relation's articles that we will be writing, talking about
4 how the canal is a natural resource and how to look at it,
5 and how to .treat it. And then as we leave the project,
6 hopefully after it sells out, our Homeowners Association can
7 continue that message through. all the residents, the
8 visitors that come there, and literature they pass out.
9 And the city has an excellent series of
10 pamphlets that address these issues about water quality and
it what not to do, and how to treat pesticides and so on. And
12 what you are to do with cans and aerosols and, things like
13 that. That's all in a series of seminars that we'd be
14 putting on for residents.
15 So that's block number one. Block number
16 two, public and resident education. Is that sharp enough
17 for the audience to see? I wear glasses. I'm not a good
18 judge here. Is that better? Good. Okay.
19 MS. BELL: I just like to let you know that
20 you have about nine minutes.
21 MR. VEIO: Nine minutes? Okay. Thank you.
22 My engineer, Roger Meaden, is with J.R. Engineering and he's
23 in the audience here, and he can answer any technical
24 questions after I get through, maybe.when there's .a
25 cross-examination period. The bike paths that we're putting
Ta7
1 and they'll still stand up against a bad flood.
2 The other thing I learned is that as I
3 watched these people in the pond, they make a trip all the
4 way around the pond. And some of them come in from
5 different directions and access it and go down in the pond,
6 and they like•the idea of going around it. In our current
7 design that we propose to you, we only show one access point
8 and one handicap trail going down to the base of the basin.
9 And I think what we need to do is to wrap
10 that around its slopes, and actually cut out a handicap trail
11 in the slopes, and wrap it around both sides, and then kind
12 of serpentine down on the base. And I can show you a sketch
13 of that if you like to see that. But I think it's real
14 important that people circulate through the pond, rather
15 than have it just go down to the bottom like we have it now.
16 Okay. So that's kind of my analysis of the
17 pond, and why I think it's a recreation facility. And I
18 think people will use it, and they'll have a lot of fun with
19 it. In the few minutes we have left, I'd like to give you a
20 quick overview -- what do we got here? We should have one
21 more slide. Well, let's try it this way -- there we go.
22 Okay. Now what we have here is what we call best management
23 practices. Now this is the kind of terminology that storm
24 water engineers use all throughout the country. .
25 And by best management practices, they're
19
1 up. So we would propose in our landscape plan, we would
2 change that and modify that so all the slopes would be
3 regular grass.
4 The other thing that the residents down there
5 mentioned was that they couldn't understand why we don't
6 have some kind of pavilion or covered area, so they could
7 get out of the sun on.a hot summer day or even out the
8 elements if things change. So one of the things that we
9 would propose in our plan, is putting a covered pavilion in
10 for picnic areas, for social gatherings, for family outings,
11 and things like that.
12
But we have to
make it out of
metal.. And I
13
noticed one of our meetings earlier tonight,
the metal is a
14
little sensitive depending on
where it goes.
The problem
15
that you get into is, that at
some point the
pond will have
16
water in it. There's going to be that 100-year flood or
17
that 50-year storm or 10-year
storm, and the
water is going
18 to rise.
19 And the residents said it only happened once
20 in Denver since they built it, but it rose, and it rose to
21 where you noticed there was a lot of water in there. So we
22 got to have something that will withstand that. Maybe it's
-
23 aluminum, or maybe it's a combination of some type of metal
24 that's impervious to rust,. or maybe it's fiberglass, where
25 we could put those pavilions out there and they can be used,
18
1 that -- are you going to put grass in that pond? And I
2 think in talking to our. neighbors here, plus the neighbors
3" that were there in Denver -- absolutely you have to plant
4 natural grass.
5 And the reason that you do is that the type
6 of wild grass that's in a lot of the ponds around town, if
7 you fall on it when you're a. little kid, it picks you. It
8 sticks right in your hands. It's abrasive, you know, it
9 shouldn't be allowed. We should put natural grass in there.
10 So one of the.things we learned from them, for sure, is that
11 all the grass on the bottom will be kind of a bluegrass or
12 kind of a fescue variety. And it will be soft just like a
13 regular park.
14 The other thing that happens is on the
15 slopes. These slopes are also planted with natural grass.
16 And one of the residents who lived across the street said --
17 I told her I was a developer, and I want to learn about this
18 thing and how to do it right. And she said, for Pete's
19 sake,• make the slopes grass too, so we can go out there with
20 a blanket, we can sit down, the kids can take a nap, we can
21 eat lunch, we can sit there and watch the view.
22 And in the wintertime, we can put our skis
23 on, we can go up or down or we can sled. The kids love to
24 sled here, but when they fall, even in the wintertime when
25 there's snow, on that natural grass, it just tears them all
17
1 to that direction, it goes to about 26 feet deep.
2 This is 10 to 15 feet deeper than the
3 detention pond that we're proposing. And I think if your
4 objective, and if you look at this pond, you have to agree
5 that what we're proposing can't possibly be anything other
6 than active recreation for kids or parents. Okay. This
7 distance right here is 26 feet. That's 10 feet to 12 feet
8 deeper than the park that we're proposing.
9 The total time that these people were in the
10 pond was less than an hour. They walked back out just a
11 different way that they came in. Now, they're up on the top
12 of the street there next to the houses, and they're walking
13 back home. Now one of the things that we learned -- I
14 interviewed these people because I wanted to see, as
15 neighbors, how do they use this park.
16 How often do they use it. How can it be
17 improved. How do they like it. And I learned something
18 there, and I learned that we need to make some changes in
19 the pond that we're proposing. The first thing that we
20 would do is that we don't want to plant natural grass. 'In
21 this park the City and County won a national award for --
22 for public works because it's a flood control pond.
23 They won a national award for this project.
24 They didn't plant any natural grass. And I think.one of the
25 things that came out in our meetings with the neighbors is
16
1 look like happy kids. They're using the detention basin as
2 a recreation area'as active open space. They're having fun,
3 and moms, they're back there, and they don't have a care in
4 the world. They don't have to worry about their kids like
5 they would in a park. Now there depth right here, by the
6 way, that's 20 feet. That's 20 feet..
7 So these people are walking at a depth of 20
8 feet below grade. And it's not objectionable space. Here
9 are the kids again. They're way out in front of mom. Mom's
10 way behind. You can't find them, and they're, safe. There's
it no cars, nothing to bother them. And now they're going
12 deeper into the detention pond. Now they're approaching the
13 depth of about 22 to 24 feet. And mind you, our pond at
14 this level is 12 feet maximum. So it isn't as deep.
15 Here's two other kids coming from the other
16 direction, so they're interacting. They're playing in the
17 basin. It is an active recreation open space. It doesn't
18 have to have the perception that we think it does. Now we
19 get an idea of the group. The kids were playing. They
20 slowed down. They waited for moms to catch up.
21 We've got two moms with two babies and two
22 strollers, four kids ahead of them, and then we had some
23 neighborhood kids that they were interacting with. The
24 depth here is 22 feet. Right there it's 30 feet deep all
25 along here. It goes from 30 feet maximum depth. As it goes
15
1 December. So it's a
nice gradual
slope,
and that's the
same
2 kind of walkway that
you're going
to see
in the bottom
of
3 our pond and going down into our. pond.
4 And as we see here, the couple, the two
5 parents with their.babies and children are making their way
6 down toward the bottom of the pond in the morning. Now here
7 comes another mom with her two kids walking down the bottom
8 of this pond, and it's 10:01, one minute later. So people
9 are using this in the middle of the day, and I didn't do any
10 kind of selective photography.
11 I just went over there in the morning and I
12 sat there and just said let's see what happens, and sure
13 enough people are using this place. And it's deeper, much
14 deeper than ours. The other thing that you notice here,
15 look how far ahead these kids are of mom. Two kids out
16 here, two kids out here, and when we see the close-up.
17 There's two moms there with two babies in strollers.
18 The point I'm trying to make is that children
19 in one of these basins, can fearlessly trot on ahead of
20 parents, and there's no danger from automobiles, there's no
21 danger from traffic, and there's no noise pollution. It's a
22 really quiet, safe place. And kids can run and play all day
23 long with no obstructions and no fear. Here's the little
24 kids that we're looking at off in the distance.
25 Now they look like normal kids to me. They
14
1 the basement -- or the basin bottom. This basin is a
2 minimum of 15 to 16 feet deep.
3 Now, that would be the maximum ours would be,
4 and that would only be in where we are treating the water
5 quality and the wetlands area. Overall, ours is about
6 it or 12 feet deep in the flat part, so it's 15 to 16 feet.
7 Now the pictures we're looking at, these ponds start at 15
8 to 16 feet, and they go to a depth of 29 to 30 feet deep.
9 And we'll see some close-ups of what that
10 relationship is between people who are using the park.
it These -pictures were taken 10:00 a.m., Thursday, of last
12 week. And what we see here -- what we see here are some
13 parents going down the handicap or bicycle trail like we
14 will have. And out in front of them quite a distance is two
15 small children.
16 Actually, at this distance you can't see them
17 too clearly, but.you will as we move on in the slides. Now
18 here at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, is a senior out there
19 doing a fast walk at 10:00 in the morning at the bottom of
20 the detention pond. Where you see him, that depth is 20
21 feet, so that's 8 feet taller than the dry area in our pond.
22 The other thing I'd like you to notice is
23 that these tree plantings are planted all along the slopes.
24 The slopes of this detention pond are the same as ours.
25 They're four to one., not two to one as presented back in
13
1 one thing we should talk about is what our
2 product's going to look like. You know, there's a lot of
3 concern about are we going to be devaluating the
4 neighborhood. There's been some properties that have been
5 recently built around the neighborhood that I'm not real
6 pleased with, and I want the neighbors to know that we are
7 going to build quality type of housing that you see here.
g This is what the bridge across the canal will
9 look like. It will have a Victorian theme as well as all
10 the architecture on the condominiums. We are going to
11 change the roof profile on the condominium buildings here.
12 They'll have more of a Victorian Farm Architecture to fit in
13 with the Fort Collins location where it's at..
14 And all the duplexes that will be built will
15 have brick fronts as you see here. It will look just like
16 this product. We don't intend to change that at all. Now,
17 what I would like to show you here are pictures of a
is detention pond that was built in the city/county of Denver
19 last year. It too, represents the current state of thinking
20 in detention pond design.
21 What I would like you to look at here is that
22 there are apartments and condominiums and homes which border
23 this.basin, much like our property. It has houses that are
24 built on three sides of this basin. What we are looking at
25 here is a picture of walkway or bikeway that leads down to
12
1 that there was a better understanding of how these things
2 work, how ponds work, and how the water would be treated,
3 how the quality of water would be improved over the existing
4 water that goes into the canal today.
5 That was the impression I had. Then from
6 that point, what we wanted to accomplish was to look at
7 compromise, perhaps in the site plan. Look at some of the
8 other issues that bothered the neighbors. The neighbors'
9 primary concern was the perception of this retention pond
10 being a huge hole in the ground that wasn't going to do
11 anybody any good, would be worthless, would be an eyesore .
12 and so on.
13 What I've done tonight is I have some slides
14 I'd like to show you what a retention pond like ours will
15 look like.. Whoops, wrong slide cassette. The other section
16 there. Sorry about that. We had three additional meetings
17 since February with the same three landowners. No further
18 representative from the Rogers Park Neighborhood, so I met
19 with Mrs. Anderson, her daughter, and Dennis Stinson.
20 And then our last meeting was with Mary's
21 daughter and her husband who really had some interesting
22 insights, and I think helped bring the issues together. Now
23 this is kind of an overview of all the different elements in
24 the water quality plan we have for the site. I'm going to
25 skip ahead, and we will come back to this later.
10
1 basin? Will it really function as a park? Will it look
2 like a park? Will people use it as a park? And then what
3 about water in this thing? Is it going to flow all the way
4 up the top all the time? How.often is water going to get in
5 it? Is it going to be a dangerous place, a safe place? How
6 is that going to work?
7 Well, in order to answer those questions, we
8 undertook a fairly extensive engineering analysis of the
9 site, and those issues, the water quality, storm water state
10 of the art design, and so on. And put together the Storm
it Water Quality Management Control Plan that you should have
12 had as part of your packet. as members.
13 I think the unfortunate thing is probably the.
14 audience may not have read that, or had a copy, of that, and
15 they're not familiar with a lot of the charts and tables.
16 And if we have time, I have copies -- overlays of all those
17 tables that we can get into maybe on rebuttal. The other
18 thing I like to talk about is the ongoing discussions we've
19 had.
20 I think one of the things that became very
21 clear to me is that we were supposed to come up with a
22 win -win situation for the neighbors and ourselves as
23 developers. Well, we spent the first month of January
24 really looking at the issues that you asked us to.look at
25 and tried to design the site so that we could answer the
E
1 MR. WARD: I'm Eldon Ward with Cityscape
2 Urban Design, the planning consultant on this item. And
3 most of my brief presentation has just been covered by staff
4 and the Board questions as Bob said. The basic planning
5 decisions, for the most part, were made with preliminary and
6 the final is in substantial conformance with the
7 preliminary.
8 To my knowledge, nothing on the site plan has
9 changed except the detail design around the detention pond.
10 And Bill Veio, the applicant, is going to give a detailed
11 presentation in that area. So there are other members of
12 the planning and engineering team that are here to answer
13 questions.
14 But I think Bill is going to give the more
15 detailed presentation on the specific issues that we're
16 still talking about that led to tabling it in December.
17 MR. VEIO: We have some slides that I hope
18 will give you an impression of what this retention pond will
19 look like, and then also explain how the water quality
20 features work on the site and so on. When we left our
21 meeting last December, we got a copy of videotape just to
22 make sure we understood what the issues were at that time.
23 And the issues, I felt, that we were supposed
24 to answer was the storm water quality retention basin
25 appearance. Now, how is this going to look as a retention
8
1 issues; isn't that correct?
2 MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. The land use was
3 decided at preliminary, so that's not an issue any more.
4 Basically the layout was decided at preliminary, and there
5 was some change in the design of the detention or retention
6 area that affected the layout. Those decisions had already
7 been made.
8 The December discussion focused on mostly the
9 storm water issues, and the water quality issues, and how
10 that pond was going to function. And whether or not a ten
11 feet deep hole was .really a recreation area.
12 MR. BYRNE: And then you mentioned there are
13 some differences, that I assume, that we're going to hear
14 about those as we go forward.
15 j. MR. BLANCHARD: Right. I've explained the
16 differences in the design of the pond, in terms of side
17 slopes depth, and if there's additional changes, I think the
18 applicant's consultant will make sure that you're aware of
19 those.
20 MR. BYRNE: Well, what I was referring to is
21 the differences between neighbors and -- those differences.
22 MR. BLANCHARD: Oh, you'll hear those.
23 MR. BYRNE: Okay.
24 MS. BELL: Okay. We're ready to move on to
25 the applicant's presentation then.
J
7
1 so it's going to be like a separate area where the water
2 can't infiltrate, and it can't go out either one. It will
3 be all controlled, and that cutoff wall will go down to
4 bedrock which is -- actually the pond goes even deeper than
5 bedrock, so it will be somewhat into bedrock. To give you
6 all the details, I think I'll let the applicant get into all
7 his charts and better diagrams of it. But that's pretty
8 much it in a nutshell. If you have any questions, I'll be
9 glad to answer them.
10 MR. BLANCHARD: Madam Chair, procedurally
11 too, the other point to make since the last hearing is that
12 our neighborhood resources center has facilitated at least
13 two neighborhood meetings with the applicant that I'm aware
14 of in an effort to resolve the issues, and they didn't work
15 out. And so that's why we're back here tonight with the
16 proposal as it's changed from the December meeting.
17 But there had been an effort to facilitate
18 and mediate some of the differences, and so there has been a
19 number of things going on in the interim two -month period
20 that you should be aware of also.
21 MS. BELL: Does the Board have any questions
22 of Glen or Bob right now?
23 MR. BYRNE: Just a point of clarification.
24 we continued this because some of the things.that.you just
25 mentioned, so what we are here to talk about are just those
C
1 MR. SCHLUETER: I was trying to find a design
2 or a site plan that would show it a little bit more clear.
3 I'll just describe it. Basically, what they've done there,
4 as you can see in your packet, there's the water quality
5 control plan that he has included in that. That is a pretty
6 comprehensive review of where water quality is these days.
7 And actually this is a very similar thing
8 that we are going to have in our manual, once is comes out
9 this year. As far as what he is doing on the site for water
10 quality, besides disconnection of impervious services on the
11 site -- which we haven't got a lot of that detail yet. But
12 the main part of the system would be the retention and part
13 of the component of -- I guess it's a retention, detention
14 pond depending on how you want to look at it.
15 That lower point of the pond will capture,
16 what we call a water capture volume, and treat it in that
17 part of the pond before it's pumped into the irrigation
18 ditch. And also the oils will be separated off, as well as
19 the sediments. So this is really pretty much the
20 state -of -art water quality as we know it today.
21 The additional issue was about ground
22 water -- because the groundwater we had seen slides before
23 where the groundwater was like 18 inches below the surface.
24 To address that, what they're planning to do is a cutoff
25 wall completely surrounding the pond, I guess you would say.
6.1
1. also.
2 The memorandum goes into the
definition of
3 the recreational use
from the guidance system.
And unless
4 there's questions on
that, I didn't intend
to go over that.
5 But what I did was --
I determined that it
was appropriate
6 to subtract and not
count the area that is
labeled as
7 created wetlands as part of the recreation space, so they
8 recalculated the total area, minus the created wetlands as
9 well as the side slope areas that were directly associated
10 with that area. They reduced the number of points claimed
11 for recreational uses from ten to eight. Still gave them a
12 total of a hundred and three points which allows them to
13 develop it over ten units per acre which was their request.
14 So unless there is specific questions on the recreational
15 interpretation, Glen can briefly summarize the storm water
16 related issues, and we can get right into the applicants
17 description or any Board questions that there might be.
18 MS. BELL: Excuse me, Bob, so just to make
19 sure that I understand you. In essence, you only used the
20 detention portion to calculate? You didn't use the side
21 slopes or the created wetland?
22 MR. BLANCHARD: I used the side slopes
23 associated with the detention area, but I subtracted those
24 that were associated directly with the wetland areas.
25 MS. BELL: Okay_.
4
1 analysis, take away a couple of points that had previously
2 been approved because of this .redesign; however, the fact is
3 that on the point chart he still obtains a total point count
4 that allows him to develop at the density that he's
5 requested, so it didn't impact that.
6 But to summarize real quickly the changes to
7 the pond that were submitted back to the City, the depth of,
8 the pond was increased, it had previously been 10 feet deep,
9 and it was increased to 12 feet. And the -- in an area that
10 on your large site plan handouts,. an area that was called
11 created wetlands. It actually is a depth 16 feet.
12 And what that's done is create a detention
13 area -- a detention area on the 12 foot depth. And the
14 retention area is focused into the wetland area at 16 feet.
15 The side slopes had been decreased. They had previously
16 been a two to one ratio, they're now a four to one ratio. A
17 five-foot path, walkway path, has been provided down the
18 sloped area on the north side of retention area to provide a
19 paved access to the part that we are calculating and
20 allowing the recreational points to be claimed for.
21 You might note on the site plan that the
22 landscaping had been rearranged slightly, but the fact is
23 that the numbers of types of trees have been retained from
24 the preliminary. And also the fact that a couple of picnic
25 tables have been added to the floor of the retention area
3
1 As you recall it, the December meeting when
2 this was continued, the specific discussion item centered
3 around the fact that the detention pond had turned into a
4 retention pond. And considered the design of that pond, and
5 focusing on the -- what I call the actual feasibility of the
6 pond, it's functionality, in other words, what impact does
7 the depth of the pond have on the groundwater?
8 Will the underdrain system back water into
9 the sanitary sewer bedding? In addition to that, which was
10 the primary discussion, there were a couple of additional.
11 issues that included the issue of water quality, the fact
12 that the water from the retention pond was to be pumped into
13 the ditch and the impact that would have on downstream
14 users.
15 And also the question came up about the
16 ability of retention pond to meet the requirements of the
17 residential uses point chart as it related to recreational
18 open space. What I like to do is discuss my interpretation
19 of the ability of that pond to meet the recreational active
20 open space parts of point chart and turn it over to
21 Glen Schlueter to discuss the groundwater issues and the
22 water quality issues real quickly._
23 The applicant made a number of changes in the
24 design of the retention pond that affects its recreational use.
25 And the ultimate result of that was that I did, in my
2
1 MS. BELL: We are ready to take up the matter
2 of Scenic Views PUD, final request. Bob?
3 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm going to step down because
4 I have a conflict of interest. I live in proximity to this
5 development and received notification, and I also have
6 problems with it. So I'm going to step down and play Joe
7 Citizen.
8 MS. BELL: Okay. I guess that leaves us
9 still with four, so we can make decisions, but just barely.
10 Okay. Well, let's begin then with a staff presentation to
11 bring us up to date on this project.
12 MR. BLANCHARD: Good evening, Madam Chair,
13 members of the Board. I inherited this project after Mitch
14 left for the mountains a couple of months ago. And what you
15 have in your packet just as a way of summary, is a memorandum
16 that Glen Schlueter and I prepared in direct response to the
17 motion for continuance in December trying to address those
18 issues that were specific to the motion.
19 I did not amend the staff report. It is
20 attached in the packet, but rather than amending the staff
21 report, we tried to address the issue straight on in the
22 ordinance. What I like to do is briefly summarize that
23 ordinance -- or the memorandum, and then we can turn it over
24 to the applicant. Well, we can answer any questions, then
25 turn it over to the applicant as well as the citizens.
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, March 10, 1997
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Scenic Views, PUD, Final Request
Members Present:
Gwen Bell, Chairman
Alex Chapman
Jerry Gavaldon
Mike Byrne
Bob Davidson (recused)
For the City:
Bob Blanchard, City Planning Office
John Duval, City Attorney's.Office
Glen Schlueter, Engineering Department
119
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5 and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby.certify that
6 the foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of Scenic Views
7. PUD, was held on Monday, December 16, 1996, at 300 West
8 Laporte Avenue, Colorado; that said proceedings were
9 transcribed under my supervision from videotape to the
10 foregoing 118 pages; that said transcript is, to the best of
it the corporation's ability to transcribe same, an accurate
12 and complete record of the proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that no one involved in production
14 of this transcript is related to, employed by, nor of .
15 counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein nor
16 otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
17 Attested to by me this 5th day of May, 1997.
18
19
20 / v
ja T . Mea'dors .
21 5 West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
22 (303) 482-1506
23 My commission expires January 6, 2001.
24
25
118
1 MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
2 THE CLERK: Chapman?
3 MR. CHAPMAN: No.
4 THE CLERK: Weitkunat?
5 MS. WEITKUNAT: No.
6 THE CLERK: Bell?,
7 MS. BELL: Yes.
8 Was the motion clear enough and everybody
9 understands what our concerns are so that when this comes
10 back, it's a lot tighter?
11 MR. HAAS: I've got it all written down..
12 MS. BELL: Great. Thank you.
13 Well, now let's move on to Provincetowne.
14 (Matter concluded.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
117
1 MS. BELL: Well, I will be supporting the
2 motion. Like Mr. Colton, my inclination is just to deny
3 this project. I think there's a lot of compelling
4 information that was presented tonight that would lead us to
5 do that but, on the other hand, you know, the developer has
6 put a lot of time and effort into it.
7 But also we do have a really important and unique
8 decision in front of us and that is this farm. It is a
9 treasure in this community. And I think that we should
10 treat it as such and give proper time and attention to
11 coming up with an appropriate solution on this.
12 I do like what Glen said about asking everyone to
13 maybe try to come up with something that's even better than
14 this retention pond. I think the issue here is that all of
15 a sudden, and I know it was fairly sudden, you know, all of
16 this new stuff kind of got dumped.here.
17 And I don't think it was adequately looked at and
18 I don't think we have enough information to really make a
19 careful decision on this matter. So let's go ahead and have
20 a vote, please.
21
THE
CLERK:
Colton?
22
MR.
COLTON:
Yes.
23
THE
CLERK:
Byrne?
24
MR.
BYRNE:
Yes.
25
THE
CLERK:
Gavaldon?
116
1 too, because I'm a strong believer that the neighborhood
2 input is very important. And I would support that and
3 while -- let me put it this way -- I would encourage a
4 win/win opportunity with the neighborhood and the developer
5 because I feel that there is a breakdown, but I feel that it
6 can be jump-started with this continuance and opportunity to
7 bring back an active and a harmony type proposal that can
8 make this a win/win. Because I feel that there is a golden
9 opportunity and there's a lot of experts in the neighborhood
10 as well as in the applicant, that could bring this together
11 and bring it as a real good proposal regarding this
12 retention pond and the effects of it and work together.
13 So I feel that this is an opportunity and I would
14 like to encourage it.
15 MS. WEITKUNAT: In general, I see that this
16 project is in compliance with the basic preliminary that
17 P&Z passed eight months ago. Very little, has changed,
18 except the retention pond, which from the information that I
19 have gleaned, sounds like a better solution rather than an
20 inadequate drainage ditch that easement was not granted on.
21 Therefore, I will not be supporting this, because
22 I do not think we gain anything by putting this off. I
23 think these are issues that have not been clearly defined by
24 the state, by the city, by our Storm Water Department and
25 our.water quality. So I will not support this.
115
1 trying to get at.
2 I suggest that staff might better handle this.
3 And if, in fact, details are not worked out with the
4 applicant to Storm Water and Park's satisfaction, it will
5 come back here, anyway.
6 MS. BELL: Anybody else have any comments before
7 we take a vote?
8 MR. COLTON: I will support this. I was leaning
9 towards denying it,.because I think there's too many
10 unanswered questions that could have been resolved before it
11 was brought to us. Even though staff deals with things like
12 this, this, I think, is unique and a change from what we saw
13 at the preliminary, which is significant enough but in and.
14 of itself, that we could deny it on several grounds.
15 But I guess I can go with a continuance because
16 overall there are some good things to the project, but I
17 think the water quality and the ground flows and those
18 things need to be taken a look at.
19 And, you know, I wonder why we just don't make
20 that an active pond instead of a retention pond and leave
21 some water in there. And, I mean, I've got one of those
22 behind my house and, you know, are there other options, you
23 know, we could look at even that would -- you really make
24 this thing work. So I will be supporting this.
25 MR. GAVALDON: I'm going to support the motion,
114
1 continue this item because of, I guess, lack of adequate
2 information on this retention pond or uncertainty around --
3 I guess it's more of an uncertainty around the information
4 and that we received at this point. Do we have a second?
5 MR. CHAPMAN: Second.
6 MS. BELL: Moved and seconded. Any comments that
7 anyone would like to make? Alex?
8 MR. CHAPMAN: Actually, a comment and a
9 question. The question would be to Storm Water. It's been
10 stated that Storm Water typically would work out the details
11 that the Board has expressed concern about in terms of
12 retention ponds, pumping of the water. Is Storm Water --
13 Would Storm Water also be in a position to make a judgment
14 about the utility of that retainment pond as a recreation
15 area?
16 MR. HAAS: It may be more appropriate, maybe --
17 it's up to you I would suppose, but maybe you'd like Parks
18 and Recreation to have a look at it after the signs are.done
19 to see.if it's --
20 MR. CHAPMAN: Okay, well, I guess the point is
21 would some staff group work with Storm Water to see that
22 that question is answered?
23
MR.
HAAS: That could
certainly done.
24
MR.
CHAPMAN: In that
case, I won't be supporting
25
the motion as
stated, although I
agree exactly what you're
113
1 MR. DUVAL: Yeah, I think, yeah, you need to give
2 direction on what issues. And it sounds like the issue is
3 on the drainage pond and the retention pond. And also would
4 you be continuing to a date certain so that parties know
5 that it's going to come back to the Board at a•certain time?
6 MR. BYRNE: I'd ask Bob if in terms of the 7-
7 MR. BLANCHARD: We have two options. We could do
8 a date certain or you could rely on the staff's comfort
9 level that it's prepared to come back to you, that your
10 concerns have been adequately addressed. Unless you want to
11 go through this again, I mean, without some confusion on the
12 staff's part.
13 MR. BYRNE: No, I'd like to have staff prepare
14 it..
15 MR. BLANCHARD: We could put it out, say, two
16 months -- if it's ready next month, that way we could bring
17 it back also.
18 MR. BYRNE: Okay, fine. And then I would make
19 the additional comment, my hope would also be that the
20 developer and some of the interested parties in the
21 neighborhood, if you could find it within yourself to try to
22 work through some of these issues that could allow you to
23 come to an agreement that's more of a win/win that we're all
24 interested in achieving here, I think.
25 MS. BELL: We have a motion on the table to
112
1 actually stopped doing that when it got to the'point where
2 it's clear to me that the most appropriate thing for this
3 Board to do would be to send this.back and let people work
4 on it a little bit more.
5 So do I need.to cite specific references from the
6
LDGS?
7
MS. BELL:
Do we need
to have anything beyond
8
just that, John?
9
MR. DUVAL:
Well, if --
if you're just continuing
10
it for the purpose of
having more
information brought back
11
to the Board at the next meeting,
is that the purpose of the
12
continuance?
13 MR. BYRNE: Right. The purpose of the
14 continuance would be that the retention pond issues be fully
15 explored and -- and also documented in terms of how that's
16 going to work. I realize that this is one of those
17 technical details that frequently happens after we do
18 approval. But in this case, I think given the nature of the
19 very reasonable concerns that the neighboring farm has that,
20 we very clearly get some of these things addressed.
21 For example, the whole issue of the retention
22 pond is really feasible given the fact that there is
23 standing water within a foot of, you know, when you dig a
24 hole, that sort of thing..
25 So is that good enough,.John?
ill
1 Active open space does not necessarily mean that
2 somebody can run around and play ball on it. It means it's
3 open space. Like the -- like the consultant earlier said,
4 it could be a forest, it could be a pond, it could be --
5 MS. BELL: However, it was represented to the
6 neighborhood as a place that was going to be able to be
7 used, not as someplace where water was going. I clearly
8 remember that.
9 MR. HAAS: Right, and we're saying that it still
10 can be used, just not 100 percent of the time and 100
11 percent of the area.
12 MR. SCHLUETER: Gwen, what I'm seeing on this is
13 that the area where the wetland mitigation will be wet.
14 It's got to be in order to support the vegetation. And the
15 rest of it will be pretty much dry most of the time.
16 Otherwise, it will flood out the wetlands and drowned it and
17 you won't get a wetland. So you have to have some area
18 that's dry.
19 MS. BELL: Okay. Any other questions or comments
20 or are we getting ready for a motion?
21 Okay. Please do.
22
MR.
BYRNE: I
would suggest and,
in
fact, make a
23
motion that we
continue
this item based on
the
concerns that
24 we've just expressed about the whole runoff mitigation plan.
25 And I think there -- I was keeping a list of issues and I
J
110
1
recreation area, that implies that it's going to be better
2
than water standing in there at all times. And so I think
3
that has direct bearing on our decision -making tonight,
4
because if -- if there is water there and it's not an active
5
recreation area anymore, then it's not in substantial
6
compliance to the original preliminary approval, in my
7
opinion. .
8
MR. HAAS: If I can add, I've been hoping you'd
9
bring that back up so we'd have a chance to add this again.
10
The definition does state that a partial credit may be given
11
flood control channels and areas encumbered by flowage,
12
floodway or drainage easements.
13
So if you cut those points in half, it still
14
meets the minimum..
15 MS. BELL: Well, that's -- that's rdally.not my
16 point. Because as you just stated., yes it would still meet
17 the point chart but it doesn't meet the original intention
18 of what we were told at preliminary that this area was to be
19 used for. So I think that that's a critical point for.this
20 Board to feel clear about in order to make a reasonable
21 decision as to whether it's in substantial compliance.
22 MR. HAAS: Sure. And along that point, it was
23 represented as active open space and that sentence I just
24 read to you is the definition of active open space. So it
25 does include drainage easements and drainage channels.
KIM
1 keeps going on and on in the back of your agenda is that
2 these are the kind of issues that need to be resolved in the
3 technical end of it and before the plans are signed.
4 So we would not allow them to basically dig a
-5 well is what they would be digging. They would have to
6 separate that water either by a clay -liner or some kind of a
7 poly -liner or something like that. otherwise, they would be
8 having to get a well permit and an augmentation plan and the
9 whole works.
10 And besides that, the volume goes away if we've
11 got standing water there so we don't have two times the
12 volume. So we couldn't allow that either.
13 MS. BELL: So I guess what I'm still grappling
14 with is that if there's water there and you end up requiring
15 all.these things, if you require all these things, then
16 there won't be water there?
17 MR. SCHLUETER: They'll have to either -- there
18 either has to be no water there or they'll have to separate
19 the two or they'll have to come back to you with a new plan
20 with a bigger pond that's not as deep or something.
21 MS. BELL: I guess what I'm still a bit confused
22 about is this active recreation area. You know, if -- I
23 believe the definition is quite subjective and this Board
24 can interpret it in a wide variety of fashions.
25 And to me certainly when it says active
MAN
1 can be taken up by the vegetation and dissipated. That's
2 the whole theory.
3 And that's what we would actually ask for in a
4 water quality treatment is extended detention,'contact with
5 vegetation, that kind of stuff.
6 MR. BYRNE: Right, but we're not getting that.
7 Because I think as been mentioned a couple of times, the
8 water would just be retained for two or three days.
9 MR. SCHLUETER: It's a 40 hours is enough to get
10 like 99 percent of the sediment to drop out.
11 MR. BYRNE: How many hours?
12 MR. SCHLUETER: Forty. Forty hour extended
13 detention.
14 SPEAKER: If I can add something to that. I
15 think the whole science of wetland treatment of water
16 quality, though, is somewhat questionable in terms of its
17 effectiveness. And to be able to say exactly how effective
18 this wetland is we're unable to do that at this time without
19 monitoring of the water going in and after it's designed and
20 built. So there is an unanswerable question there in part.
`1
22 MR. SCHLUETER: Actually, we, yeah, we did
23 sponsor a couple of projects probably six, seven years ago.
24 One of them was over at the McDonald's site at Harmony and
25 College where they have an infiltration gallery at the
106
1 That's the biggest issue.
l2; !!MR. BYRNE: Okay. And then there are no -- are
3 there governing state ordinances or federal guidelines in
4 terms of water quality?
5 MR. SCHLUETER: No, not right now.
6 MR. BYRNE: That's what you're saying, there's
7 nothing that we can measure?
8 MR. SCHLUETER: That's true.
9 MR. BYRNE: So this whole issue of water quality,
10 which clearly this farm is very dependent on, is dependent
11 on not very much. There's no regulatory muscle there in
12 order to assure that the water quality that an organic farm
13 gets is adequate.
14 MR. SCHLUETER: I guess I'd have to agree with
15 that. The biggest problem with having -- with water quality
16 is the huge farms that just dump chemicals, you know, from
17 airplanes onto their fields. And that's what the rivers are
18 getting -- that's the -- you know, they're going for the big
19 picture and then they'll go down to the little areas and
20 see. The bigger cities, yes, they have the bigger problems
21 and they can address it.
22 What -- The kind of things that we would propose
23 is what is being proposed here, is a wetland retention area
24 where the sediments actually collect most of the pollutants
25 and they drop to the bottom. And then they can be -- they
105
1
Is that -- Is that something that's unlikely to
2
occur or is that what you're saying, it's not -- we've not
3
had any experience with that happening?
4
We have seen people actually pull up their cars
5
over a storm drain and pull the plug. And some citizens
6
have turned them in. We've sent out the fire department and
7
they say well, it's not explosives so we're not going to do
8
anything about it. And what Storm Water has done in the
f
9
past, has done some clean up on those things.
10
The biggest thing we're doing is education. You
11
know, like you see all the storm drain stencils now. We're
12
trying to do more of that. And we also have a public
13
education program throughout the schools to try to educate
14
people that the storm drain is not the sewer.
15
So that is a likely possibility. The best we can
16
do is patrol it the best we can and everybody -- everybody
17 patrol it.
1s MR. BYRNE: Isn't that really the whole idea
19 between keeping storm water and irrigation separate?
20 MR. SCHLUETER: No, the big issue there is
21 liability. Because irrigation ditches were designed for a
22 control flow rate off of the river or wherever. And they
23 can control how much water is in them. Whereas development
24 comes along, there is more volume increase and it comes
25 faster. So the ditches are not designed to take them.
104
1 MR. BYRNE: Well, let me ask this, then. The
2 water in the irrigation ditch is coming from Horsetooth
3 Reservoir; is that right?
4 MR. SCHLUETER: No,. it's coming on off the Poudre
5 River..
6 MR. BYRNE: It's coming off the Poudre River,
7 okay. So from where it taps off the Poudre to where it's
8 used for irrigation on the farm, how many other sites along
9 that corridor would there be opportunities for this kind of
10 runoff?
11 MR. SCHLUETER: There's several up in the county,
12 because the county allows subdivisions to drain into
13 irrigation ditches. This is just one of them.
14 MR BYRNE: This is not.a new problem then?
15 MR. SCHLUETER: No, definitely not. In fact, we
16 have some old subdivisions in town. All the area around
17 City Lake dumps into an irrigation ditch. And you know,
18 they reuse that water too. Several times it gets reused and
19 put back in.
20 MR. BYRNE: Now, let's take a hypothetical
21 instance where somebody comes and they decide to change the
22 oil in their car and they dump it into the sewer. And then
23 that goes into the retention pond and that goes into the
24 irrigation ditch and that goes on to somebody's organically
25 grown vegetables.
103
1 know, I guess the question on that one is originally what
2 was happening is we had a detention pond that was going
3 through an easement through a storm water -system that took
4 care of the water. Now what it is is we're going from a
5 retention pond into an irrigation ditch.• So there's this
6 whole thing about water quality.
7 And I haven't heard anything specifically., other
8 than should be or most likely kind of thing, that gives the
9 neighborhood farm any assurance of what that water quality
10 is going to be like.
11 So my question is what's in play here in terms of
12 water quality?
13 MR. SCHLUETER: I think Mr. Stinson had a good
14 represent'-- presentation. I mean, he talked to our water
15 qualify person at Storm Water and that's sort of the state
16 of the art right now is that nothing has been that
17 qualified. They can't measure it to that exactness. I
18 mean, if they.do, it's extensive studies. The value for
19 doing that has not been proven. The legislature's battling
20 it. All the experts are battling about it. It's,really an
21 unknown area.
22 And I don't know what else to say other than our
23 feeling is that from our testing of our water around here,
24 that we don't have a big problem, and I don't see how one
25 more development:will. But, you know, I could be wrong.
102
1 question would be related to the fact, you know, clearly
2 what we've got before us is a real difference in terms of
3 how the process has gone. I think the developer feels as
4 though they have been playing by the rules all along. And
5 the neighborhood feels as though they have been
6 misrepresented in terms of what's going on.
7 So the first question would be related to the
8 neighborhood meeting which was held, I guess, back in
9 January. Has there been a significant change between what
10 was presented to the neighbors then and what we're seeing
li before us now in terms of this project?
12 MR. HAAS: Sure. If you refer -- there's a map
13 showing what was presented in the neighborhood meeting in
14 the packet. The main -- The most significant difference is
15 that that piece of land to the east is not part of this
16 project. That section of land at that time was containing
17 all single family units. That land is not included in this
18 request.
19 Otherwise, it's more or less the same thing.
20 Maybe laid out slightly differently, but more or less the
21 same thing. It went through the preliminary and now the
22
final process.
23
MR.
BYRNE: Yeah,
okay, so --
24
MR.
HAAS: Except
for the pond.
25
MR.
BYRNE: Yeah,
okay. Now the pond issue, you
101
1 was hearing tonight was that that current wetland does
2 filter the Equine Center and so that's what I'm trying to
3 understand, is if it's going to be destroyed in part, then
4 what's happening to the filtration of that water?
5 SPEAKER: Water quality is really a storm water
6 issue and I'll let Glen deal with that.
7 MR. SCHLUETER: The proposal pipes that drainage
8 along that side and would take it into the retention pond
9 which has a wetland bottom in it to treat it there instead
10 of where it's being treated now. Probably treated better.
it MS. BELL: And when while I still have you, Glen,
12 if you could just give me one example. You said that about
13 six times in the last ten years the city has done one of
14 these retention ponds.. Could you just give me one site so
15 that I can kind of.have a picture in my mind of what it's
16 like?
17 MR. SCHLUETER: Warren Farms along Horsetooth
18 just west of the new Mercer Ditch. There's two retention
19 ponds there. There's one up at Conifer and Redwood. That's
20 the one that we're just now getting an outfall in. 'That's
21 been a wetland pond for 15 years or so. Are those enough
22 examples?
23 MS. BELL: Okay. Are there any.other questions.
24 Mike, did you have some questions?
25 MR. BYRNE: Yeah, I do have. I guess the first
100
1 of tonight?
2 MR. HAAS: That's probably a fair estimation.
3 Some of it probably goes onto Mr. Hackney's property as
4 well. It looks like some of it would probably extend on
5 that property.
6 MS. BELL: So in fact, is some of this wetland
7 being destroyed in this area and mitigated in some other
8 way? Could you clarify that?
9 SPEAKER: There is an existing wetland along that
10 property boundary. And -- But again, that is the wetland I
11 was referring to as having a rare plant survey and being
12 well under an acre in size.
13 We did discuss with the applicant initially
14 retaining that wetland because we always try to retain
15 wetlands whenever possible. Because of their site concerns
16 and design concerns and because the rare plant survey or
17 Ellen's survey was stated as highly unlikely and because of
18 the recent character of that wetland. And we had no
19 indication that there were characteristics of that wetland
20 that should put it into a category of being inviolable, so
21 to speak.
22 We didn't restrict the developer from filling or
23 modifying, disturbing that wetland if he would mitigate
24 within the detention pond.
25 MS. BELL: Okay, I think the discussion that I
99
1 necessary to require another survey during the normal survey
2 period which is July to September. If she had given us an
3 indication that there was something to be concerned about
4 and we should look at that area again, we would have had the
5 applicant do the survey again.
6 MS. BELL: Following up on that, we've had also
7 some speculation and questions around whether this retention
g pond area, in fact, is something of a wetland itself?
9 Could you address that?
10 SPEAKER: I'm not aware that the detention pond
11 does meet the category for wetland. I'd let the applicant,
12 since they did the delineations out there, respond to that
13 if they know that there's a --
14 MR. vEIO: There is no ground surface water in
15 the detention pond or retention pond area. It does not meet
16 any wetlands qualifications that I'm aware of.
17 MS. BELL: And then I have one other question or
18 I guess, it's more of a clarification on this northwest
19 corner area that everyone's been talking about tonight and
20 mitigation of wetlands and the related question of filtering
21 of the Equine Center. I don't know if I made --
22 Firstly, where is this .2 on the map?
23 MR. HAAS: In this area right here (indicating).
24 MS. BELL: So it's partially on -site and
25 partially off -site, this wetlands that people are speaking
98
1 or something federal permit. I don't know what that is. It
2 was just something that the neighborhood brought up. Could
3 you clarify what that is?
4 SPEAKER: I heard whatyou heard and I'm not
5 exactly sure what was intended by that statement. The Corps
6 of Engineers does grant nationwide permits for wetlands
7 under an acre in size. And what that is, is blanket permit
8 across the nation. They are re looking at_those regulations
9 right now. Considering lowering the acreage.
10 But this project was reviewed long before these
11 considerations came into play. The wetland -- and I'll get
12 into the rare plant issue. I'll go a little beyond your
13 question just to clarify that. The rare plant survey was
14 done by Ellen Wheeling who is the botanist who found the
15 rare plant at the foothills site here in Fort Collins. And
16 she's also found other rare plants for us at other locations
17 at the Meadow Springs Ranch, etc.
18 We trust Ellen. She did say there was marginal
19 orchid habitat there. But she thought it was highly
20 unlikely that the orchid was present.
21 And this is not a wetland that the federal
22 regulators would have required an orchid survey on, but we
23 did because of its proximity to the foothills even though
24 it's a recent wetland.
25 So given her response, we didn't feel it
97
1 couldn't address the issue -- you couldn't address the issue
2 of this rare plant. But because of all of the delays and
3 whatnot, we've now had July and August occur,, and so I'm
4 wondering, did you, in fact, take the time to address the
5 issue of this rare plant possibly surviving in this area?
6 MR. VEIO: No, we didn't conduct another study if
7 that's what your asking. We were satisfied with the
8 original study. The person we selected was a
9 highly -respected Fort Collins consultant in that field. And
10 that person went out and cleared off whatever snow or debris
11 was on -site and looked through that area and told us point
12 blank this is not suitable habitat for Lady -Tresses.
13 We've talked to another consultant later on in
14 the year and they said absolutely not. The ground -- it's
15 just -- it couldn't be.
16 Part of that is because that natural area or the
17 wetlands area is not a national wetlands. That wetlands
18 area was created in 1988 when the CSU detention pond was
19 created when the city's water line was put in.
20 It's created a natural -- an unnatural water
21 condition and created the wetlands. You have to have a
22 natural wetlands area to create Lady Tresses.
23 MS. BELL: Okay, thank you. And then I have a
24 couple of questions for our staff.
25 . We heard -- I heard something about a permit 26
m
1 like to ask on behalf of some audience folks. If we could
2 have the one question answered .about the square footage.
3 You remember that question.
4 MR. HAAS: Sure, that was Mr. Hackney's
5 question. The answer would be simply put no, it would not
6 be accommodate.- it would not be augmented somewhere else to
7 meet the same amount of square footage.
8 The buildings, if approved, would be with the
9 same footprints as proposed and the elevations would be the
10 same as proposed. The number of flowing units would be the
11 same.
12 So, no, there would not be additional square
13 footage added to accommodate the loss of basements.
14 MS. BELL: I have a couple of other questions. I
15 just want it clarified with a yes or a no from the
16 applicant. Are you eliminating the subdrainage? There was
17 speculation that you were eliminating that. We had a rather
18 lengthy discussion at the beginning about the problems
19 associated with that. So I just want to know, is the
20 subdrainage portion of the plan being eliminated?
21 MR. VEIO: No.
22 MS. BELL: Okay. Another question for the
23 applicant. On this -- I was on the Board when the
24 preliminary came through. And I remember there was
25 discussion about the time of year and whatnot, so they
95
1 MR.
VEIO: Well, I
-- I don't think --
2 MR.
CHAPMAN: -- or
a half an hour?
3 MR.
VEIO: I didn't
hear that comment.
4 MR.
CHAPMAN: Yeah,
that was before you came.
5 MR.
VEIO: What we
were discussing was generally
6 the pumping would occur over a
three day period. That's
7 more likely, rather than try to
pump it out in two hours.
8 MR.
CHAPMAN: Okay.
9 MR.
VEIO: So it would
be more time for any
10 sediments to settle.
11 The other thing is we're not going to get is.as
12 many sediments as you think. The -- About 50 percent of the
13 site is, you know, landscape material. We've got a
14 tremendous amount of trees out there and grass.. Sure, we
15 have driveways and kind of a street that runs through for
16 travel. But you still have a lot of grass and a lot of
17 trees. And anything that's going to be in the driveway, of
18 course, will go down in the storm water. But that's true in
19 any urban development.
20 But the water that will land on the grass will
21 stay there. The duplexes have large lots. Those are
22 typically 8500 to 9,000 square feet. Those are big lots.
23 So that water is going to stay there. It's very impervious.
24 MR. CHAPMAN: All right. Thank you.
25 MS. BELL: I have a couple of questions that I'd
94
1 opinion that with -- given the rain and the storm water that
2 occurs, probably there's not going to be a lot of difference
3 in the quality of water in the agriculture use that it is
4 now and in a developed state.
5 When you get the retention pond when you do get
6 water in it, what happens is that if there's any sediment in
7 the water, it settles down to the base of the pond. And
8 that's where any contaminants would be; it would be.there.
9 Oil or grease, if you have that sort of thing,
10 would stay on the surface. And the way the pond pump works,
11 it pumps from near the bottom of the pond. So it gets mixed
12 in with the vegetation and it becomes a clear -- clear
13 quality of water then if it was pumped at the top of the
15 The another thing that we try to do is when we
16 design these pumps, we use gravel filters around the pump
17 and concrete spill pan so that the water that goes into the
18 pump is purified as much as it can be. That's basically how
19 it works.
20
MR. CHAPMAN:
Okay. The
storm water people also
21
said that this would be
pumped out
within 48
hours even in a
22
hundred year flood let
alone on a,
you know,
just a normal
23
base session, that would be fairly
quickly.
Would that
24
really allow sediments
to settle.out if it's
pumped out
25
within an hour or --
93
1 And I think before you arrived I had asked the
2 city staff or they had made a comment at a work session on
3 Friday that it's normally not the policy to mix irrigation
4 water and storm water together. But on this location
5 already there is runoff into the canal but that is kind of
6 through grass and may percolate down to the water. Whereas,
7 in the future it will be runoffs from a lot of pavement,
8 probably some lawns with, you know, pesticides and different
9 things and goes into the pond and then it's immediately
10 discharged into the canal which leads to one of the primary
11 concerns of the farm, which is that that water could be
12 tainted with all sorts of runoffs from asphalt and so
13 forth.
14 Could you address how you feel that that issue is
15 being addressed?
16
MR. VEIO: Sure. Be happy
to.
First of all,
17
I'm not an expert. My hydrologist is.
And
were he -here
18
tonight, he could certainly explain it
much
better than I
19 can.
20
I
think there's a couple
of things that you need
21
to look at.
One is the current use
of the land is kind of
22
agriculture.
Alfalfa is being grown out there. Fertilizer
23
is being put
on that. Pesticide is
being put on that land
24 now.
25 And in talking for our hydrologist,'it was his
92
1 of years ago
an attorney for a ditch company,
when we were
2 asking about
fencing a ditch for safety,
said
he had never
3 seen a child
that couldn't climb a fence
or an,adult
that
4 could. And
the implication was the kids
are
going to get in
5 a ditch and
if you fence them off, it's
just
going to be
6 harder to save them.
7 I don't know if that's true or not. I know that
8 the city has been very adamant about not fencing off these
9 ditches because fences have been found to be ineffective
10 safety hazards and they disrupt the amenity value of the
11 ditch.
12 So we haven't intended to provide, any kind of
13 fencing on there. It will be an open, shallow canal much
14 like it is through dozens of other housing developments
15 throughout southwest Fort Collins.
16 It is -- It is nowhere near the magnitude of the
17 Larimer/Weld Canal where the fatal accidents happened last
18 spring. It's worlds apart from that kind of a ditch.
19 MR. CHAPMAN: Okay. And I guess I'd like to ask.
20 the developer -- the applicant himself to address the
21 issue -- I think one of the primary issues here is that this
22 has gone from the detention pond which drains through the --
23 I forget the name of the -- the Storm Water Drainage
24 Pleasant Valley, into a retention pond which is pumped into
25 the irrigation canal.
OWN
1 just safety of that canal running that close behind. And
2 I'm just wondering if there's any risk of mitigation or is
3 that canal really not run that --
i —7
j4 ,! DM. HAAS: The canal I believe is planned to be
5 piped. No, that's been changed, okay. Well, it's still set
6 back from the width of their easement. But as far as the
7 proximity to the canal is, I don't believe that's changed
8 from the preliminary.
9 MR. COLTON: Maybe applicant could address kind
10 of how much water flows through that. And is that going to
11 be a safety hazard in and of itself just from having that
12 close to the canal?
13 MR. WARD: I don't know the exact volume of
14 water close to the canal. We could probably get that if you
15 need it and this is he would done.
16 Early on at the neighborhood meeting, the
17 applicant was looking at the option of piping the canal.
18 Actually, provided a survey to the neighbors that attended
19 the meeting. And the results of that survey and the city
20 staff review said that it was preferable to leave it as an
21 open canal rather than piping it. So that at one time
22 there was discussion on,the piping as an open ditch at the
23 preliminary just as it is in the final.
24 The question of fencing ditches for safety, this
25 is a fairly shallow ditch. At one public hearing a number
m
1 with me. But there is a copy of the plan that was shown at
2 the neighborhood meeting in January in your packets.
3 The layout has changed to the degree that it
4 is -- now accommodates the condition of the drive connecting
5 the two parts of the development. By putting those drives
6 in, it somewhat shifts everything a little bit to the south
7 so that the setbacks off of -- well, they're in the staff
8 report. The closest structure to Overland Trail would now
9 be more than 52 feet from the curb line. And the closest
10 structure to West Elizabeth would be more than 35 feet from
11 the curb line. Those are fairly consistent with the.
12 preliminary.
13 MR. COLTON: Okay, and how about the setbacks
14 along the drainage canal?
15 MR. HAAS: Those are the same as well. The
16 drainage canal has a easement width that cannot be
17
encroached upon. There
is also
a pedestrian path along
18
there and the buildings
are set
behind the pedestrian path
19
and that's just the same
way it
was shown at preliminary.
20
MR. COLTON:
Okay and from looking at the map, it
21
looks like there's maybe
25 to
30 foot between the backs of
22
those buildings and the
canal?
Is that approximately
23 correct?
24
MR.
HAAS:
Oh, yeah,
it probably --
25
MR
COLTON:
The only
reason I brought it up is
89
1 MR. ROBERTS: Bill Roberts. I did have a
2 contract with Mr. Veio, and I don't want to speak as to that
3 contract for the purchase of the land so that we can solve
4 this issue to do with the easement. He did request an
5 easement of me. He provided no financial incentive for me
6 to do that. I told him he had the contract. He could
7 purchase the land if he needed the easement.
8 I, too, felt like I had been put in a adversary
9 position against my neighbors and neighborhood. And also
10 feel -- felt it was a very uncomfortable position to be put
11 in. And did not like the business transactions I was having
12 with this developer. So, thank you.
13 MS: BELL: Okay. Does that finish up? Okay..
14 I'm going to bring it back to the Board at thi* point. And
15 I doubt if the Board members have any other specific
16 questions to ask of -- perhaps our staff at this point.
17 MR. COLTON: I have, I guess, a couple of
18 questions. This one's for the staff. And I think one of
19 the citizens gave the input that the layouts and the
20 setbacks had been changed some from -- and probably
21 specifically the setbacks have been changed some from
22 preliminary. Could you comment on that? Or do you have a
23 picture of the preliminary layout compared to the final so
24 that you could address that issue?
25 MR. HAAS: I don't believe I have any pictures
88
1 So we still continue to insist that there's some
2 very. specific issues that really need to be addressed so
3 that we're not put a position of a city, in my particular
4 case, as a business and as a neighborhood of having to go
5 back and fill in the blanks after we've seen sort of the
6 flowery innuendo that is presented in a very nice marketable
7 way.
8 That wasn't five minutes. So I wonder if I could
19 yield to other people in the neighborhood group that may
10 also wish to have a chance at it.
11 MS. BELL: That would be fine. Please be as
12 brief as is possible for you to be.
13 MR. HACKNEY: Phil Hackney. I asked the question
14 and expressed my concern about with the recent change in
15 the -- because of the potential water -- groundwater issue
16 with the removal of basements on some of the duplexes that
17 are adjoined my property, I asked the question are those
18 basements, if 15 of the units are going to lose basements,
19 are we -- am I then to expect additional units to compensate
20 for the loss of square footage? Or are these units going
21 to get larger? In any way, is any of that -- any of those
22 changes going to occur?
23 MS. BELL: We'll address that when the Board asks
24 questions in a few moments. Is there anybody else that
25 wanted to make a brief rebutting comment?
87
1 neighborhood.for the way he does business with us as a
2 neighborhood. And so the character assassination.thing has
3 been personally upsetting.
4 We still do have the concerns that that not been
5 addressed of groundwater inflow into this lovely picture.
6 And we still have not had anything spoken to about water
7 quality that's coming out of this retention pond.
8 This looks nice, but it's not very specific and
9 it's a shame that the hydrologist can't give us any real
10. figures, but this is the way business is done with this
11 particular development company. We're given broad -brush
12 strokes and we're hoping that everybody is going to be okay
13 with that and then the details will be worked out later.
14 This is how he dealt with the storm drainage
15 easement issue is innuendo, brush stroke and then we had to
16 find out what was going on around the block. Neighbor
17 against neighbor.
is And so just to remind you it was not just the
19 Happy Heart Farm that is concerned about issuing Mr.• Veio
20 his storm drainage easements.
21 And we're still concerned about groundwater and
22 we're still concerned about water quality. None of those
23 issue's have really been addressed to the extent that we are
24 concerned that these will be details that somebody is going
25 to have to work out later.
86
1 isn't always -- things got a little confusing in our order
2 of business tonight because of traffic problems out of our
3 hands. But because we've now had information presented by
4 the applicant that wasn't available to the Homeowners
5 Association folks, I do need to give them a chance for
6 rebuttal.
7 So if there's one
person that
would
like to --
8 that has anything to say in
rebuttal to
some of
this
9 information that was brought
up tonight,
you're
welcome to
10 come forward and make comments.
11 Is there anyone here that wishes to do that?
12 And perhaps we could try for five minutes again. See how
13 you're doing after five.
14 MR. STINSON: Dennis Stinson, Happy'Heart Farm.
15 It's become pretty charged with what. appeared to be
16 something of a character assassination. I don't think that
17 Planning and Zoning commission is exactly an,appropriate
18 vehicle to try to defend myself against the accusations that
19 were made by the developer.
20 But I just want to remind the Board that it was
21 just not the Happy Heart Farm or my wife and myself that
22 denied access to the developer. And the reason being that
23 there are many environmental concerns that although it's --
24 it looks nice and it appears nice, we're concerned quite
25 honestly to have this particular developer in our
85
1 So we just thought we would have double security
2 and provide those homeowners more than adequate security
3 that they didn't need -- have any chance of water in the
4 basement. But the groundwater isn't that serious. It
5 really stops -- about 15 of those out of 30 units really
6 have any kind of groundwater concerns at all. So we're just
7 going to build them without basements to not worry about the
8 problem. So the groundwater really isn't a big problem.
9 'The other thing is that the groundwater is higher
10 on -the other side of the canal. I mean the land is higher
11 on the other side of the canal. And when you get on this
12 side of the canal, it's a different set of conditions.
13 My hydrologist is really the one that should answer
14 that and he just couldn't get out of Denver. Sorry.
15 MS. BELL: I think that given that no one has had
16 a break since 6:30 tonight, it would be appropriate to take
17' a brief intermission here. And when we come back, we'll
18 bring this matter to a close, I hope, in terms of Board
19 questions and whatnot. So we will take a brief recess.
20 (A recess was taken.)
21 MS. BELL: Ladies and gentlemen, we're ready to
22 reconvene our meeting. So if you could please be seated.
23 Hello. We're reconvening the meeting, please.
24 Thank you.
25 I've been reminded by our attorney that, and this
84
1 transfer? What's the
total depth
of that from the current
2 land level?
3 MR. VEIO.:
My hydrologist would have to
answer
4 that for you. I don't
really know
offhand. This is
not to
5 scale. It's more for
illustration
purposes. And to
answer
6 that accurately I'd have
to have a
cross-section map
from
7 him.
8 MR. CHAPMAN: The reason I ask the question is
9 to me there's implications of the volume of water that this
10 would have -- would have to be pumped out of here to keep
11 the level down low enough .so that you retain a recreational
12 area. And then the second part of that question is what
13 does that do to the groundwater levels on this property as
14 well as the property next to it?
15 MR. VETO: In terms of the groundwater levels,
16 when we did our soils tests, we, obviously, measured where
17 water levels were throughout the area. And in the duplex
18 area as an example, about half the sites we decided to put
19 an underdrain system in because if we wanted to build
20 basements, the groundwater would be too high.
21 The other half of the sites in the duplexes did
22 not require an underdrain system. We thought we -- if we're
23 going to put one line in, you can put the other line in when
24 you put your storm water in for incremental dollars. Very
25 small dollars.
83
1 If we could have gotten that, we wouldn't have had this
2 problem.
3 It's not, you know, it doesn't seem like that
4 extreme a situation to me that we are, you know, we're
5 building this larger pond, larger hole in the ground, I
6 guess. We're not really -- We don't have an 8 foot
7 embankment on the downstream end. We do have a spillway
8 which is intended for over the hundred year flow. You know,
9 it's an emergency situation. And the pond pumps out.
10 - So I guess, you know, the point I'm trying to
11 make is that, you know, it's not something that hasn't been
12 used before. It's not something that's not common in the
13 profession.
14 MR. VEIO: We ought to add, too, that your Storm
15 Water Utility sponsored the pond idea, the retention pond
16 idea. They brought it to us as the alternative. And
17 they're highly qualified and they know what they're doing.
'18 And they can certainly speak to its benefits as well.
19 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
20 MS. BELL: Are there any other questions of the
21 Board at this time of this particular person?
22 MR. CHAPMAN: One question I'd like to ask.you is
23 what kind of groundwater inflows into the retention pond did
24 you use in your calculations and how deep is that darkest
25 blue section down there that refers to the wetlands
82
1 thorough do you feel it's been?
2 MR. VEIO: Well, the retention pond in terms of
3 concept isn't a lot different than the detention pond in
4 terms of design. John, you want to speak to that? John's
5 one of our engineers.
6 MR. COATSAN: My are name is John Coatsan with
7 CES. I'm a civil engineer on this project.,
8 Retention ponds are, you know, have been used.
0
9 It's not an untested technology. It's something that I've
10 designed two or three of them in my career. The last one
11 was down in Loveland. And, you know, this detention or
12 retention pond, it's been kind of conveyed as being a, oh, I
13 don't know, a onerous hole in the ground orsomething, which
14 isn:'t our intent at all.
15 The idea of the retention pond is to provide a
16 larger volume of storage. And we're trying to put slopes on
17 the side of the pond that are flat enough so that we can use
18 it as a park area. But we need to provide that volume so
19 that we store that water until after the storm passes and
20 then it gets pumped into the channel after the fact.
21 The retention pond as far as a water quality
22 issues, it operates the same as the detention pond that we
23 had previously.
24 You know, the reason we made this switch at this
25 submittal was because of the easement situation downstream.
81
1 marrieds, marrieds with children. We're trying to aim at
2 the Fort Collins market.
3 And so we spent an awful lot of time in
4 developing the right type of product and the land use will
5 be successful.
6 As far as the detention pond, we have spent the
7 last eight months working on that particular problem day
8 one. The biggest portion of that has been trying to secure
9 the cooperation of the neighbors in terms of the easement;
10 trying to explain to them what we're trying to do; trying to
11 help them to understand that we do have a flood problem in
12 that basin. That is a real problem. And nobody wants to
13 recognize that it's there.
14 And what we're trying to do is stop the flooding
15 in Plumb Creek. Those homeowners that live down the hill
16 are going to get flooded unless we do a retention pond.
17 Your own studies show that. It's clear as a bell. You
18 can't deny it.
19 So we felt that the retention pond makes an awful
20 lot of sense than a detention pond. And we've spent a lot
21 of'time working on the design of it, the quality of it, make
22 sure that it works and it won't hurt anybody.
23 MR. GAVALDON: It's -- You raised a point that
24 you spent eight months on a detention pond. And how much
25 time did you spend on a retention pond alternative and how
80
1 merchandising of the garden plots went right along with
2 that. Made a lot of sense .to us. So we felt it was a
3 win/win solution.
4 I think it boiled down to Dennis wanted too
5 much. We couldn't build the 7 foot wall, 1100 feet long.
6 We just couldn't do it., It didn't make sense.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Then there was another comment
8 about time, research, not enough time was put into this.
9 And is there anything you can offer on that and outline what
10 you really did do to offset this concern that was shared? '
11 MR. VEIO: Which concern is that?
12 MR. GAVALDON: About there's not enough time and
13 research put into this project, the retention ponds and all
14 the risks that are associated with it. And benefits. It
15 seems like there's some apparent open gaps in, it and if you
16 could shed some light on that.
17 MR. VEIO: Well, we spent a tremendous amount of
18 time from the time we purchased this property in evaluating
19 the overall site, the use, what are the community's needs
20 were in terms of more affordable housing, housing types, the
21 density, the price points. These homes will be -- most of
22 them will be from 70,000 to a hundred thousand. They're
23 designed to meet the needs of the community, the people that
24 are retired, the people that are senior citizens that are
25 couples or widows, single people, college kids; young
79
1 turned be out to be as win/lose.
2 You did cover
it in some detail, but could you
3 elaborate more on why it
was just
not possible to get the
4 easements and you had to
go this
route? Because there
5 seems to be some concern
on their
part and there's a change
6 in metrics. And metric
is we're
going to retention versus
7 detention.
g MR. VETO: Well, I really believe in win/win
9 solutions, too. I certainly want this.development to be
10 something that we're all going to be proud of. I'm going to
11 be proud of. That our neighbors are going to be proud of
12 and citizens will take advantage of and buy. I don't want
13 to design something that's not going to work.
14 And when I approached Dennis and Bailey, my goal
15 was to get them to involved. Because I think the Happy
16 Heart Farm is really a truly unique experience. It's unique
17 along the front range. We have very few situations like
18 that and we want to do anything we could to get them
19 involved. In marketing,.the merchandising of the project.
20 Our architectural design is kind of a farm look. It's a
21 Victorian farm look. They don't know that. We haven't made
22 that announcement yet.
23 But we feel that this is a very unique piece of
24 property and we want to blend the urban with the rural in
25 terms of design elements. And we felt the marketing and the
I
78
1 bottom of the pond would work.
2 Most of -the time there's not going to be water in
3 there. So most of the time it is going for be an active,
4 passive recreation area.
5 So,that's kind of my summation of where we're at
6 and, you know, why we have the pond and why it will work.
7 Any questions?
8 MS. BELL: Are there any questions v,. DVQi"
9 members at this time? Jerry.
10 MR. GAVALDON: Yes, I would like to see a -- this
it is a great example but it's kind of overdramatized, but do
12 you have a realistic example of what your cross -sectional
13 study -- what your cross-section looks like of the area that
14 you're proposing?
15 MR. VEIO: Yes, we do.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Can I see that, please?
17 MR. VEIO: I don't have that with me. My
18 hydrologist couldn't get out of Denver today, either. He
19 gave up.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, I understand. Secondly,
21 there's some points raised by a gentleman, I believe a Greg
22 Long, he shared that the effectiveness of not fully
23 assessing the hundred year -- the hundred percent in terms
24 of win/lose and why some of the easements were not granted
25 because their perceptions of a win/win was not there. It
77
1 through October through April there's hardly any water in
2 that canal; it's practically dry. So we could.pump any time
3 from'October through April because there's not any water in
4 there. But we probably wouldn't have any water in the pond
5 either.
6 When you look at the pond side, the two year
7 storm, that happens every two years. So that's kind of
8 where the level of water is in the pond. And that would be
9 piped out on -- not on a continuous basis but on a periodic
10 basis. It would be determined by the level of the canal and
it the time of year:
12 The wetlands transfer, there's been a lot of
13 discussion about this. The wetlands transfer is a
14 requirement that the city has.. It's not a Corps of
15 Engineers requirement. The amount of wetlands we have there
16 is less than 8,000 square feet. The Corps of Engineers has
17 no interest in it. The Corps of Engineers only gets
18 involved when you have over an.acre. So they don't really
19 care. We have a letter that says you have'no problem here.
20 The mitigation requirement is a city requirement.
21 So we were designing is a pond that has a slight
22 dip in it. The dip will provide a level of natural
23 groundwater to feed the wetlands. And more than likely that
24 wetlands area will'be larger than the 8,000 square feet that
25 we have in existence right now. So that's kind of how the
VKI
1 year storm, a 50 year storm or a 100 year storm. This is a
2 far better solution for all downstream homeowners and
3 property owners and it certainly won't hurt Happy Heart'
4 Farm.
5 The detention pond idea in a hundred year flood
6 or the existing condition in a hundred year flood or storm
7 will flood Stinson's property and do far more damage than
8 the conjecture damage of water quality. Far more damage.
9 The way our diagram works here, how does a pond
10 really work? What you see on the left-hand side is the
11 canal. And there's really three levels that we're trying to
12 demonstrate in the canal.
13 The top level is full. That's the green area
14 there. When the canal is running at full capacity,
15 obviously, it's full. But we can't pump any water into the
16 canal when it's full. The ditch company won't allow us to
17 do that. They'll only allow us to release water from the
18 retention pond when it's safe to do so. And what will
19 happen is that the water level will have to drop below where
20 the pipe is. And that level would be determined by the
21 ditch company. They'll tell us when we can pump water. out
22 of that pond into the ditch. And we have a letter from the
23 ditch company saying that they're willing to cooperate and
24 give us this permission.
25 At the very bottom of the canal you can see
75
1 flood downstream. But that only happens once in a hundred
2 years.
3 So you design for the hundred year event for your
4 property, and that's all you're required to do as a builder
5 or developer.
6 Now, the retention pond where it's different, it
7 has more benefits than the detention pond. In the retention
8 pond concept, what we're doing here is, Storm Water is
9 saying we're going to design for the hundred year storm, but
10 we're going to make me as a developer design for two 100.
11 year storms, back-to-back. So we have twice the volume in
12 that pond than we'd ever need.
13 And the probability of that ever filling up is
14 probably something like landing a guy on Mars next year.
15 It's that remote that we're going to have two back-to-back
16 100 year storms and fill that pond up.
17, But the benefit of this approach is that we not
18 only are able to handle the 100 year storm on site for our
19 development, but we can handle all the storm water and rain
20 water from CSU, plus all the water coming down from the
21 north. And it will sit in that pond and it will eliminate
22 the downstream flooding problem permanently.
23 Mr. Stinson's land will not be flooded. No
24
possibility of
that could occur.
No.homeowners
aownstream
25
will get water
in their basements
in
a 10 year
flood, a 20
74
1 at the West Plumb Basin, we have a flood problem. The
2 city's and storm water utility has studies that show that
3 when we have a ten year storm, that means once every ten
4 years, when it's that bad, Plumb Creek will flood.
5 The water comes rolling over CSU's property, goes
6 across the road, goes over the culvert, goes across our
7 property, comes in the canal,. goes into the canal and then
8 it overbanks at the canal.
9 As Mr. Roberts pointed out, it goes on to his
10 property. It goes onto the bank's property and it floods
11- Dennis' and Bailey's property. And then the rest of it gets
12 into the city outfall and goes down the city outfall and
13 floods those homeowners all the way down to Taft. And
14 that's in a documented study that the city had done on the
15 West Plumb Creek Basin.
16 So every ten years we're going to have a flood in
17 the existing condition. That's what's going to happen. If
18 we don't do anything, we're going to continue to have floods
19 in West Plumb Creek.
20 By having a detention pond, we reduced some of
21 the flood risk because we're able to contain the hundred
22 year storm for our site. But it doesn't contain the water
23 from CSU and it does doesn't contain the water coming down
24
from the
north off
the Anderson property when
you
have a
25
hundred
year flood.
That's going to overtop
and
continue to
I
73
1 have that right as developers or as an upstream land owner.
2 That's the law.
3 We decided that if we could come up with another
4 solution that would be more expedient, that wouldn't ruffle
5 as many feathers, we would do that. So I and Storm Water
6 sat down and tried to look at other alternatives. And we
7 looked at the retention pond alternative which we had up
8 here on the slide.
9 So that's how we got to where we are today. It
10 wasn't by choice. It was by looking at all the other
11 alternatives.
12 Now, before I explain how this works, what I'd
13 like to do is explain to you the difference between a
14 detention pond, which was approved in preliminary, versus
15 what a retention pond does.
16 A detention pond -- what we're -- what we are
17 obligated to do under the city ordinances is to provide for
18 the hundred year flood to sit on our property in a detention
19 pond. Basically to detain the rainfall and the storm
20 water. That's what a detention pond does. It sits there.
21 The water sits there. And then you can release it at the
22 historic rate. So many feet per second. That's what we're
23 supposed to do with a detention pond.
24 Now the idea behind detention ponds is to prevent
25 downstream flooding. That's what they're for. When we look
tAa
1 retention pond is now.
2 But there was a 70-foot piece in •there that we
3 didn't know about and the city didn't know about. I was
4 told when we negotiated with Dennis that he had donated or
5 deeded all of his property on the north boarder to the
6 city. All of his property, including the 70-foot strip.
7 Well, the city discovered that that 70-foot strip
8 was never dedicated. I had two title companies check and
9 the 70-foot strip was never dedicated.
10 So we made Dennis another offer and we said,
11 Dennis, look, you know, why don't you let us have an
12 easement along Orchard, the 70-foot strip along Orchard.
13 It's 70 feet wide. It's -- Or 70 feet long and it's 30 feet
14 wide. We can put the storm water underneath the city street
15 right there and it would go into the city outfall and it
16 wouldn't bother your property at all.
17 He refused to even respond to that offer. He
18 wouldn't respond to our phone calls, and he wouldn't respond
19 in writing at our request. So we felt that we did
20 everything we could to try to negotiate a solution with him.
21 So we went back to Storm Water and we said, What
22 are we going to do? We know what Colorado law allows us to
23 do in terms of draining this site. We have a right to drain
24 this property across Roberts, across the bank, across
25 Stinson into the city outfall. That's the state law. We
71
1 that technology. I own another company that's a research
2 institute and we do a lot of grants with AID and a lot of
3 other people. And this was a. new technology and they'd be
4 interested in that.
5 But for an urban environment we didn't think it
6 would work. So we couldn't get an arrangement for Storm
7 Water to work over his property because of that issue.
g As time went on, we recognized that we couldn't
9 use the natural drainage channel in our preliminary plan
10 where we had proposed a detention pond. A detention pond
11 contains the hundred year storm for our site and then
12 releases naturally a historic rate down the natural channel,
13 which is the property which runs across Mr. Roberts, the
14 bank's property and then Mr. Stinson's property to the city
15 outfall.
16 When we realized we couldn't get an easement from
17 Dennis, we worked with Storm Water to try to come up with
18 other alternatives and still maintain the detention pond.
19 We, fortunately, met a neighbor, the Fishers, who
20 live next door to the Stinsons and they very graciously gave
21 us an easement, allowed us to put the storm water pipe
22 underground along the side of their house and through their
23 backyard into the city outfall.
24 So at that point.we had, the easement from the
25 city outfall all the way back up to our property where the
70
1 easement to obtain direction for the storm water line that
2 would go under his property and not in the proposal we're
3 talking about tonight.
4 He refused that offer and requested that we give
5 him more funds and also build a 7-foot high straw bale wall
6 from Orchard Place south the full length of his property.
7 Well, I didn't know a thing about straw bales or
8 straw bale construction, so I tried to get educated. Dennis
9 gave me a book. I read the book called The Straw Bale
10 House. I went to Boulder to meet a friend of his who builds
11 straw bales and straw bale walls and read a book on
12 permaculture. Looked at four or five videos, trying to
13 understand the position that he's coming from.
14 I am a responsible developer and I want a good
15 project and I want a good neighbor. So I did everything I
16 could in my power to try to understand his position. And my
17 recommendation to him was that we can't build a straw bale
18 wall. It's not practical technology at this point. It's a'
19 new technology. It would never get past .the city. The city
20 would never approve it. The homeowners probably would think
21 it would be too foreign, certainly too high. And it would
22 be a nightmare in terms of maintenance. So we had to say. we
23 just can't do this.
24
But
we made
some
other proposals to Dennis and
25
his wife about
how we
could
help Happy Heart Farm introduce
AN
1 the same country. Denver was absolutely gridlock all the
2
way to 120th. They
shut down
I-25 just as I got through.
3
And I apologize for
the delay.
It's inconvenient for
4
everybody.
5
I'd like
to say a few things,to kind of give us
6
some background here. I'm in
all sympathy with the
7
homeowners that are
here, the
members of the Happy Heart
8 Farm.
9 When we started this project over a year ago, we
10 thought Happy Heart Farm was really a unique opportunity.for
11 us as a development and building company to work with Happy
12 Heart Farm and really creating a unique community where we
13 could take their expertise as urban gardeners and apply it
14 to our development.
15 And we approached Dennis and Bailey and made them
16 an offer to work for us as consultants to help us in
17 designing garden plots on these small lots for the duplexes
18 and for the single family homes which is a separate issue,
19 not what we're talking about tonight.
20 And then also to act as consultants for us to
21 help us to plant fruit trees and show the city -- use it as
22 an example for the city on how you can get fruit -bearing
23 trees in an urban environment.
24 That was one of our proposals to Dennis and
25 Bailey along with sizeable amount of money to purchase an
68
1 understanding that that issue was decided.
2 So I guess those are the big picture issues.
3 There will be a Homeowners Association here. The city
4 insists on Homeowners Association under the provisions of
5 the Land Development Guidance System for the last 15 years.
6 Homeowners Associations in Fort Collins haven't proven to be
7 unstable. I'm not aware of any that have failed since the
8 city requirements under the LDGS have come into play. That
9 is the city of Fort Collins' direction as far as who should
10 be in charge of.maintenance of items like this.
11 So again, we have followed the direction and
12 policies and regulations of the city of Fort Collins. And
13 feel that we are in compliance with the preliminary and with
14 the requirements of the city.
15 So we are -- Our team can try to answer any more
16 specific questions that you might have. And I think Bill
17 has a few things that you should be aware of also.
18 MR. VETO: Madam Chairman, I have a slide that
19 kind of explains how this retention pond works and wonder if
20 we could put that up. And I think it would help the
21 audience and the members understand what we're talking
22 about.
23 MS. BELL: Sure, that would fine.
24 MR. VEIO: Thank you. I'd also like to apologize
25 for the delay in getting here. I can't believe I came from
67
1 made were the -- actually, the Board asked us to make one
2 driveway connection between the duplex and the condominium
3 area. We made two. I guess we can remove one if that would
4 make'us conform to the preliminary.
5 But, you know, whether the existing ordinance is
6 perfect, whether the Land Development Guidance System does a
7 perfect job in all cases, is -- we can debate that. But I
8 think that we do have to hold this project up to the same
9 standard as every other project is and not decide here, this
10 evening, that different criteria should be applied.
11 The density is both what was on the preliminary
12 and also very much the direction the city has taken and
13 pushed and encouraged people to pursue in the last couple of
14 years.
15 And again, with the preliminary, the layout
16 density and use was established. And so I'm hopeful that we
17 can avoid reinventing the preliminary approval here tonight.
18 We are -- Part of the plan is to replace the
19 wetland area to provide wetlands plantings as has been
20 suggested by the Department of Natural Resources in the
21 bottom of the pond.
22 The rare plant study, we had an expert come in,
23 evaluate the habitat, provide a documentation to the city
24 Department of Natural Resources. Long before the
25 preliminary approval was done in April, it was our
CE
1 about half that amount. The two to one slope. At 22
2 and -a -half degrees.
3 It can be done with gentler slopes. The result
4 is that we have less flat usable area on the bottom and less
5 opportunity to replace the wetland area that Mr. Veio can
6 address. I believe that the permit from the Corps is
7 already in existence for that.
8 And the other major item that I'd like to say is,
9 that we're being asked at the public hearing on a final plan
10 that's been in the process for a year now, to say that all
it of the standards that have been applied to this and other
12 projects are different, we should apply storm drainage
13 criteria differently, we should apply groundwater criteria
14 differently. The guidance that we got from the Department
15 of Natural Resources isn't what we should have gotten.
16 there is a reason why the process is set up with
17 a neighborhood meeting early on, a preliminary plan that
18 goes through, a rigorous review and approval and a final.
19 And we -- we relied on the city's Land Development Guidance
20 System. We did everything that we could to follow the
21 adopted city goals, policies, regulations and the criteria
22 of the guidance system.
23 The plan was approved as a preliminary. The
24 final, I can't find where it is not in substantial
25 conformance with the preliminary. The changes that were
65
1 respond, I think, adequately to those kinds of issues if
2 they want to take some more time.
3 MS. BELL: Why don't we just see what it takes
4 and hopefully it won't take another 30 minutes.
5 MR. WARD: What I'd like to do is just go over
6 some of the major items. And then if there are other items
7 on the list that the Board would like to have some more
8 discussion on, we would offer that.
9 I think that, as a matter of clarification, I
10 don't find and the staff didn't find when they reviewed
11 this, that the final plan is radically different than the
12 preliminary plan that was approved by the Board in April.
13 So I'm not quite sure where that comes from.
14 The statement was made that the final plan
15 includes more large condominium buildings, that is not
16 true. The number is identical to what it was on the
17 preliminary. There is one more duplex on the final than
18 there was on the preliminary.
19 That is a -- So we're at a difference of one
20 percent, which is not -- that is a degree that could be
21 approved administratively.
22 It was repeated and frequently said that the
23 proposed retention pond was going to be built with severe 45
24 degree angle slopes. That is not true. The slopes are not
25 proposed. The current drawing has some slopes that are
64
1 situation.
2 I would like to ask that you all deny this
3 development proposal in this present form. Thank you very
4 much.
5 MS. BELL: Thank you. Are there any other folks
6 here tonight who wish. to address us on this topic? If
7 there are, please come forward.
g It looks like we'll be closing the public
9 participation part of. tonight's discussion and bringing it
10 back before the Board. Could I help you?
11 MR. WARD: Could we have a opportunity to respond
12 to some of the comments?
13 MS. BELL: A rebuttal? Yes. How about five
14 minutes?
15 MR. WARD: If that's enough to get through the
16 issues that were raised. Bill Veio has also made it here
17 now and I believe the Board had some questions.for him.
18 MS. BELL: We'll probably go ahead and address
19 those to him directly since he's come when it comes back
20 before the Board. Yes?
21 MR. BLANCHARD: Madam Chair, I guess I have some
22 concern in terms of I know Mr. Veio didn't get here until in
23 the.middle of a lot of the presentation. And I guess I have
24 concerns about the number of issues that were raised that I
25 think you need to give him more than.five minutes to
63
1 It's not
something I want
in a neighborhood where my very
2 precious
granddaughter is
going to be playing.
3 How do we know these pumps that they're going to
4 install will even keep up with the groundwater? Has
5 anybody even measured the groundwater flow in this area?
6 How fast is that pond going to fill up? No one that I ask
7 that question of had an answer for me..
8 It's going to be a major mosquitobreeding haven,
9 it looks to me like. Plus, it sounds like there's going to
10 be a fair bit of pollution in there. All the runoff, as a
11 number of people have mentioned, from gas dripping out of
12 car engines and'so on will end up in there.
13 In addition, my understanding is that the
14 existing wetlands which aren't going to be there anymore,
15 filter the runoff from the Equine Center. It goes through
16 the cattail wetlands. And they aren't going to be there.
17 where's that water going to end up? If sounds.like it's --
18 that waste is also going to end up in the retention pond.
19 So instead of a nice park, it sounds like we're
20 going to have a polluted, stagnant, smelly spot that in
21 addition could well be dangerous for kids playing in the
22 neighborhood.
23 I think it's a lousy idea. I don't want my
24 granddaughter there. And I don't think the other people in
25 the neighborhood want their kids exposed to such a
62
1 day inherit. It's also land that a little further to the
2 east my daughter and her family are thinking of building a
3 home and raising their family.
4 I'm not opposed to all development, but I am
5 opposed to this development, specifically, the recent
6 changes in it.
7 This may sound a little harsh and perhaps
8 overstated, and I don't know if it's deliberate but it
9 really feels like our neighborhood has been subjected to a
10 sort of classic bait and switch proposal.
11 When this first came up, it was a nice, green
12 area with a few buildings in it. It looked like it was
13' mostly green. It looked like a park -like setting. There
14 was a neighborhood park there that everyone was going to be
15 able to use in the neighborhood. It was supposed to be an
16 asset.
17 You look at it now and-itIs building right up
18 against building. And there's no green space except this
19 retention pond which isn't probably going to be green. It's
20 concrete and buildings. And a little, tiny bit of maybe
21 setoff in a few trees here and there. And I don't, you
22 know, I don't see any green area anymore that was presented
23 to us in the original neighborhood meeting.
24 As far as the retention pond, it looks to me like
25 it's going to be basically a neighborhood health hazard.
61
1 groundwater that you're pumping, what happens in the
2 wintertime? Is this going to flow? Is this going to
3 freeze up? Is it going to build up in a ditch? Most of
4 the irrigation companies do not flow water in the winter for
5 a reason.
6 I had an overhead which didn't turn out. I would
7 just like to present something to the Planning Board, if I
8 may, that simply shows an overlay of the existing:
9 neighborhood with the proposal. This particular proposal
10 was the original, and I know some things have changed in
11 there. And I pass those on just for your reference to show
12 the difference in density.
13 And I have watched several of the new zoning
14 proposals and there is often discussion about buffer areas.
15 My only question here: Is this one of those areas that
16 deserves some buffer? And if so, I'd certainly like to see
17 some buffer.
18 I'll conclude with the same request that many of
19 my neighbors have at this point. I think that there needs
20 to be more information presented and analyzed before there's
21 a continuance with this project. Thank you.
22 MS. DAVIDSON: Am I on? My name is Mary
23 Davidson. And my interest in this development is that my
24 mother owns the land just to the north of where the
25 'retention pond is going to be. This is land that I may some
M
1 elevations are such that it's probably no more than a foot
2 and -a -half, two foot lower than the proposed berm on this
3 property at 8 feet up.
4 So there is water on the surface there. And I
5 can guarantee that there is high groundwater there as I have
6 been stuck in it many times.
7 On the plan that I have that shows the retention
8 pond; it says that this particular property is a zero
9 discharge. In fact, there appears to be a spillway that
10 drops right directly onto my property. So if it's zero
11 discharge, why do we need a spillway?
12 I have a question of aesthetics of the property.
13 I'm sure that not many of you would care to have this kind
14 of complex built right next door, but it's a question. I
15 see an awful lot of trees. In fact, are those trees being
16 planted? Or are those only just for the color photo here?
17 I haven't heard any comments about if there is
18" groundwater in this pond. I believe that that's state
19 regulated. Has the state engineer approved any injury to
20 the groundwater? Has there been any augmentation plan
21 discussed or presented?
22 And I would think that a 3-acre opening would
23 definitely show some injury to groundwater if it exposes
24 it.
25 I also have a concern about pumping: If it is
59
1 inspired
activities by
dynamic
farmers to do
the same thing
2 in their
communities.
And this
will endanger
Happy Heart
3 Farm.
4 I urge you to disapprove the Scenic Views PUD.
5 It's a,project that will not pass the time -- the test of
6 time over the next hundred years. And so I would ask you to
7 evaluate that within yourselves..
g Does this project for you pass the test of time
9 for the next 100 years? It's your legacy. Thank you.
10 MS. BELL: Thank you. Next, please:
11 MR. ROBERTS: My name is Bill Roberts. I've; got
12 two pages of notes here but it looks like most of my
13 neighbors have covered just about every issue I have.
14 I would like to point out that I am the neighbor
15 directly to the east. In fact, the whole east side --
16 Actually, the other one would have been better. My
17 residence is right in this area. And this is property
is here -- my residence is right here on Elizabeth Street. And
19 this property that you see is directly adjacent across the
.20 irrigation ditch as well as the proposed retention pond, is
21 my property.
22 Perhaps I can answer a couple of questions here.
23 In this general area that we've talked about right
2.4 downstream of the retention pond, there is, in fact, water
25 on the surface. There's a small pond in that area and
58
1 There are many planning and zoning individuals as
2 well as developers that if they had a chance to do over,
3 they would do many development projects in the LA Basin
4 because of storm drainage issues where now poisonous
5 pollutants go directly into the ocean because they have no
6 place to properly be treated.
7 This project has the same potential on a micro
8 level. But the resource is just as important to us. The
9 Poudre River. and of course the Happy Heart Farm and the
10 neighbors surrounding —
11 As an aside, I've been involved with -- I'm a
12 co-founder of a nonprofit environmental group that's been in
13 operation for about seven years. And we have during that
14 time often been involved with wetlands mitigation projects.
15 Does that mean I have a minutes? Yeah, thank
16 you.
17 And I am sad to say even though we have benefited
18 greatly as an organization doing these projects, receiving
19 funding for them, they never even come close. to mitigating
20 wetlands. This is plain and simple. You cannot do
21 something better than.nature does. And that's.what we're
22 asking this developer to do. It's an unrealistic
23 expectation. There's a problem with that system.
24 Happy Heart Farm is a local treasure. Not only
25 is it a local treasure, it's a national treasure that has
57
1 After considering the Scenic Views PUD, I'm
2 compelled to offer the following observations. With the
3 questionable effectiveness of the storm water retention
4 system and other issues, I do not feel that the project has.
5 been fully assessed the hundred year impact of doing this
6 business.
7
This is
a win -lose proposition. It seems very
8
clear that
none of
the landowners have offered storm
9
drainage easement.
I wonder why that is? If they thought.
10
that it was
doing
to win to them, they would have offered
11
easement.
But there
are reasons why they did not feel.like
` 12
this is a
win -win
proposition, and I think these need to be
13 addressed.
14 Not enough time and research has gone into
15 assessing the impacts of the Scenic Views PUDs and its
16 proposed storm drainage retention system.
17 As Mr. Stinson mentioned, this plan has been --
18 come up rather quickly based on the entire scope of the
19 application and building process.
20 Finally, the assessment of the critical issues
21 including the environmental impact on water quality as a
22 result of this storm retention system is a critical issue,
23 plain and simple, not been addressed, only in a perfunctory
24 way. I think that the LA Basin is a classic example of not
25 addressing this problem adequately.
56
1 I waited.
2 I'm here tonight because I'm developer. I'm
3 pro -development. I'm all for people expressing and
4 realizing themselves fully and passionately through acts of
5 commerce. That is one of the ways that we truly experience
6 our magnificence in this culture.
7 What I -- One of the things that I specialize in
8 is that I'm a professional organizational development
9 consultant. And when I work with clients, I utilize the
10 following principles when evaluating their endeavors.
11 I ask them to plan their business as if it will
12 be around for the next 100 years: And this principle comes
13 from Paul Hawkins in his book Growing a Business.
14 I ask my clients to think win -win, which many of
15 you know comes from Steven Covey and the Seven Habits of
16 Highly Effective People.
17 I ask them to spend 80 percent of their time
18 planning a project -- a strategic plan, for example -- and
19 20 percent of their time implementing it. And this comes
20 from a principle from permaculture which is a way of
21 conducting agriculture in a sustainable way as well as
22 business.
23 Finally, I ask them to assess the critical issues
24 facing their project and to not proceed until these critical
25 issues have been adequately addressed.
55
1 left. We are nuclear families and single mothers. We are
2 the wealthy, the poor, and the in between.
3 We are a diverse lot. Yet we are united through
4 our conscious choice to work together toward building a
5 sustainable way of life. I'm not here tonight to argue
6 against the inevitable. I am here to plead for what is
7 possible.
.8 This farm and all it embodies through its
9 existence can and must endure even as our city grows. But
10 in order for that to become a. reality, we must pay attention
11 to maintaining the integrity of that which nourishes us
12 all. We can have both the farm and development. But the
13 development must embrace and cooperate with the land.
14 We must ensure that our water and soil and air
15 remain healthy. And without clean water, this farm cannot
16 exist. To lose the farm would be to lose a vital part of
17 the Choice City.
18 With all due respect, I would submit that the
19 choice is yours. And I ask you make that choice with a
20 fully conscious heart. Thank you.
21 MS. BELL: Thank you. Is there anyone else who
22 would like to come forward to speak to us tonight?
23 MR. LONG: Hi. My name is Gregory Long and I
24 didn't feel comfortable speaking to you from this ,side. I
25 wanted to be able to look at you more directly so that why
54
1 and an appreciation for the valuable resources we have at
2 our disposal. We must make choices. Yet the choices need
3 not be between black or white,. growth or no growth. Instead
4 we must learn to bring harmony to the Extremes.
5 Four years ago my wife and I made a conscious
6 heartfelt choice to support Happy Heart Farm. We did so for
7 a number of reasons and I won't discuss all of them here
8 tonight.
9 However, first and foremost was our desire to
10 provide our children and ourselves with high quality food.
11 Food untainted by pesticides. Food grown there, healthy
12 soil and nourished by clean water.
13 Second, we wanted to be part of a true
14 community. A community of individuals working toward a
15 common deal. We also wanted to provide our children with
16 the living understanding of the connection between the food
17 we eat, the people who work so hard to produce it and the
18 land. For this more than anything taught in schools creates
19 the foundation for a true environmental and economic ethic.
20 My wife and I are not alone. Indeed, the
21 community of members that are Happy Heart Farm represent a
22 wonderful cross-section of Fort Collins. We are lawyers and
23 carpenters, stockbrokers and shopkeepers, university
24 professors and elementary school teachers, painters and
25 preachers. We are the religious right and the new age
53
1 % talk, you might want to prepare yourself at the other mike
2 by signing in and being ready.
3 MR. BLOCK: Good evening. Thank you for giving
4 me the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Larry
5 Block. And I'm speaking as a 21-year member of the Fort
6 Collins community and a four-year member of the Happy Heart
7 Farm.
g I'm a graduate of.CSU. And having majored in
9 agronomy, know a few things about food crops. I'm also a
10 licensed real estate broker in Kansas, Missouri and
11 Colorado. And for the past twelve years, I've been involved
12 in virtually every aspect of the real estate investment
13 business, including both commercial and residential
14 development. So I understand a few things about development
15 as well.
16 There may be some people in this room tonight, I
17 know there are certainly some people in this community who
is see the interests of the farmer and those of the developer
19 as being in opposition to each other. But the truth is they
20 need not be.
21 Indeed, if Fort Collins is to grow and prosper in
22 a healthy manner, these two seemingly divergent interests
23 must learn to work together in a spirit of cooperation and
24 understanding. To accomplish this end requires a greater
25 consciousness of thought. It requires an understanding of
52
1 And this is the same canal. So they're going to pump more
2 water into this canal that's already beyond capacity when
3 there's a rainstorm.
4 This canal only has 60 percent of his original
5 capacity it's so eroded. So how are they going to take any
6 more water into this canal?
7 MS. BELL: You have about 30 seconds.
8 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. We talk of civic pride,
9 concern for our neighbors and farmers. But with this
10 development what I see is the real potential to drive out a
11 small business owner and a farm and wipe him out by
12 polluting his water and his crops.
13 An organic.farm is organic and it will no longer
14 be organic if you allow this development to go through as
15 planned.
16 And my last one thing is recreational. The
17 retention pond, there's no way that it can be called
18 recreational at 45 degree slopes and 8 feet deep. It's
19 going to be below water table, be filled with water most of
20 the time and what it is, is going to be mud.
21 Who's going to play there? Who's going to use
22 it? Let's get real. Thank you.
23 MS. BELL: Thank you. If any other folks who
24 want to speak, please come down. And I'd like to remind you
25 that we have two mikes, so if there's others who want to
51
1 to the neighborhood, the established neighborhood around to
2 the north and the east and across Overland Trail for that
3 matter.
4 A-2.12, building setbacks to me are very minimal
5 for such a large and dense development. Even Ram Village
6 has greater setbacks than this development does.
7 A-2.8, building heights and views. 33 foot high
8 buildings placed 14 to 20 feet apart will block any and all
9 views to west and south for northern and eastern homes.
10 They have lost their view totally. These buildings are so
11 close together, there will be no views between these
12 buildings.
13 Engineering, A.3.3. Water hazards. Irnis
14 retention pond with 45 degree slopes and 8 to 10 feet deep
15 is going to be a real hazard for children for sure. And I
16 don't see that they've done anything to mitigate that.
17 A.3.2,.design standards. They haven't obtained
18 water easements. -I live in the Overland Farm complex and
19 down there we've had water come over the canal two times and
20 flood out Overland Park. And we're talking two 50-year
21 floods in the last 8 years that we've lived here. So much
22 for probability.
23 And the canal also from my past experience --
24 Well, Glen Schlueter can talk to the canal being overflowed
25 twice or once, at least. He's got slides as proof of it.
50
1 Development Criteria. A.161 to start with, Land of
2 Agricultural Importance. A.19, Water Quality.
3 I see no way, at least from what,has been
4 described, that they can mitigate the potential pollution of
5 the organic farm that's in close proximity and the first
6 user of that irrigation canal after this development.
7 We're talking pesticides, herbicides, deicers.
8 They're going to need a lot of deicers for this development.
9 If you look at how close the buildings are together and how
10 much this shades the southern exposure on those buildings.
it This whole development is nothing but concrete and asphalt
12 and rooftops. A lot more water surface or surface water
13 running off of paved surface than grass fields that are
14 there now.
15 Also A-2.3 requires that there's a minimal
16 disturbance of topography. We're wiping out a wetland and
17 we're digging in a 4-acre 8 foot deep hole. I'd call that a
18 major change in topography.
19 A-2.7, architecture similar in size to other
20 buildings. There's nothing around there that's the size of
21 these buildings. That neighborhood is single family, mostly
22 single or two-story buildings. The adjacent properties are
23 all large acre. There's nothing next to this development
24 that's a regular city lot.
25 This development is way out of scale in relation
49
1 And basically, if we have this information and if
2 we do these baseline studies, I would like to see the orchid
3 survey done just to make ensure that the orchid does not
4 exist there.
5 I would like to see the wetlands remain in the
6 northwest corner. But again, if part of the plan is to
7 remove those, then I would like to see a stronj mitigation
8 plan that would offset these losses.
9 MS. BELL: Excuse me, you have about two minutes.
10 MR. HACKNEY: Okay, I'm going to close right now.
11 Thank you. I don't want this to be a pay-as-you-go project
12 where we pay and he goes. Thank you very much.
13 MS. BELL: Okay. We're now ready to have other
14 citizens speaking and there will be four minutes for each of
15 you.
16 Sir, did you sign in on the sheet?
17 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
18 MS. BELL: Okay, thank you. Remember to sign in
19 and state your name. And please let them know at the three
20 minute point that you'll have one minute to go. So four
21 minutes in total.
22 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, tonight I'm speaking to you
23 as a citizen not as a P&Z member. I want to clarify that.
24 I would suggest that you deny approval of this
25 development based upon many.items on the LDGS, All
48
1 development am I going to see more water butting up to my
2 property and creating subsurface seepage problems at my
3 house?
4
Secondly, if basements are going to be removed
5
from this development with the duplexes, does that in turn
6
mean that to compensate for the square footage loss in
7
basements, that I'm going to see possibly more structures or
8
higher structures to offset the loss of square footage below
9
the surface? This is square footage gain as we all know.
10
That's another question that I have.
11
And from what I'm hearing with the detention
12
pond, it appears that this is pretty -- the retention pond,
13
I'm sorry, is this is fairly -- a fairly new development in
14
the process. It doesn't -- I hear the gentleman refer to "I
15
believe; I think; I would expect that to occur. Basically,
16
don't worry about the details. These will be taken care of
17
later."
18
I feel that this new development has not been
19
studied properly. I would like to see the designs for this
20
pond. I'd like. to see how they're going to mitigate
21
wetlands in these areas.
22 So I guess my bottom line is there's a lot of
23 uncertainties around this new development. And I'm not
24 opposed to development. I would just like to have it done
25 correctly, properly and with intelligence.
47
1 delineated? If, in fact, that detention area is a wetland,
2 then again based on the Corps of Engineers guidelines, you
3 cannot mitigate wetlands in a wetland. You would have to go
4 to an upland site in order to support the no net loss of
5 wetlands.
6 So my concerns are the orchid. My concerns are
7 the wetlands. As I guess I understand, the retention pond
8 issue is going to have very steep banks. It's going to be
9 basically an open water body. If that's the case, I find it
10 hard to believe that one could mitigate in kind, that is to
11 say comparable wetlands in a reconstructed phase for the
12 wetlands that would be removed up at the northwest corner.
13 You need to have gradients, moisture gradients.
14 You need to have -- you can't have steep sloping banks.. All
15 you'll end up with, based on my experience, is a very thin
16 line of cattails on the perimeter of the water body.
17 So I guess I would be -- Again, a question is,
18 has this been designed so that, in fact, there are flats so
19 that the emerging vegetation which is present at the
20 northwest corner right now, that that ;could be:replaced in a
21 comparable fashion.
22 That was going to -be the two points I hit on but
23 then interestingly another issue came up. I guess if
24 there's a concern with water table on the north end, which .
25 is closeto where I'm at, I would like to know if with this
r
46
1 Lady -- the orchid. It's got a diversity that could .support
2 such a.species.
3 I. had noted that the -- it was noted in that
4 report that the survey was done, the habitat evaluation was
5 done in February. And as many of you know, the vegetation
6 community is, in a decline at that point of the.year.
7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mandates that
8 orchid surveys be conducted in the months of July and
9 August.. That's protocol. That's the Fish and Wildlife
10 Service regulations on doing orchid surveys.
11 So unless I've missed the boat here, again I came
12 into this process late in the game since.I moved to this
13 property in September. But as far as I'm concerned, the
14 survey needs to be completed in July and August as dictated
15 by the Fish and Wildlife Service to, in fact, make a
16 determination on whether or not this orchid does occur
17 here. It is federally protected plant.
18 And what I'd like to also move to is the issue of
19 wetlands. The question I would have is that the
20 detention/retention pond area as it was mentioned is in a
21 low-lying area with a high water table.
22 Again, my question would be has this area been
23 delineated? Is it possible that this is, in fact, a
24 wetland itself? Maybe not in an obvious sort of way but I
25 guess that would be a question I would have is was this area
44
1 To sum up, this project should never have passed
2 the preliminary approval of Planning and Zoning. There were
3 never any storm drainage easements agreements that were
4 anything but the developer's ability to make conjecture into.
5 salesmanship.
6 The so-called solution that is being rushed at
7 this community tonight is not a solution at all. It.is
8 again full of wild assumptions, lack of study, danger and
9 contempt for those who will have to work out the details and
10 live with them later.
11 If this proposal is final tonight,. the city and
12 the ditch company will .take serious responsibility for the
13 many details that we've outlined here. And my neighbors and
14 I will be left with the problems, the frustrations and the
15 dangers.
16 We .ask you to deny final approval of this
17 project. Thank you. And I've got another person who wants
18 to speak.
19 MS. BELL: We have about nine minutes left for
20 your presentation.
21 MR. HACKNEY: Thank you very much. I appreciate
22 the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Phil Hackney.
23 I live at 720 South Overland Trail which is up on the
24 northwest property adjacent to this proposed development.
25 I've moved into this area in September and I've
43
1 is unproven.
2 He has also stated that any datafication would be
3 expensive, lengthy, extremely variable and difficult to
4 state except in highly relative terms. He's also stated
5 that the Happy Heart Farm has the most direct need for water
6 quality issues,to be addressed that he personally has ever
7 heard in this city. And that it is true that there are
8 anthroprogenic possibilities in this storm drainage
9 scenario.
10 our position is this: We are sure that there is
11 a relationship between the water quality and our farm, its
12 mission and its produce and the community that we are a part
13 of and that we serve..
14 We will not be a storm drainage hazardous waste
15 experiment. The Happy Heart Farm and the Rogers Park
16 neighborhood demand that thorough baseline studies, such as
17 event mean concentration statistics, paid for by the
18 developer be applied before, not after this proposal is
19 final. And that we really take these studies into the
20 community to dialogue the values of water quality, not just
21 hear the relative numbers and parts per million.
22 The health and well being of our farm, our
23 neighborhood, our community and our river are under attack
24 from this ill-considered ramrod approach and it's time and
25 it's the place to draw the line..
41
1 the community -wide Criterion Section A-1.6: Lands of
2 Agricultural Importance.
3 And as a representative to the neighborhood, I'm
4 asking for the survival of the Happy Heart Farm as one of
5 the unique and wonderful characteristics we cherish in that
6 neighborhood.
7 Water quality is everything to every farm,
8 really. And everyone farms, really. If it's not --,it's
9 not just coincidental that this very week on the same day,
10 the late breaking so-called solution of this proposed
11 project storm drainage projects were let out that the paper
12 carried the headlines in the local section: "Caution.
13 storm sewers tied to drinking water."
14 The article brought out a great deal to light,
15 showing how untreated storm water is costly and deadly to
16 the life of the Poudre River and the life that depends upon
17 it.
18 on my farm, it is the galactic number of
19 organisms on the soil that make it organic. That is, living
20 soil.
21 The plants that are the fruits and vegetables
22 that we nourish our families with and those families
23 themselves that drink the Poudre water that has been danced
24 as rainbows through our irrigation pipes from the Pleasant
25 Valley ditch just downstream from Mr. Veio's open pit mine
40
1 bring to bear.
2 It is of a soil that has for 13 years been
3 treated with absolutely no chemicals, pesticides or
4 contaminants. It is of a group of individuals and families
5 that every year choose our produce over even the retail
6 produce that is readily available today because the families
7 come directly to the farm once a week to get it fresh picked
8 that day full of vitality and flavor.
9 It is of educational groups of all ages that come
10 from all sorts of schools -- private and public, preschool
11 to postgraduate -- to learn biodynamic agriculture, small
12 scale agricultural techniques and the relationship between
13 what we grow and how we grow it and who we are as a local
14 and global community.
15 Our main lesson is connection, which is the basic
16 element of community. Our context is the way in which we
17 steward, which means the way in which we take care of our
18 sacred homeland.
19 Since we began modeling the. Happy Heart as this
20 region's first community supporting farm, we have helped
21 this movement to grow from eight such projects in the
22 country to over 500 in the U.S., thousands in the world and
23 15 more in Colorado.
24
I say
all
of
this
because I
want you
to fill in
25
the Happy Heart
Farm
in
the
blank that
is in the
LDGS under
39
1 project, water our organic biodynamic vegetable produce with
2 that concentration of oil spill, gasoline products, salt,
3 pesticides and other proven anthroprogenic -- which means
4 bad for people and other living things -- substances.
5 Ladies and gentlemen,- we're asking you to
6 disapprove this project on the grounds that this
7 contamination of storm drainage water will pollute the
8 Poudre River which has flowed for a hundred and thirty some
9 years in the banks of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal
10 Ditch, which will tremendously compromise the quality and
11 purity of our organic biodynamic healing food which we have
12 grown for 300 community members for the past 13 years.
13 More history. The Happy Heart Farm•is definitely
14 one of the last farms in Fort Collins. We have helped to
15 pioneer the organic produce movement for nearly the last 20
16 years.
17 The Happy Heart Farm is the very first farm in
18 the Rocky Mountain region to pilot and model a new hope for
19 the sweeping loss of the family farms across the nation.
20 The idea being called -community supporting agriculture.
21 In very broad terms, it has been our life's work
22 to be a focalizing point, a central space, if you will,
23 where the Fort Collins community can experience the
24 nourishment of the highest quality food grown with all the
25 stewardship and loving attention that we as a community can
37
1 Is this even a retention pond? Apparently this
2 pond will be set up to handle the storm drainage runoff from
3 21 acres of what is now asphalt and rooftops.
4 But, again, this is the moving target. I had a
5 whole paragraph here on the underdrain systems which would
6 be pumping into the ditch and now that seems to be changed
7 as of three o'clock this afternoon. So I'll skip that
8 part.
9 But apparently we still have groundwater that is
10 very much going to be pumpedinto a ditch which capacity has
11 been limited over its 130 year life span by siltation and
12 other processes, and it's going to be affecting the amount
13 of the ditch capacity to hold that water.
14 It's a very real concern for the ditch company
15 and it's a very real concern for those of us in the
16 neighborhood downstream from there. And so we have a whole
17 set of other concerns now, for the ditch company and the
18 neighborhood.
19 The ditch company's not excited about the
20 possibility of having a huge new volume of water in its
21 banks all year-round for any reason. For many reasons, many
22 of which are around yearly maintenance requirements and
23 liability for related overflow and backup scenarios that
24 have happened in the past with other stretches of this
25 ditch, and that could happen with this stretch of this
C
36
1 So we in the neighborhood feel that some of the
2 most important and basic questions haven't even been asked
3 much less baseline measurements taken on which to establish
4 criterion for answers. These assumptions and calculations
5 should be checked and double-checked.
6 It was the assumption that storm drainage
7 easements.were there that never were that got this project
8 erroneously passed in the preliminary stage of approval. We
9 feel that it should be started all over again so that we can
10 do it right this time.
11 More issues and details with the so-called
12 retention pond, assuming very reluctantly that it could be
13 dug at all. How can this pond be possibly considered as a
14 mitigation area for the cattail wetlands that will be
15 destroyed in this project as specified in the preliminary?
16 Not only are the wetlands not mitigated for, and
17 the attractively marketed park for the neighborhood gone,
18 which may have gained the developer as many as ten
19 development points in the bargain, but the neighborhood
20 children are now tempted into a tremendously dangerous
21 situation which would be an attractive nuisance. An 8 feet
22 deep retention pond with 45 degree slopes. .
23 With the recent drownings in other ditches last
24 summer, both the neighbors and the ditch company are rightly
25 concerned with this very real safety hazard.
35
1 And here's the rub, ladies and gentlemen. How
2 can we really call this process planning when we are all
3 being asked to okay this radically different plan at the
4 drop of a hat?
5 I know that the Pleasant Valley Ditch Company
6 didn't receive any details of this idea until Wednesday
7 evening of last week. And I guess that probably, the city
8 planners got those about the same time.
9 Of course, the neighborhood wasn't invited into
10 this information loop. But all of a sudden, all of this
11 data is supposed to be digested by the various planning
12 departments for you on the Board to make important decisions
13 in a matter of three days.
14 This is the stack of maps that the Pleasant
15 Valley Ditch Company got. There's 20 pages of maps here.
16 This is the documentation that came with it. This is a huge
17 amount of information that this applicant is asking people
18 to wade through. And if we're calling it simple technical
19 data, I don't see it that way. And we're being asked to
20
make important decisions based
upon a moving
target because
21
it wasn't until three o'clock
this afternoon
that we found
22
out that we were not going to
do underdrains
now.
23
It's very difficult to call this
planning when
24
we're constantly working with
just.a moving
target like
25 this.
1
34
1 and continuous subsurface water?
2 Do we have baseline measurements on how much
3 underground water will be displaced and turned into surface
4 water and removed in the process of digging a hole?
5 Is that underground water then owned by the state
6 of Colorado or some agency within it like the Poudre River
7 Commission as surface water?
8 Has the area where this retention pond is
9 proposed been thoroughly documented as to whether it itself
10 is a possible wetlands designation?
11 There may be newly -modified federal EPA laws that
12 are germane here, specifically something called permit 26
13 around wetlands areas where that wetlands designation has
14 been significantly reduced to down to about 3 acres. That
15 should be seriously datafied by our natural resource .
16 people.
17 Where might all of this water be pumped in the
18 process? Making the wild assumption that the digging of
19 this huge open pit action were even possible.
20 If digging is taking place while the ditch is
21 running from May to October, the underground water will be
22 definitely increased by ditch flow. Will it be altering the
23 amounts of flow in the ditch itself? These baseline
24 measurements must be done even before consideration of
25 digging this huge hole.
33
1 side from where the retention pond is.
2 And so we have water level that's less than 2
3 feet off of grade presently. And this after a long period of
4 no ditch or rainfall inputs. And on both sides of the
5 ditch.
6 The point? As long as there have been records
7 and to .the present this area has geographically been a basin
8 that has carried lots of ground and subsurface water. And
9 it still does and it always will.
10 If we can show the slides, please, a little
11 further on? Thanks.
12 This is taken the same day. This is the water
13 standing on the surface of the north side of this proposed
14 property. .This water is.flowing surface water.
15 Another slide? Another one? Just a wider
16 view. What we're looking at -- One back, please. Thanks,
17 Mitch. This looking to the west across the north end of
18 this project. As you can see, there's a lot of water.
19 Excuse me. This is a lot of water.
20 one more slide forward, please. This is what's
21 standing there in the water. And so all of this water has
22 been here historically; it's always been there.
23 How on earth is there even a possibility that
24 this huge hole -- we're talking about almost 3•acres worth
25 of hole -- going to be dug 8 feet down into this standing
W,
1 proposed project brings to tonight's discussion.
2 Pioneers also observed standing and flowing
3 surface water and dug and recorded many wells in this area.
4 Wells of record in 1908 showed that the subsurface water was
5 hit at just two feet. And in the area, those old recorded
6 depths were at four feet, maybe six feet, in other words,
7 very close to the surface and lots of water.
8 These wells, some of them are still there. And
9 they continue to hold water to this day. And I'd like to
10 show you a picture of them in this slide.
11 This particular slide is in this so-called
12 retention pond drainage area. And this picture -- this
13 slide was taken last week after about three very dry
14 months. And after the Pleasant Valley Ditch has itself had
15 been shut off for two months.
16 We can see that, let's see, we can see that this
17 particular slide is in the retention area itself just on the
18 east side of the ditch. And if you can see with me, that
19 groundwater is at a depth of less than 2 feet. . ,
20 Now, there's other slides if we could move ahead,
21 maybe two or three slides. Just referencing them. Now this
22 one is taken on what's called the high side of the basin and
23 on the west side of the ditch. The water level there is at
24
only 4
feet. And
that's
off the grade.
And this
in an
area
25
which
is proposed
-- in
a different area
that's on
the
other
31
1 Tonight's plan has a look on the order of Ram's
2 Village or Jefferson Commons with no way for the existing
3 neighbors to look through it to the foothills. The cruel
4 irony of the choice of this project's name becomes less and
5 less laughable.
6 Most significantly different tonight is the
7 developer's radical proposal for storm drainage runoff.
8 Again, some history is necessary.
9 The -northern half of this proposed project site
10 lies in a geographical basin and is a part of what is called
11 the Plumb Creek Basin which is designated on the storm
12 drainage maps as a part of a hundred year flood plain.
13 very early on pioneering farmers knew the
14 incredible importance of water to their hopes for survival
15 of this near desert climate. And at great sacrifice of hard
16 labor dug their irrigation canals back and forth through the
17 basins.
18 one of the early ones was called the Pleasant
19 Vally Ditch built in the 1860s and still serving those
20 pioneering farmers like at the Happy Heart Farm today. I'll
21 speak more of that in a moment because as much as the
22 neighborhood is changed in those 130 years, that ditch, it's
23 relationship to the Poudre River and the people it has
24 been -- that it has been the life's"blood to in this
25 neighborhood are an incredibly important change this
30
1 meetings citizens raised numerous questions about
2 neighborhood compatibility of such a huge density, about the
3 inevitable loss of the irreplaceable wetlands and wildlife.
4 About traffic congestion, flow patterns and safety, noise
5 and stress levels.
6 The storm drainage runoff from this project was
7 questioned at both of those meetings. These issues were
8 addressed by the city planning staff and approved as being
9 in compliance by this Board but in a very different
10 conceptual- configuration than what we're looking at tonight.
it It's important that the storm drainage stamp
12 should not have been granted because there never were any
13 easements granted contrary to information provided by the
14 developer.
15 What's so different about this plan tonight?
16 It was already a concept of densely packed multiplexes and
17 parking lots with a little greenery around it, heading into
18. a so-called neighborhood park that was supposed to somewhat
19 offset the loss of a sensitive wetlands. This has now
20 become a much more densely packed set of multiplexes with
21 much less greenery and no park at all.
22 Please note that there are more huge buildings in
23 tonight's redo and they have been -- have much different
24 setbacks from the roads and the distances between each of
25 the other buildings.
28
1 unless there's just real burning questions we have.
2 All right. At this point I'd like to open it up
.3 to public participation._ And just let me remind the
4 audience of our system. And that is'that if you are a part
5 of an organized neighborhood group, you have 30 minutes to
6 talk. If you are just here as an individual on your own
7 behalf to speak, you'll have four minutes to talk.
8 And what we usually do is have a little buzzer go
9 off like for the individuals, like at three minutes, to let
10 them know. And we'll let you know at five minutes on the
11 group presentations.
12 Before we begin, could I have a show of hands of
13 how many neighborhood groups do we have to speak to us
14 tonight? Raise your hand if you're here to represent a
15 group?
16 Okay, so we just have one of those. And how many
17 people are here to speak on their own behalf as individuals?
18 Raise your hand.
19 Okay. Then I think that system ought to work
20 just fine. So could we begin with the neighborhood
21 presentation, please. And as usual, just come down and sign
22 your -- sign in and give us your name, please.
23 MR. STINSON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
24 My name is Dennis Stinson. I'm from 2820 West Elizabeth
25 Street'. That is the Happy Heart Farm. And tonight I will
27
1 slated to be built as part of this project?
2 MR. WARD: They are with the development that is
3 adjacent to them. The other facilities that you're talking
4 about are in this area. And they would be built with the --
5 that phase of the condominium project is in that area.
6 MS. BELL: And so which phase is planned first
7 then?
g
MR.
WARD: That is the first phase that's planned
9
at the moment.
It would be possible that some of the
10
duplexes
could
move forward concurrently or, you know,
11
possibly
even
just ahead of this. But the duplex area is
12
marketed
toward
a so-called empty -nester market. And their
13
impact on the
day-care center would be minimal.
14
So
that's why the -- those facilities are
15
attached
to the condominium area where most of the users
16 will be.
17 MR. HAAS: Just to add clarification. On the
18 site plans your packets, there is actual phase plans drawn
19 and phrases labeled. The duplex portion and the lower
20 portion of the multifamily around the community clubhouse
21 and all are Phase I. The day-care, however, is shown as
22 Phase IV which tends to make some sense. You want to wait
23 until the residents are.in before you provide the day-care.
24 MS. BELL: Okay. I would like to suggest to the
25 Board that we move on to the public participation point
26
1 recreation area. Active recreation area or I don't even
2 know if that's the term in the Guidance System, but is
3 defined as an area that's over 10,000 square feet in the
4 area and having a dimension of at least 50 feet.
5 Permanent lakes have purposely been built as
6 active recreation areas in other places. Open areas does
7 not necessarily mean a place where you play football. Often
8 preservation of large stands of trees accounts for open
9 space. It's a dimensional requirement. It doesn't
10 necessarily mean a sports field.
11 In fact, we are routinely encouraged by the
12 Department of Natural Resources to create wetlands -type
13 habitats in the open space areas that count for points under
14 the LDGS. So if there was water there, we're also purposely
15 creating a wetland environment in the lower part of that
16 pond. Standing water would just enhance that.
17 So I guess we would be changing the character of
18 it but it wouldn't change its ability to qualify for the
19 points.
20
MR.
HAAS: That is, in my estimation, a correct
21
interpretation
of the definition.
22
MR.
CHAPMAN: Thanks for the
clarification
23
MS.
BELL: I would just like
to be reminded.
24
When will the
other recreational -- like
the day-care
25
facilities, clubhouse and swimming pool
-- when are those
25
1 common in Fort Collins, that the ditches tend to'seep.and
2 most of that seepage happens -- tends to happen on the
3 downstream side.
4 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you.
5 MR. CHAPMAN: I'd just like to clarify my
6 interest in the retention versus detention pond. And the
7 reason for the questions is that I understand that in the
8 analysis of the vegetation on the northwest section of this
9 they were looking for some Ute Ladies Orchids, I.believe it
10 was?
11 MR. WARD: That's correct.
12 MR. CHAPMAN: And described the area as having
13 cattails in it in a very high water table. And so when we
14 start talking about building a retention as opposed to a
15 detention pond and digging it deeper, it's my assumption
16 that that groundwater will run into that retention pond and
17 actually make a permanent pond there.
18 And if it becomes a permanent pond, it cannot be
19 used for open area recreation. And you're getting 10 points
20 on the LDGS system for having a open area recreational
21 area. Current point, you've got 105 points. And if you
22 lose those ten points, you're down to 95; you're below the
23 threshold. I'm interested in that.
24 MR. WARD: The fact that there's water in a pond
25, does not disqualify it from the definition of active
24
1 there is an
affect on the
Happy Heart. Farm or the
2 surrounding
neighborhoods
around Orchard and plum Street
3 areas?
4 MR. WARD: I don't think there's -- I mean, that
5 is -- I guess, actually the affect on.those properties is
6 somewhat lessened by this development. In the existing
7 condition when a hundred year storm or major storm occurs,
8 that water runs off undetained. If the ditch is running
9 full, the water goes across the ditch and those downstream
10 properties are impacted by the full extent of the hundred
11 year storm.
12 Under the developed condition, ordinarily, the
13 storm.water would be detained and then released at a. two
14 year rate, so the amount of release would be substantially
15 less.
16 In this case, with retention, the impact on the
17 downstream properties is drastically reduced because none of
18 the storm water runoff is allowed to proceed into those
19 properties as it would. So in that light, the risk is
20 substantially reduced.
21 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Also is that area
22 considered a high water table area?
23 MR. WARD: There is high water in. the --
24 particularly in the area downstream from the ditch. So to
25 the east of the site more so than on the site which is
01
23
1 open area looks like now with the changes from detention to
2 retention?
3 MR. WARD: You can as soon as Bill Veio arrives,
4 he's got those with him. I don't have -- we don't have one
5 readily available at this moment and you don't have one
6 either Glen?
7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, let me skip onto that and
8 come back to it later? Have you done an analysis of the
9 risk factor on this change and.how it's going to affect the
10 surrounding neighbors?
11 MR. WARD: Risk in terms of --
12 MR. GAVALDON: The retention versus detention?
13 MR. WARD: No more than is done on any other -- I
14 mean, the retention pond isn't going to affect the size of
15 the storm, the amount of water that falls. And I suppose
16 the -- I don't know what the risk factor is that you'd be
17 referring to.
18 There was a detention pond there on the
19 preliminary. It was going to hold water. The fact that
20 there will be more water held here, is that -- Z guess I
21 don't understand exactly what risks we're talking about.
22 MR. GAVALDON: I'm looking at the vicinity map,
23 you have a Happy Heart Farm there.
24 MR. WARD: Yes.
25 MR. GAVALDON:, I would just like to understand if.
22
1 MR. WARD: Yes, it does.
2 MS. BELL: I just have one question. So the
3 recreation.area hasn't really changed in size? Is it
4 getting deeper in order to handle the capacity?
5 MR. WARD: Yes, I mean, the difference in simple
6 terms, and Glen or David could correct me if I'm wrong, is
7 that it's getting deeper and the side slopes are steeper in
8 the temporary condition while it's a retention pond as
9 opposed to it was a little more shallow and the slopes were
10 a little more gentle as a detention pond with a controlled
11 release.
12 But the land area is essentially the same. The
13 site layout is the same. The depth and the side slopes are
14 a little bit different in order to raise the capacity.
15 MS. BELL: Okay. Do other Board members have
16 questions of the applicant?
17 MR. GAVALDON: Hi, Eldon. Back to your comment
18 about getting into the technical aspect, it appears that the
19 change in this is contributing to a redesign of the open
20 area which can be, with steeper slope sides and higher
21 capacity, can be -- make it kind of difficult to really use
22 as a springboard effect to other areas around it. I think
23 that's why we're looking at this a little closer. From my
24 view, I would like to understand.
25 So can I get a cross -sectional cut of what your
21
1 As far as we know, we have presented solutions that meet the
2 city's city standards and requirements. It's just unusual
3 that we get into that level of detail with the Planning and
4 Zoning Board.
5 In the bigger picture, the site is in substantial
6 conformance with the preliminary. The preliminary was
7 approved last April. I can't remember the exact date.
s The condition of the Board to have a vehicular
9 connection between the duplex and the condominium area has
10 been done. There are other site refinements that talked
11 about with staff have been accomplished.
12 The layout, the density of the land use, all of
13 the things that were established with the preliminary are
14 substantially the same. And so we feel that it is indeed
15 appropriate to go ahead and approve this on final tonight.
16 The technical issues that need to be worked out
17 before the development agreement are not that unusual in
is this case. There are similar discussions that go on on many
19 projects.
20 I don't know if we need to go through a detailed
21 description of the site since.it is essentially the same as
22 it was at the preliminary. We'd be happy to do that if the
23 Board would like. Or if we'd like to just move on to
24 questions and answers. We could do that at this time.
25 MS. BELL: Does that end your presentation then?
ME
I most direct easements couldn't be obtained, that the
2 existing Orchard Road right-of-way or at least the sewer
3 easement that coincides with Orchard Road could be used to
4 convey storm drainage from the site as has been done in
5 other projects in the recent past.
6 When after many months of working those options
7 did not appear to be working, the proposal that's before you
8 tonight to enlarge the capacity of the pond, to double the
9 capacity of a hundred year storm was brought up. As Glen
10 said, that is an acceptable solution. It does meet city
11 standards.
.12 The pumping the water out of there in a
13 reasonable amount of time is more of a discretionary item.
14 There are vast areas of the city park system that are under
15 water in a hundred year storm and would be for sometime.
16 That doesn't mean those aren't legitimate recreational
17 sites.
18 The site, whether it has water in it or not,
19 meets the definition in the LDGS for active recreational
20 area. It's just a common sense thing to pump the water out
21 and have that be useful in a shorter period of time. And
22 also to get rid of the nuisance factors of stagnant water
23 and that sort of thing.
24 So as far as the -- those items are concerned,
25 they're mostly technical solutions to technical problems.
19
1 subdrain system. Those discussions happen on all projects.
2 If the subdrain system can't meet the city's
3 project, then as the applicant has indicated, the choices
4 are to do something that works. Reduce basements. It's not-
5 typically something that affects the land use or the site
6 plan decision.
7 The thing that's unusual here is the detention
8 versus, retention. All of the other aspects that were
9 brought up about, you know, what storm water is; what's the
10 difference between the existing condition and the historic
it condition and the developed condition, that is, again, a
12 part of'the technical review on all projects. I.t would have
13 been the same concerns on everything that was approved on
14 consent tonight and all the other projects that have gone
15 through the Board for years.
16 So I guess what I'm hopeful is that we don't
17 spend a huge amount of time having a course in Storm
18 Drainage 101 and look at what we're really doing tonight
19 which is approving, hopefully, a final PUD which is in
20 substantial compliance with the preliminary.
21 The unusual situation, as Glen pointed out, is
22 with the retention versus detention. Throughout this
23 process for the past year, city maps and other documents
24 showed that there was right-of-way in place for Orchard Road
25 and the applicant had been under the impression that if the
18
1 MR.
SCHLUETER:
That's true.
2 MR.
COLTON: Thank you.
3 MS.
BELL: Okay,
are there any other questions or
4 are we ready to move on to
another phase of this discussion?
5 Let's do that.
Go ahead,
Jerry.
6 MR. GAVALDON: I was wondering if we're going to
7 hear from the applicant? I think there are some unanswered
8 questions.
9 MS. BELL: Okay. Is there someone present who
10 would like to speak for. the applicant?
11 MR. WARD: I'm Eldon Ward with the Cityscape
12 Urban Design Planning Consultant. I've also got the
13 applicant's engineers here tonight.
14 I guess one thing that's a little bit unusual
15 about this discussion is the types of things we're talking
16 about are, as far as whether or not a subdrain system works
17 and infiltration of sewer lines, those are discussions that
18 happen on virtually every project. They're not typically
19 part of the Planning and Zoning Board's review. They don't
20 affect the site plan as such. They're technical.
21 You know, we don't get into discussing, you know,
22 how hard it is to operate fire hydrants or how hard it is to
23 lift off a manhole cover by the Planning and Zoning Board.
24 I'm not sure why we're getting into some of the
25 things that are being discussed tonight as far as the
17
1 other day I thought that I heard that the city policy was
2 not to mix irrigation water and storm water together. Yet
3 that seems to be exactly what the applicant's plan is here.
4 Could you address that?
5 MR. SCHLUETER: Yes. The -- Well, right now they
6 are mixing it. If that property -- if they have a
7 rainstorm, is goes into the ditch.
8 What we're doing here is that eventually, I mean,
g well, that water would all go under the ditch now into the
10 retention pond. And eventually we could get a'positive
11 outfall so we would not be mixing the two.
12 And also from the development, there is an
13 increase in volume. So any increase in volume in that ditch
14 has a bigger impact. That's why we'd rather have it
15 retained and released at a slower rate.
16 MR. COLTON: So the water does -- currently does
17 go in there but currently it's water that is -- goes through
18 grass and, I mean, there's a field out there, right?
lg MR. SCHLUETER: Right.
20 MR. COLTON: So some of it runs through a field
21 and some of it goes into the ground and so forth. Whereas,
22 this is stuff right off the street and sidewalks and
23 driveways and everything else that goes into the pond and
24 within 48 hours, it goes into the ditch without really
25 having much filtering.
16
1 MR. SCHLUETER:
Well, it
would be
part of the
2 Homeowners Association to
maintain
it. They're
going to
3 have to maintain the open spaces anyway.
4 MR. BYRNE: Okay, thanks.
5 MS. WEITKUNAT: So is the concern for the water
6 in the ditch or, I'm sorry, in the retention pond, the fact
7 that if it rains again, it will overflow and flood people?
8 I mean, is that the concern about pumping this out? You
9 might get too much water and somebody might be flooded?
10 MR. SCHLUETER: Well, if we didn't dump it out,
11 it would have to either evaporate or percolate and that
12 could take weeks. And so you end up with this smelly pond
13 sitting there. That's why we'd prefer they pumped it into
14 the ditch.
15 MR. COLTON: I'm a little bit confused about a
16 detention pond and the retention pond. Could you just hit
17 that briefly?
18 MR. SCHLUETER: A detention pond has an
19 appositive outlet. It just can't handle all the hundred
20 year storm. So it's like pouring water into your sink real
21 fast and having a real small outlet.
22 A retention pond basically relies upon
23 evaporation or percolation or pumping to get it out of the
24 pond.
25 MR. COLTON: Okay. And at the work session the
15
1 MR. SCHLUETER: Well, for one thing the ditch
2 does not have the capacity to take the hundred year storm
3 when -it's happening. There's enough areas in the county
4 already draining into this that it spills.
5 MR. BYRNE: So that begs the question if -- if
6 we're in a condition that that's occurring, how can you pump
7 it -- you see what I'm saying? I'm sure you guys have
8 worked through are the numbers here but --
9 MR. SCHLUETER: The pumping would not occur until
10 after the storm -- the ditch in the water had gone down.
11 MR. BYRNE: Okay. So we get a bunch of rain, the
12 ditch is full. All the water goes into the retention pond
13 and the idea is then that the ditch recedes somewhat and
14 then we can pump from the detention pond or retention pond
15 into the ditch?
16 MR. SCHLUETER: That's correct.
17 MR. BYRNE: What about maintaining the pump?
18 Because if the pump fails, you know, what happens?
19 MR. SCHLUETER: Well, they'll probably call the
20 city first. However, we do --'and we probably would pump it
21 for them. But any charges like that would go back to the
22 Homeowners Association. And if there was no association, it
.23 would go back to the property owners.
24 MR. BYRNE: And so there's a maintenance schedule
25 and all that sort of thing?
14
1 MR. HAAS: My understanding of that is on a
2 hundred year flood, given the size of the pump, it could be
3 dewatered within a time period of eight to twelve hours.
4 A hundred year flood, obviously, occurs once
5 every hundred years on probability. So eight hours over the
6 long run would not, in my estimation, disqualify it as
7 recreational open space.
s MR. CHAPMAN: Well, that adds the other question
9 then and that is can the applicant demonstrate that the
10 ditch company will be willing to accept that volume.of water
11 immediately after a hundred year storm?
12 MR. SCHLUETER: That is part of the approval and
13 he has made the initial contact and has told us that there
14 is no problem with that.
15 And, traditionally, with this particular ditch,
16 they'll accept anything. We're more concerned about what
17 they're accepting than they are because it does spill so
is often.
19 MR. HAAS: .If I should add, my understanding is
20 they have given a preliminary letter saying they would
21 accept the volumes but still want to review the plans.
22 MR. BYRNE: Why a retention pond if .all you're
23 doing is moving the water off the site to a pond that just
24 then gets pumped right into the irrigation ditch? Why not
25 just, you know, why not just cut out the middle man?
13
1 gives the water more contact with vegetation which is
2 basically what we do for best management practices and water
3 quality.
4 MR. CHAPMAN: The last question is, would this
5 retention pond always have water in it?
6 MR. SCHLUETER: No, he plans to pump it down.
7 And we can -- I guess it's kind of up to the Board, but.I
8 was thinking of something in the area of a pump large enough
9 to empty the pond in half a day or a hundred year storm in a
10' half a day or something like that. It depends on how big a
11 pump he puts in it.
12 MR. CHAPMAN: That leads to the question then on
13 the original plat, it shows that this is a detention pond
14 and also a recreational area.
15 And the question is since it's now become a
16 retention pond that supposedly would hold water for either
17 longer periods of time or perhaps continuously, does it
18 still qualify as a recreational area for an open space area?
19 MR. SCHLUETER: We had some discussions about
20 that. I think that's again where this pumping requirement
21 comes in. If you require a big enough pump that the land is
22 usable within a -certain amount of time, I mean, most parks
23 you're not out there right after a rainstorm anyway, because
24 it's wet. So, you know, I think a reasonable'four hours of
25 pumping time or maybe even eight hours is not unreasonable.
12
1 MR. CHAPMAN: I guess my concern is the reason
2 I'm making the statement is that I believe that if this
3 retention pond is full of water, it will charge the surface
4 waters as much as the backflow from the pond would through
5 that groundwater dewatering system or perhaps more.
6 MR. SCHLUETER: Yes, that's what Roger's concern
7 is, that it's actually going to add more to it. But you're
8 right, it adds to the groundwater too.
9 MR. CHAPMAN- Another question would relate to
10 the water quality in that retention pond, at least a portion
11 of it. Assuming that they go ahead and put in the.
12 dewatering system for the lots that are wet, at least a
13 portion of the water in the retention pond would be runoff
14 water that conceivably could have oil and things that like
15 that come off the streets in it.
16 Are there water quality requirements that would
17 have to be met in order to discharge into that irrigation
18 ditch?
19 MR. SCHLUETER: Presently they have no
20 requirements. The pollutants that we typically get are not
21 measurable at this point. We don't have equipment that can
22 even measure it.
23 One thing that they are doing is, .I heard tonight
24 that they're going to be mitigating the wetlands that are
25 along the north property line within the pond. And that
11
1 groundwater and this was all going to work tonight.
2 Hopefully, he'll show up or his engineer is here and can
3 present that to us too. Another thing to add is that this
4 retention pond is sized for double to hundred year storms.
5 So you could have two consecutive hundred year storms and
6 hold all the water.
7 MR. CHAPMAN: I have a couple of questions. The
8 retention pond construction, is that what would be termed a
9 lined pit or a lined retention pond so that no water could
10 go from that pond into the groundwaters?
11 MR. SCHLUETER: No, we usually don't require-
12 that.
13 MR. CHAPMAN: So water could flow back and forth
14 between the groundwaters and this retention pond?
15 MR. SCHLUETER: That's true. I think right now
16 that the PB&L probably contributes considerable amount to
17 the groundwater in the summertime to the people east of the
18 site anyway.
19 You know, it could be a requirement that you do.
20 It's -- Unfortunately, there are no regulations in the city
21 and none that I know of in the state that require any kind
22 of jurisdictional review of these things. And it's sort of
23 up to the people building them. It's their liability what
24 they do to people downstream and they could end up in court
25 that way.
10
1 evening, he can also address that.
2 That pretty well summarizes. our concerns. If you
3 have any questions, I'll be more than happy to --
4 MS. BELL: Karen?
5 MS. WEITKUNAT: Just for clarification, what
6 we're talking about is storm water that occurs when it
7 rains? Nothing happens to this site in periods of dryness,
8 is that the concern?
9 1 MR. SCHLUETER: That's correct.
10 MS'. WEITKUNAT: Okay, so when it rains, this
11 retention pond will pick up the runoff from this project.
12 They will pump it out of the project into a underdrain
13 system that you feel is inadequate?
14 MR. SCHLUETER: No, they'll be pumping -- The
15. underdrain system was proposed to gravity into the pond.
16 The pump would be from the retention pond into the
17 irrigation ditch which is where the water is going right
18 now.
19 So it actually it's going to help the people
20 downstream on the irrigation ditch because it spills at
21 times during rainstorms now. Well, this will hold all the.
22 water and then after the storm's gone, they can pump it into
23 the ditch and the ditch can have more capacity.
24 I was going to add, too, that the developer was
25 going to show us. some cross -sections of how the groundwater
9
1 impacted which could result in long-term settling, that type
2 of thing.
3 The city's guidelines for underdrains require
4 that the underdrains have a positive outlet, and prevent
5 surcharging of the underdrain. Therefore, we've got some
6 conflicts between what's'proposed and those guidelines.
7 MS. BELL: Excuse me, could you tell us what
8 surcharging means?
9 MR. BUFFINGTON: I'm sorry. Surcharging means
10 that the water would. back up -- from the detention pond,
11 would back up into the underdrain causing it to basically
12 fill the sanitary sewer trench and the granular bedding
13 around the sanitary sewer with water. So that it would
14 raise, in effect, cause water to back up into those areas
15 and have those impacts on our trench.
16 This afternoon Glen, myself and Mitch visited
17 with the developer regarding these concerns. We kicked
18 around some options that he might look into or consider with
19 regard to the problem.
20
And at that time
his conclusion was -that he
would
21
probably just eliminate the
subdrain from the project.
And
22
the effect that that would
have would be some of those
lots
23
would then probably not be
suitable to have basements
for
24
some of those duplexes. But he had indicated that that's
25
probably what he would do.
And if he's here sometime
this
8
1 map which portion that is?
2 MR. BUFFINGTON: To be honest, I'm not familiar
3 enough and don't recall from the utility plans exactly which
4 lots. The duplexes are in the northern part.
5 MS. BELL: So it's in.the northern portion of
6 this plan?
7 MR. BUFFINGTON: Yes, it is in the northern
8 portion the duplex area of development. It's just a part of
9 that, though, and I'm not sure which lots specifically are
10 involved.
11 The subdrain is proposed to be located in the
12 same trench as the sanitary sewer. And the subdrain does
13 discharge to the retention pond at or near the elevation.of
14 the bottom of the pond. Therefore, the subdrain will be
15 subject to surcharging during those times when there's
16 significant amount of water in the pond.
17 The degree of that surcharging will depend on the
18 size of the rainfall event, just how full the pond gets.
19 From our standpoint, the concerns are what impact
20 this has on the sanitary sewer since the underdrain is in
21 the same trench?
22 There's a potential for infiltration into the
23 sanitary sewer through the sewer itself and connections at
24 manholes. And depending on the frequency of the
25 surcharging, the stability of the trench could also be
7
1 outfall this year.
2 Let's see, what else can I. say about this?
3 The retention pond, though, he does plan to pump
4 the retention pond because he doesn't want the water
5 standing in there. At one time he was talking about his
6 underdrain system which is a dewatering system for about 15
7 units that he was going to outlet into the pond. But in
8 further discussions with Roger, they have some concerns
9 about the outlet of that underground system backing up into
10 the sanitary sewer trench. So I'll let Roger talk about
11 that.
12
But
that's basically what's been
going on. And
13
the retention
is an acceptable alternative
temporarily.
14
Some day those
properties will redevelop.
Orchard may go
15
through and we
can get an outfall which is
a positive
16
outfall.
17 If you have any other questions, I'll still be
18 here.
19 MR. BUFFINGTON: The Water/Waste Water Department
20 does have concerns regarding the subdrain or underdrain
21 system that has been proposed.
22 The utility plans currently show the subdrain on
23 a portion of the development which includes just a part of
24 the -duplex area of the proposed development.
25 MS. BELL: Excuse me, could you show us on the
0
1 easements downstream. There's a property immediately to the
2 east on the site. Maybe I should come up there and point it
3 out.
4 The historical outfall for this site is
5 approximately in this here and it goes. on to an existing
6 subdivision that has a channel that would accept the flow.
7 The downstream development from there on was built back in
8 the 60s which has a limited capacity. And we have it in our
9 master plan to do some more studying and trying to decide
10 what's the best way to handle that.
it What the applicant was attempting to do, since he
12 couldn't obtain easements from the property owners over in
13 this area, was to get an easement up this wayinto what we
14 thought was the platted orchard right-of-way and it is not
15 platted. Part of it is, a half of it is, I guess. And
16 those neighbors up there also decided not to grant him an
17 easement.
18 So he was left with pursuing the historic
19 easement through the court system or coming up with another
20 option which is basically a retention -- temporary
21 retention.
22 And the -- we have allowed that probably half a'
23 dozen times in ten years that I've been here. And, in fact,
24 the city has built some of them themselves. And recently
25 have one that was there for 15 years. We finally got
F1
1 West Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail'. At preliminary,
2 the PUD was approved with a condition. The condition was
3 that the -- at that time there was a proposed 20-foot
4 emergency access roadway connecting the two portions, the
5 duplexes and multifamily.
6 The condition required that that access, that
7 emergency access be changed to a permanent roadway surface
8 providing vehicular connection between the two areas. That
9 condition has been satisfied with the final proposal.
10 Basically, the real remaining issues that have
11 come up of late surround the proposal for a retention pond
12 as opposed to a detention pond. At preliminary it was shown
13 as a detention pond. The applicant has run into a few
14 obstacles regarding easements offsite and restructured that
15 to a retention pond.
16 The concerns with that would be better addressed
17 by our colleagues from the Storm Water Utility, Glen
18 Schlueter and Roger Buffington from the Water and Waste
19 Water Department.
20 So at this point I'd rather just turn it over to
21 them to give an explanation of those issues.
22 MR. SCHLUETER: I guess I'll start the
23 discussion. As Mitch was saying, the applicant has been
24 working several months. 'I think he was delayed at least two
25 months on the final because he was not able to obtain
4
1 have resulted in the item being pulled if the staff had not
2 also.
3 MR. WARD: I guess my tnougnc is Lnav- we %.;cL l
4 answer questions as best we can. If we come into something
5 that simply can't be answered until Bill gets here, we
6 could, I guess, bump it to later in the agenda but I think
7 we'd rather go ahead.
g MS. BELL: What does that -- Does that mean we
9 don't have an applicant for the applicant's 30 minute
10 presentation on this or are you just saying someone's here
11 to answer questions?
12 MR. WARD: Well, since the item was on consent
13 and we presented it all at preliminary, we weren't planning
14 to give a real elaborate presentation. I can give the same
15 presentation that we would ordinarily have given. It's just
16 the developer himself is stranded on I-25. But no, we'll
17 give the usual presentation.
18
MS.
BELL: Okay. Then I guess,we'll
proceed.
19
MR.
HAAS: Okay, good evening.
The request
20
before us is titled the Scenic Views PUD.
This is a final
21
PUD request for approval of 222 dwelling units. That's
22
broken up into
15 duplex units containing
30 units total and
23
24 multifamily
structures containing a total of 192 units on
24 20.9 acres.
25 The site is located on the northeast corner of
01
1 And so what we thought that we would do tonight
2 is Mitch would give his normal planning staff presentation
3 and then we have additional staff that would like to
4 describe the changes that have occurred and some of the
5 issues that we as staff need to grapple with.
6 The applicant's representative is also here and
7 hopefully we can discuss and explain why they would work,
8 explain some concerns that we have as staff and be able to
9, have the discussion in front of the P&Z Board.•
10 We have not changed our recommendation at this
11 time. But it is important, I think, to get it on the record
12 some of the issues, that there are some issues that may be ,
13 able to be resolved through the Utility Plan Procedure.
14 •However, we wanted to make sure that the Board was
15 comfortable with the final design of the project before we
16 proceeded.
17 I've just been informed because of traffic
18 conditions, evidently coming from Denver, that the
19 applicant's not here. Eldon, do you want to proceed without
20 him or are we prepared?
21 MR. WARD: I think that we can offer
22 clarification. Isn't it mostly just a matter of clarifying
23 the situation with the retention pond?
24 MR. BLANCHARD: There's issues surrounding
25 retention. There's also some public discussion that would
e
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, December 16, 1996
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Scenic.Views PUD
Members present~
Gwen Bell, Chairman
Mike Byrne
Alex Chapman
Glen Colton
Bob Davidson (excused for conflict of interest)
Jerry Gavaldon
Karen Weitkunat
For the City:
John Duval, City Attorney's Office
Bob Blanchard, City Planning Office
7
JAN-24-97 FRI 18;13 DEPT OF ATMO SCIENCE FAX NO. 970 491 8449 p,07
E
a
u-
0
w
co
MEDIAN LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN MOISTURE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1889. 1991
t
l
.... ... .. ....... _ .. ........
JAN-24-97 FRI 16:11 DEPT OF ATI10 SCIENCE FAX NO. 970 491 8449
P. 05
FORT COLLINS -- DRY -DAY PROBABILITIES
BAS E D O N 1889 - 1991 DAI LY DATA
100
:0
20
C
�( <,10"FOR
wirrh
6
DAYS
1 J
1 �
< .01"FOR
lov
6 DAYS
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
l
:f
2.43 Conclusions Drawn From Stormwater Quality Management Practices
An effective strategy for reducing stormwater pollution loads is to use
multiple BMPs, including Non -Structural measures, source controls, and
Structural BMPs. These water quality facilities are designed to capture and
treat the 80% percentile storm runoff event. Capturing and treating this
volume is estimated to remove between 80% and 90% of the annual TSS
(total suspended solids) load. Multiple BMPs can provide complementary
water quality enhancement to achieve desired results. A multi -level approach
deals with many pollutant and runoff sources throughout a watershed and
shows that combining most effect BMPs in a series can be an effective
strategy to reduce pollutant loads being transferred to receiving waters by
stormwater. This is the BMPs Strategy that is being employed for stormwater
control and quality enhancement at Scenic Views.
2.5 The Overall Detention Pond Appearance, Dry -Wet Areas, and Depth to Bottoms
The Scenic Views Pond could be just as easily be called an Extended Detention Pond
as a Retention Pond. With the smaller permanent pond and wetlands being charged
by groundwater and periodic stormwater runoff, it is the calculation of the water
quality capture volume which determines the more accurate description of the basin
The WQCV computations show a required volume of .42 ac-ft. This translates to a
permanent triangular -shaped wetlands pond, of about 170'length by 130' width by 3'
deep. The remaining volume of 13.8 ac-ft is the DRY portion of the basin which
varies in depth from 9' to 12' and will handle 2 times the 100-yr storm. The exhibits
specified in Section 3 of the outline are being prepared for the neighbors and the Final
Plat hearing. You will receive copies for review when they become available. The
purpose of the exhibits is to show how the pond will look in Plan and Profile view,
and how the BMPs work together on the site.
2.6 Summary of The Detention Basin Benefits
The above storm drainage basin will handle all on -site runoff for the 100-year storm,
plus has additional capacity to hold the off -site runoff volume from CSU and the
northern flows for the 100-yr storm. This excess storage capacity insures enhanced
stormwater quality to the downstream users. Of major importance is that Plum Basin
downstream propery owners and homeowners should never again be flooded in the
5-yr, 10-year, or 100-yr storm event. This basin improvement is estimated to save
downstream residents over $2,860,000 in potentiil flood damages over the next 50
years.
3. Exhibits to Clarify Detention, Water Quality, and Open Space
3.1. Water Table Profile Duplex Area —Now vs. Underdrain
3.2 Water Table Profile Pond Area —As Detention Pond -As Retention
3.3 Pond Area in Plan View —As Detention —As Retention
3.4 Rendering Showing Pond Functioning with Best Management Practices Identified
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
14
contaminants and can require from 12 to 40 hours to settle out of suspension.
Extended detention allows smaller particles to agglomerate into larger ones,
and for some of the dissolved and liquid state pollutants to adsorb to
suspended particles, thus removing a larger portion of them through
sedimentation.
Filtering. Here particulates are removed from water by filtering.- Particles
attach to small diameter collectors such as sand, pebbles, or gravel.
Infiltration. Pollutant loads in surface runoff are removed or reduced as the
water infiltrates or percolates into the ground. Particulates are removed at
the ground surface by filtration through the vegetation and soil, while
soluble constituents are also adsorbed into the soil, at least in part.
Biological Uptake. Plants and microscopic animals require soluble
constituents such as nutrients and minerals for growth while are found in
stormwater runoff. Soluble constituents are ingested or taken up from the
water and concentrated through bacterial action and phytoplankton growth.
In some instances plants could be harvested to remove the constituents
permanently. In addition, certain biological activities can reduce toxicity of
some pollutants and/or possible adverse effects on higher aquatic species.
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
Table 4 presents the ranges of pollutant removal efficiencies which are
expected using the Structural BUTS with the above processes.
0{4}?x'47� §` 9y���' •i3 )3i`� 1�L1r
'e4h,
.0 4 Y �
Ikl)'t��4i
..��1�� !{q�L.'�'L��xig
}
t4 }J>LT `4egf�}yzXY�k.' )�:{3 tryyS�rtt�peQµed
Zl>,hittill }{
oix.t{7'ntai"4
</
ir} C
ilatderd%::'
l
k ti
Fi<} i%;.}:IX:
NNW
J/,.}.'F.:J�i.'
,...:.::.)..:i
Grass Buffer Strips
10-20
0-10
0-10
0-10
na.
Grass -Lined Swales
20-40
0.15
0.15
0-20
na
Extended Detention Pond
50-70
30-20
10-20
30-60
50Ao
(Dry)
Retention Pond (Wet)
60-95
0-80
0-80
0.70
na.
Constructed Wetlands
40-50
10-60
0-20
50.60
na
Source: Observed BMPs reported for Extended Detention and Retention Ponds by Environmental Protection Agency
(1983), Grizzard (1982), Whipple and Hunter (1982) and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Metro
Denver (1992). Wetland data from USCS for all constituents except Total-P, Lakatos and McNemer (1987) for
Total-P as reported by Urban Drainage Flood Control District, Metro Denver (1992).
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
13
The HOA will check the retention pond pumps prior to the start of the
rainy season, and during major storms. In the event of a pump
malfunction, possible repairs will be made, and the ditch company and
city stormwater department notified, if repairs are unsuccessful, and a
storm is occurring or forecasted.
4. Water Quality Retention Pond (Wet Pond) .
Retention ponds are designed for a 40-hour drain time above the
permanent pond because the sedimentation process is more efficient and
some mixing and dilution between a permanent dry weather pool and
storm runoff occurs. The wet pond also provides for treatment between
storms which provides a long period of time for fine particles to settle
out and for biological activity to occur. Outflow occurs above the
bottom of the basin allowing sediment to be trapped below the outlet
with sedimentation continuing after the captured surcharged volume is
emptied. A continuing source of water flow is needed to support the
permanent pond (WQCV). Refer to Pond Plan in the Utility drawings.
5. Constructed Wetlands
Wetland basins are designed to drain the water quality capture
volume (WQCV) in no less than 24 hours, thereby providing for some
biological uptake during the contact with wetland media. The depth of
the WQCV is under Z. The permanent pool area is divided between
free water surface area (30% to 50%) which will be 2' to 4' deep ... and ,
the wetland zones with vegetation (50% to 70%) which are typically 6"
to 12" deep. A skimmer device is installed on the pond outlet about
one-half the depth below the permanent water surface and rises to the
maximum capture volume depth. The full WQCV should be above the
permanent pool level. Refer to the Landscape Plan and Utiliiy Drawings
for the wetlands area design.
6. Sand, Gravel and Other Filters, Skimmer, Perforated Raised Pipe
These are other BMPs that work in conjunction with the above Structural
BMPs which enhance the stormwater quality before it enters the canal
or other waterways.
Effectiveness of BMPs Measures
Runoff Pollutants can be grouped into two categories: particulate and soluble..
Particulates are considered larger than .4 microns in diameter. In many cases,
constituents, such as metals 'and oxygen demand compounds, become
adsorbed to particulate matter. If the particulate matter is removed, so are
the adsorbed or attached constituents. A combination of the following basic
pollutant removal processes is used to remove pollutants at Scenic Views:
Sedimentation is the process of particulate matter settling out of stormwater
runoff. Smaller particles under 60 microns in size (fine silts and clays) can
account for 80% of the metals in stormwater attached or adsorbed with other
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
12
Structural BMPs to be Used at Scenic Views
The following Best Management Practices are being employed for the Scenic
Views development:
1-2 Irrigated Grass Buffer Strips and Grass -Lined Swales.
Adjacent to all buildings and parking areas are large patches of grass
to which roof top drains will direct storm runoff. Passing through the
grass and vegetation slows the storm runoff peak and promotes
pollutant fallout prior to the water entering the stormwater drains.
Grass lines swales direct stormwater flow, contribute to lowering the
peak flow, and reduce pollutant loads into the stormwater basin. A
Swale will occur in the detention pond bottom to direct water flow to
the wetlands. This wetlands bottom channel will be gravel lined and
filter particulates.
NOTE Healthy grass can generally be maintained without using
fertilizers because runoff from lawns and other areas contain the needed
nutrients. Periodic inspection is needed in the first few years to identify
any problems areas and to plan for long-term restorative maintenance.
3. Water Quality Extended Detention Basin (Dry Basin)
Extended detention basins are designed to drain their brim -full volume
in about 40 hours through a perforated riser pipe to remove a significant
portion of the particulate pollutants found in the stormwater runoff.
Soluble pollutant removal is enhanced by providing the small wetland
marsh or ponding area in the basin's bottom to promote biological
uptake. The basin is considered dry because it is designed not to have
a large permanent pool of water. The flood detention volume is
provided above the water quality capture volume (WQCV)"of the basin.
No more than 50% of the WQCV will be released in 12 hours. The
extended detention basin reduces peak runoff flow rates into the canal
and prevents periodic flooding of properties downstream while
improving water quality and providing recreation and open space
opportunities. The basin is effective in removing particulate matter and
associated heavy metals and other pollutants.
On -Going Monitoring of the Stormwater Outfall
The HOA will be responsible for the drainage basin maintenance and
will have instructions , for using bio-degradable pesticides, debris
removal, grass mowing, and wetlands monitoring. The HOA will keep
a log of basin grounds maintenance including pumps, recycling pickups,
resident attendance at on -site ecological seminars, and use of outdoor
litter disposal conveniences. Annually in May, July, August, and
September the HOA will monitor pond discharge by water sampling
and send results to an independent lab for content analysis. Results will
be evaluated by the HOA Board annually to track the effectiveness of
the Best Management Practices program.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
11
activities by far exceed the quantities from urban areas. Establishing
and maintaining landscaping and vegetation in existing urban areas can
assist in reducing stormwater runoff rates and volumes, sediment loads,
and pollutants associated with sediment from entering streams and
lakes. Vegetation acts to reduce raindrop impact on soil, slows runoff
rates, and encourages infiltration of precipitation into the soil.
Pollutants, such as metals, nutrients, and bacteria that are attached to
sediment will also be removed. The overall volume of runoff from a
vegetated area is less than from an area of bare soil. Although bare soil
will also allow some infiltration, its surface has a tendency to seal and
erode. The eroded soils are a source of sediment transport to the
receiving waterway.
The landscape plan for the site contains over 100 trees, bushes, shrubs,
and several acres of grass vegetation. The landscaping and vegetation
will reduce the sediment load from existing conditions and enhance
stormwater quality. Maintenance of the planted areas will be the
responsibility of the HOA.
Advantages of Structural BMPs
Reduced runoff, particulate removal, and some measure of flood control
are the principal benefits of Structural BMPs. Pollutants are removed
by adsorption, settling, precipitation, infiltration, filtration, and .
biological activity.
The advantages are:
* Enhanced stormwater runoff quality
* Can reduce runoff volumes through infiltration and interception
* Can reduce peak rates of runoff, especially for smaller storms, by .
capturing and slowly releasing urban runoff
* Can be constructed first and then used to control erosion and
sedimentation during site construction
* Can be combined with other municipal or public uses such as
active and passive recreation, open space, and wildlife habitat
* Can sometimes integrate BMPs into site landscaping to supplement
irrigation of vegetation
* Can be combined with drainage and flood control objectives at
incremental costs to minimize and control downstream flooding
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
10
Other on -site actions that will be taken to improve resident and visitor
awareness and personal responsibility for stormwater quality:
• Distribution of the Irrigation Ditches brochure in the rec center, sales
offices, and on the bike and walking paths along the canal
* DON'T UTTER signs in open space and along canal
* Neighborhood clean-up day for parks, bike paths, open areas
* Pet Waste disposal bag containers along paths and park areas
* Waste containers distributed throughout the open spaces and walks
4. Guidelines for Proper Use of Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizers
Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer; are chemicals used in landscape
maintenance. Pesticides are used for insect control, herbicides for weed
control, while fertilizers are used for the growth and greening of grass.
Pesticides and herbicides are toxic to aquatic life at low concentration,
and fertilizers can be toxic at high concentrations. Fertilizers tend to
promote algae growth which can deplete dissolved oxygen for fish and
other aquatic organisms.
The rate and timing of the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
are important to minimize potential transport by stormwater runoff.
Overapplication and overspraying onto impervious areas needs to be
avoided as well as too . frequent or excessive use. Following
manufacturer's recommendations can prevent most of the surface water
contamination being attributed to their use. With the HOAIn control of
all open space applications, manufacturer's specifications can be
followed.
5. Illicit Discharge Controls
Educating residents and visitors about illegal dumping practices, about
the potential hazards to public health and the environment, and
encouraging the immediate reporting of spills can create a citizen
sensitivity to deter illicit dumping.
Controlling public automobile access to the neighborhood would go a
long way to prevent the dumping of trash, refuse, and fluids or toxic
substances into the canal. Controlled access to the neighborhood was
part of the original design to presented to the city planning staff, but
was refused "as an undesirable neighborhood element".
6. Landscaping and Vegetation Practices
Soil erosion and transport from urban areas produces only a fraction of
total sediment arriving at streams and waterways. Agricultural
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
0
Non -Structural BMPs Used at Scenic Views
The following Best Management Practices are being employed for the Scenic
Views development:
L Preparation of this Storm .Water Quality Control Plan which states
water quality control objectives, the description of stormwater quality
management practices, contains exhibits and drawings showing the
structural BMPs, the hydrological and hydraulic calculations
documenting sizing and stability of drainage features, and descriptions
of maintenance responsibilities and access.
2. Preparation of an Erosion Control Plan
This Plan is a part of the Final Drainage Plan and Utility drawings which
have been submitted to city staff. The objective of the Plan is to mitigate
the potential for soil erosion and to control sediment movement during
the construction process until final landscaping and stormwater quality
measures are effectively in place.
3. Proper Disposal of Household Waste and Toxins
The developer and the Homeowners Association will create a resident
and visitor information program that teaches the proper disposal of
household waste, litter, pet waste, yard waste, used oil, and toxic waste.
Facilities for proper disposal will be provided throughout the
development. Neighborhood newsletters, HOA monthly billing inserts,
recreation center bulletin boards, the HOA covenants, and periodic
HOA meetings will reinforce these policies. Proper disposal of
household waste and toxics can reduce the deposition of solids,
organics, nutrients, oxygen -demanding substances, solvents, caustics,
paints, automotive fluids, toxic substances and fecal material on the land
and reduce their presence in the stormwater reaching receiving waters.
Improper disposal of used oil and automotive fluids causes receiving
waters to be contaminated with hydrocarbons and residual metals that
can be toxic to stream organisms. Used oil and other petroleum
products can be recycled. Information on the location of recycling
centers, the benefits of recycling, prevention of fluid leaks, and the
importance of proper disposal for improving stormwater quality can
reduce the amount of oil and used automobile fluid reaching receiving
waters.
Through an on -site communication program residents and visitors will
be alerted about their everyday use of toxic wastes: paint, solvents,
putties, cleaners, waxes, polishes, oil products, aerosols, acids, caustics,
pesticides,, herbicides, and certain medicines or cosmetics. Seminars will
present non -toxic, safe, biodegradable product alternatives and discuss
proper disposal points within the.community.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
9
h. The irrigation company is willing to allow the discharge into the ditch
after peak flow periods of a storm, because of the benefits cited above.
2.42 Stormwater Quality with Development —Best Management Practices
Urban stormwater runoff contains a variety of constituents that originate
from a number of different sources. To reduce the concentrations -and the
loads that would reach the irrigation canal or other receiving waters, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) have been suggested by EPA, other Federal
and State Agencies, and professionals who deal with stormwater.
There are two categories of BMPs, both of which will be utilized in
improving stormwater quality at Scenic Views:
Non -Structural BMPs include pollution prevention and source control BMPs.
Structural BMPs include facilities constructed to passively treat stomnuater
runoff before it enters the canal or other receiving waters.
Advantages of Non -Structural BMPs
Non-structural BMPs prevent or limit the entry of pollutants into stormwater
at their source. Prevention is desirable and can be costeffective because it
avoids pollution in the fast place and thereby reduces the amounts that need
to be removed by subsequent treatment. The advantages of Non -Structural
BMPs are:
* The quality of stormwater runoff is improved
* The volume of sediment, debris, and other pollutants deposited in
receiving waters is reduced
* The operation and maintenance of structural controls is reduced
* There are benefits to air quality, ground water quality, and waste control
* Open space and wildlife habitat is enhanced
* Public awareness of water quality problems is heightened and personal
involvement in solutions happens
* Public awareness of stormwater quality issues increases
* Most require only a modification of existing practices, are simple to
understand, and make good sense
* Implementation can occur rapidly
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
7
2.3 Wetlands- Transfer
There is an existing area of about 8,000 sq.ft. near the northwest property boundary
which is a wetlands created accidentally when the CSU Detention Pond and City
water lines were installed in Overland Trail in 1988. This wetlands is too small to
qualify for U.S. Corp of Engineer regulations, but will be relocated to the Detention
Pond area to enhance stormwater quality and to create a visual amenity for residents.
2.4 Stormwater Quality and Best Management Practices
2.4.1 Existing Stormwater Quality --Prior to Development
a. The existing storm runoff now contains fertilizers and pesticides used
to grow alfalfa, plus wastewater and stream particulates from the CSU)
Veterinary School and Equine Center. In storm conditions these
particulates are deposited into the canal.
b. In periods of storm runoff, particulates from the horse pastures to the
north of the Scenic Views site enter the canal.
c. According to the ditch company representative, it is a common
occurrence to have illegal dumping of oil, trash, and organic materials
into the canal.
d. Under present conditions, the canal water quality is poor quality due to -
nmoff for up to 24 hours after a storm,. The canal representative has
advised the Happy Heart Farm and other water users 'NOT TO USE
the canal water for irrigation purposes within 24 hours of a storm
because of its poor quality during storm events." After 24 hours the
sediment will settle out in the canal bottom, and the water quality vastly
improves for irrigation.
e. The irrigation canal water is NOT for human consumption
f. The ditch company has NO WATER QUALITY delivery standards or
criteria to meet or to guarantee for any of .its users. Users of the
irrigation ditch take whatever water is in the ditch and use it for
irrigation purposes They have operated this way for many generations
without service disruption or dissatisfied customers.
g. The irrigation company sees the creation of a retention pond as an
effective tool for limiting peak flows, which could also improve the
stormwater quality which would flow overland into the ditch.. They
also recognize there would be less risk of overtopping of the ditch due
to flooding. They are also aware that detaining the stormnmoff would
cause less damage to the ditch embankments, and would result in
greater effective use of the ditch capacity in flood periods. They also
recognize the detention basin would reduce the historic flow of
stormrunoff into the ditch.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
ri
....,.Yiri.:C$'Cf`>'•L}%'•, •:-A. A: ...0%j>)n •: v...: .................i}n
��iVi����:R:�:w'C
Hr r'T{S:'
'R...`. v2:
.:,}ii:.i'::n.3::n..}y.;i.:.}}..r::.i::::;:.,};::::::::;nas
0
. •O.'�F'.'. •'>i:
' W 'O :a<}\ri
'}: K�P•�r.�.S•i3hn\L�' SS{ii'
•:}v.X. .Y...: }.:.n,�?.r.�.
:.tii....{�'(.�x.: v. r �S�`� pih• !\i.•:i t}:<
S}} hy' nK,•}t: \nx' ..<. �. y$). iS ti�
}: yr •�.:ti•r4.y. p:%}:nli'S}� f�$i}�::Y;iT.
$j:SiiS:ri;}::$fYn,}iQf}{'C'�•{y �'S:i:S
v'
t$w!`
:::C..S::,v'\4y}�}s::
.%... .;:i{'i}>::
::iti4t.:i:::
i :hi
: .},`.�.' %�. ���(� .i.v
;r}:?'r\W'`w?�{riur�i: »CC:.
.�'::':.�•+C}}i:
{ •5aa �1yy�_�{{}{�M w::. lit ���]�fp::.v..Lt'r}L
���y}'rl,.{y(;}:•�LIIRi${i i'}' "�.��:�.�iS:vO}.k'j2:
•:
rRh
t}ti• t;.. yJ.�.�/}�x\�`.
pp .'t fi3�'pCa+`§.
,}:.
�S'`� :4�
�
.i. _":}%
%>x,..:'
P'v .. !.>�i MJM ... y, ..
- >.r:::x.:;':.,;e�:T 'r}:
3
:fj��.
>ti, �1%t'?
i
Or&3
`#S'if �:'.,''}(.
r.........:
$f't;)LiYi`tAt/ ':a kti}�us*�sfiiik?:.. ne
,•�„
;J' •.
January
0.42
7.7
L47
4.4
86
Febmary
0.41
6S
2.22
3.7
87
March
L26
123
335
10.0
68
April
L72
6.6
4.00
12A
60
May
2.79
Li
5.47
16.4
47
June
2.07
0
4.18
12.5
58
July
L65
0
3.73
11.2
64
August
139
0
3.20
9.6
69
September
L17
0.8
194
8.8
74
October
L00
3.0
2S5
7.6
75
November
0.70
8.2
2.29
6.9
78
December
0.46
7.4
137
4.2
87
♦� x.. `^Y:f {,< O 3:{
M'•t: \ d { :} L.
tf<}
w�',
S l.M�.*t h
ia��2'
�'�Th7or; ?«
��$�+l•9'l-�}-
1\ .4 `
Kt
>
:i�N���a
], �.
��
Y`CS 4r
4��6
�.r irry �...»
i }#f�T�(
$, ii Sv
} 3V!'�}
�
3 f�
... r.. ........,n{,tn.,>
., .`}... n..
..�
.i.n ..v v +'r•
... 1,
By reviewing the Mean Number of Stone Days each month in Table 3, it is easy to
estimate how much of the time the retention area will be in use as a storm runoff -
collector and how much of the time the area will be useable as open space for
residents. In the months of December, January, and February only ONE STORM a
month is expected to occur which will cause runoff -leaving an average of 25 days a
month of active open space for residents. During the months of September, October,
and November TWO STORMS are expected to occur which could produce
runoff... leaving an average of 22+ days a month for recreation. In the months of
March, April, June, and. August THREE STORMS a month are expected to produce
runoff... leaving 18+ days a month for resident open space use. In May and July as
many as FOUR STORMS a month could produce runoff... leaving 15+ days for open
space use by residents. Based upon typical rainfall patterns for the area, the site would
be available for active open space use-258 days out of the year (71% of the time), or
an average of 21+ days per month per year.
NOTE: These estimates are very conservative and assume it willtake 2 full days to
drain the retention pond for each storm which exceeds 0.1 inch of rainfall.
From Tables 1 and 2 it is clear that for 80% of the storms which.produce 0.1
inch of rainfall or more, the pond can be pumped within 7 hours time, if
desired. Thus, the estimate of DRY days usable as Open Space shown above
is the MINIMUM TIME estimate.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
5
I
2. FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DETENTION & RETENTION POND
2.1. Definition of Detention, Extended Detention, and Retention Ponds
A detention pond holds runoff and may be releasing runoff simultaneously at the 2-yr
historic rate. The primary function of a detention or retention pond is moderating
flood flows. An added benefit is their ability to provide water quality enhancement.
An extended detention pond is designed to totally empty after runoff ends. The extended
pond extends the emptying time of the more frequent storms to facilitate pollutant
removal and does so with a smaller outlet. A drain time of the brim -full capture
volume of 40 hours is recommended to remove a significant portion of fine particulate
pollutants found in urban stormwater runoff. Soluble pollutant removal is enhanced
by providing a small wetland marsh or ponding area in the basin's bottom to promote
biological uptake. The basins or ponds are considered DRY because they are designed
not to have a significant permanent pool of water.
A retention pond has a permanent pool of water with a base flow to flush the
permanent pond, that is replaced with stormwater, in part or in total, during storm
runoff events. Temporary detention is provided above the permanent pool to allow
more sedimentation. Retention ponds are similar to extended basins because they are
designed to capture in total, and detain a volume of runoff from frequently occurring
storms. Retention ponds differ from extended detention basins because the runoff water
mixes with the permanent pool water as it rises above the permanent pool. The water
quality capture volume above the permanent pond is released over 40 hours, the same
as for an extended detention basin. The 40-hr discharge period allows the sediment
removal process to be more efficient when the outflow occurs above the bottom of the
basin. (See Utility Plan pond profile) Sediments become trapped below the outlet and
sedimentation continues in the pool after the captured surcharge volume is emptied.
Retention ponds are very effective in removing pollutants. They are used to improve
the quality of urban runoff from roads, parking lots, residential neighborhoods,
commercial areas, and industrial sites. They are generally used as regional or follow-
up treatment ponds.
Determination of the classification of the Scenic View basin as a retention pond or as
an extended detention pond is determined by the pond outlet elevation, the rainfall -
runoff data, the groundwater elevation, and the volume storage capacity.
2.2. Pond Water Levels for 2-Yr, 5-Yr, 10-Yr, and 100-Yr Storm Events and Impact on
Open Space Use
In a typical year the amount of runoff that needs to be detained can be estimated by
examining the mean inches of rainfall and storm frequency by month. Tables 1 and
2 contain the estimated amount of annual rainfall for the site. Table 3 shows the
seasonality of rainfall for the site. In general, 0.1 inches of rainfall depth is the
amount necessary to cause runoff. On average, about 35 storm events occur each year
that are equal to or greater than 0.1 inches in precipitation depth.
Rocky Mountain Research. Institute
The rainfall data is from the Climate Control Center in Ft. Collins. Depth and Pumping
Rates, and Wet Time Hours are from the JR Engineering spreadsheets submitted with the
Utility Plans. The city SWMM for this basin was used to determine runoff volumes which
led to the water level depths above the wetlands pond. Please refer to the Utility drawings
for any,additional details needed.
............ .. ..........
. . . . .. ......
N
g't4q g.
RM.
0.0 to 0.1
47.5
57.2
SM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1 to O.s
28.1
33.8
90.9
21.2
7.0
32.0,
869.7
O.S. to 1.0
5.5
6.6
97.5
27.5
29.2
43.2
237.7
1.0 to 2.0
1.9
2.3
98.8
54.7
1 43.9
67.9
129.0
2.0+
0.23
0.28
100.0
(Figures included by type of storm below)
Total Yrlr.
83.2
100.0
100.0
2-Yr
0.5
36.0
26.1
50.1
25.0
S-Yr
0.2
66.0
SSA
79A
25.9
10-Yr
0.1
82.6
73.9
97.9
9.8
25-Yr
0.04
103.6
99.9
ins
5.0
100-yr
0.01
130.6
137.9
16L9
1.6
Total Average Time Period Pond is Wet Per Year (Hours): 1,293.7
1.2 The Groundwater Table Impact
The groundwater level for the retention pond will be reduced using a cutoff trench
around the pond perimeter with non -permeable clay soils. After excavation of the
pond, any groundwater left in the soil, should dry up to create a dry pond, except for
the water quality portion of the pond wetlands area.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
3
1. RAINFALL, RUNOFF, AND POND DEPTH
1.1 Rainfall and Runoff data for the site show that 57% of the annual storms will create
practically NO RUNOFF producing events. These are storms with rainfall from .0 to
0.1 inch. About 34% of the storms will have rainfall depths from .10 to .50 inches.
These two categories of storms represent 91% of the annual storms which will impact
the site and can be handled readily with only minor water depths in the retention
pond. The average depth would be 0" in the pond for a Storm of up to .5" if we were
retaining only site -generated runoff. With the pond designed to retain the off -site
flows from the CSU Equestrian Center and areas north of the site, the pond depth
would rise to 21" for a storm up to O.Y. Pond Depth refers to the area of the Pond
which is above the wetlands water quality control volume, which is graded a few feet
below the overall pond. The Pond would be DRY for resident use as Open Space, 97%
of time,. if we were retaining solely on -site generated runoff. By increasing the capacity
of the pond to retain all off -site flows from the CSU facility and the area north of the
site, the pond will be dry 85% of the time during the year. Please refer to Table 1 and
2 on the following page for these explanations.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
2
I
RM R 1 ®.AMM"ZIMAIL
rocky mountain research institute
mar-keong. real estate and eeonorruc eonsi-dtants
DATE February 5, 1997
6645 a nerxage Duce sC _ erVt ,vaoa. = ao 7 • i : 3:.3 _Z' •9'.)54
TO: City of FtCollins Planning Staff and
STORMWATER UTILITY
FROM: Bill Veio, Manager
SOLITAIRE PROPERTIES,LLC
RE: OUTLINE OF OUR RESPONSES TO THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
RAISED AT THE PAST P & Z MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1997
After reviewing the video tape of the December 16 meeting and after hearing Staffs concern in
our phone conversation this January, we have prepared this outline of the development issues
we intend to resolve. The issues are these:
1. . Rainfall, Runoff, and Pond Depth
1.1 Rainfall and Runoff Patterns
1.2 The Groundwater Table Impact
2. The Functional Differences between the Detention vs. Retention Pond
2.1 Detention, Extended Detention, and Retention Ponds
2.2 Water Levels, Frequency, Open Space Use
2.3 Wetlands Transfer
2.4 Stormwater Quality & Best Management Practices
2.5 Overall Detention Pond Appearance, Dry -Wet Areas, Depth to Bottoms
2.6 Summary of The Detention Pond Benefits
3. Exhibits to Clarify Detention, Water Quality, and Open Space
3.1 Water Table Profile Pond Area —As Detention Pond -As Retention Pond
3.2 Pond Area in Plan View —As Detention —As Retention Pond
3.3 Rendering Showing Pond Functioning with Best Management Practices Identified
The following text is for your technical benefit and study. After reviewing the text, we would
like a meeting. to discuss your comments and suggestions. The outline addresses what we believe
from an engineering, legal, and water quality perspective meets or exceeds the City of Ft. Collins
requirements for development approval. We would like to have your support for the Stormwater
Quality plan before scheduling a meeting with the neighboring property owners.
innovative ideas for industry since 1972
FA
STORMWATER QUALITY
'M►V
MANAGEMENT CONTROL PLAN
Prepared for Scenic Views, 2nd Replat
City of Ft. Collins
Stormwater Utility
RMRI �►
rocky mountain research institute
6643 e3l 11 ! 303.721-6034
re. 303.721.0245 �. ** 303-54e.a5,c
marketing real estate and economic consultants
FINAL SUBMITTAL .
February 5, 1997
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
i
Criterion' ) Firned
Credit
1 Ifit an be deasomtrated that the project will reduce noo•eenew•able eaegy usage aitber through the appatwoe of ahanadve eoera -
systems or through cocnauted'energy camavaboo measures beyond those normally required by City, Code, a 5% beaus may be'
earned for every 5% reduction in energy uK
ICJ i
Ter Calculate a 1%bonus for every 50 saes included ilk Ibe project '
n CakuWe the percentage of the total aaea in the project that are devoted to reaesamd use- Faster 55 of that percentage as a bonus..
U If the applicant commits to preserving permanent oS+ite open space the mats the City's minlmum rev eakvlate the
perzeitage of thu open space aasage to the total devdopmat aarsge and enter this percentage as a bonus.
ffpart of the fatal developmet budget is to be spent en neighborhood public transit facilities which arc not required by City Codc�
P, enter a 2% bonus for every S 100 per dwelling unit invested
ICpet of the fatal dewlopart budgd is to be spent on >righbafaa7 hood ities and servion which are lot otherwise required by City
Q. Code,enter aI%bonusfor every S100per dwaingunit kvicea-
Iftbe projectocasdwelling rain set aside for individuals taming 80-A or less oftbe median income of City resident; as adjusted
I- for family sizew and paying lea than 30% of their gas interne for housing ioduding utilities C'ASordabk Dwelling Units"),
ralculde the percentage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total mrm6er ofdwel n units in the pmjed cad enter that percentage
as a base. up to a mortis- of 1556 (Ifdte pmjat is Reposed to be constructed in =Stiple phase. the Affordable Dwelling Units
nzm be cxfiMacted as a pat ofdn phase forwhich approval is sought.) In ceder to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain
&Tadabk fa a period ofnot lea than 25 ycaM the developw ttall reootd mob protective eovmants as maybe mq ared by the City
under Sec. 29-526(JX4}
Ifs o®itmat is being made to develop a specified percentage aftbe total number ofdweping units for Type "A" and Type "B"
handicapped bousing as defined by the City of Fort Co0ins, calculate the bonus as follows:
S Type "A .5 x Tux "A" Units
Total Units
In eo case Stall the combined boors be greater than 3056
Type "B" . 1.0 x Tvx " 3" Units
Total Units
If the site or adjacent property eentainta historic building or place. a beans may be earned for the following:
3% For preventing or mitigating outside mDueaces adverse to its prvavatiaa (el;- aaviroomeat4 land use, aestbcdc6
economic and social factors);
3% Fer muri g that new structures will be in keeping with the character oftbe building or place. while avoiding total umitr,
3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to in continuaaee, preservatien'wnd ingxoveaarnin at
appropriate ammer
Ifa portion or all ofdw mquced packing in the nsa gple firmly pmjod is provided underground, within the building or in an elevated
u parking structure as an scocuory use to the primary smictune, a bonus may be owned as follow,:
9% For providing 75% or more oftbe parking in a
6% For providing 50 - 74%oftbe parking in a structure;
3% For providing 25 - 494A oftbe parking in a dmcUr.
Ifa wr®iurrmt is being made to provide approved automatic lire for the dwell'
V ertinguisbirg systems rag units, ewer aboans of 10%
W Ifdse appliiaaf mnsran to providing adequate. safe wad convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any
of the destination points desmbed blow, ealeulut Lk boron as follows: .
5% ' For c omaecting to the Dearest cXWIng City sidewalk and bicycle
F S°G a°ng to an a public P+�+oK ' C'
Y �mg P� L pack and transit stop within the efis<aeees as deraad in this Density Chart;
5% For oormectin to an exisain City bicycle trail which is adiacnt to or traverses the Droi nct
TOTAL. tv�
i Criteria, : Maximum Earned
Credit Crodd
2000 rod ofan eodstatg neighborhood mice center, or a oeighbahcod service center to be constructed as a pat
20%
3
nrtba prciect. (ICtbe project is proposed to be'oan&uded is multi le wch xi
P P� ghbahood servioeeeme
must be constructed as a put of the phase for which approval is sought.)
r... f,.
650 red area ar7stitg transit atop (applicable only to projects loving a deputy of at least six [6] dwelling units
20'.4
7Q?
Per sa+e on a groe aauge,basu)-
3>i
4000 feet of an e octal center. at a ahsoppirtg aster b be
"� DOmmtimRi...6, shopping OaDEm3miy".dOOtl
10'G
constructed as a pat of the project (if the project is proposed to be constructed is multiple phases, such
oaammunityhegiaul slopping aat7a mud be constructed as a pof at the phrase Ca which approvel is sought)
3300 fed oCim exissmB ndgbbwbocd er commuddY Park. at a cocrommity r+cIb' GOLF COURSES);
200/0
� g*'
3500 fed of a, publicly awned, but not developed, oeighbahood or community park, orcommunity facility
I0, 0A
AF
(EXCEPT GOLF COURSES) or
v } .
:E
-------------------------
3300 fed of a publicly awned golf course. Whether developed or got
IOGA
,<.<;::<
>> R: e
2500 foes of an existing scbool, mocting all requirements of the Stale of Colorado cat. lsary odueatioa laws
10•A
3000 feet of an major to «nter, a a major to pat t in8 1 yet J employment ornta b be constructed as a err
200%
the project. (Ifthe projada proposed to be oanRitnctadas multiple p
P hi Rich major employment aver must
>4^7
be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought) No building, ogee or business park. or
shopping oenter which has served as -the basis for the claiming of aredht under any Other `hiss" C[rIa71 Of fhrf
>.
Density Chad can also be used as the basis for claiming credit under this aitaiaa
/
g
1000 feet of an existing child cue eater, a child +d out center to be comtructe.d as a pat of the project (If the
S°A. •
projed is propoxd to be mmtrucud in multiple phases, such child care center must be 000sMiaed as a part of the
phase for which approval is sougk2) ' -
S
"North Fat Collins"
7r
The Contra! Lituinew District
A projed whose bunduy is contiguous to c)daing urban development Credit may be tuned as follows:
30%
0•.6 For projects whose property boundary his 0 -10•A contiguity.
H 4sf:n
10 - I5% For projects whew property boundary his 10 - 20•A. contiguity.
^' :f>:5>
IS - 20°% For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 30•A. cortiguity;
f"' `
20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary hu 30 - 40•A. contiguity..
Utiri:»'H
25 - 30SG Far pr iocu wbae property boundary lug 40 - 5m contiguity.
If the project contains dwelling units ad ukde for individuals taming 804A a less ofthe mafAO inoame of City tY
15%
}.
residents, is adjusted for family sic, and paying lea than 300A of their grow income for housing, ioduding
-
}§
DweIImg "� percentage OC A13•andable DweWng Uatls b the fatal mrmber
ys
ordwelling uata in the project and enter that pettatage, up to a maximum of ISSG (If the project is proposed
to be cmmucted in rtanWe phasm the A@brdable Dwelling Units must be constructed as a pat of the phase for
which approval.is sought) In Order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units mm in affordable for a period
dmt k S311= 23 the 5� deseloper shellhard Rich pnotedive oovemanta as may be required by the city under
Sec 29-526(IX ).
DEFINITION:
All residential uses. Uses would include single-family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes,
mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group. homes; boarding and rooming houses;
fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit
quasi -public. recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for
public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers.
CRITERIA,
The following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the
development plan.
Yes, No N/A
1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE
POINTS AS CALCULATED ON'THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY
CHART H" FOR.THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a
residential project shall be based on the following:
60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre ,
60 - 70 percentage points = 6-7 dwelling units per acre
70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre
90 -100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre
10.0 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre
DOES THE PROJECT. EARN AT LEAST 40 Yes No N/A
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED
ON THir FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART IT'
FROM BASE POINTS?
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Revised as per Ordinance No. 2,1996.
0
♦I
■
MoIlL-------
-
- -- --- -..;��
ilr PHA
fi
QLq-ilkqmpAqljmi, ll "m
\
PHASE 2
I
PLANT LIST
RE
LANT NOTES
lRYI--VTsa•� OO.P is�sw�..
• ONYWY.O YN�.•lo Yr•-s.-ww4.Pm.•e.
LANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN
.� MOMS— T,s3i
w ��
.ar�.ae•nw -.,-
-.en aNw u
VIEWymwffi I?.UJD.
FWAL LANDSCAPE PLAN —_. ..
f =F=I=_ m _
• .. - ...... 4 - 5
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
zo .aw
! ! I LAND USE BREAKDOWN
j- !--------- ------ �...
a..... Tq"`7S.'C.S
WEFT CR'U eNARD PLACE GTUR D _ _ _ _ _ _ --,.r
Ma
\ •'
PHASE I 1
/ �PJOSE ]�
��ier_��uir_� k
�f..
C�w�.��7��
of V �� � � ,. � � • ,'�f�9 � 1��
f �- �n � � r Imo•\\ �%'i
40A
k A", Z
Ml
�i � ��iJ� ice\ ���� � • A�
GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND
z� m °
1l47lveLdSD ���" ���
FINAL SITE PLAN �.,.
- 2 - S
Proposal:
Description:
Density:
General Population:
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final
Mixed use development that includes 222 residential dwelling units (192
multi -family and 15 duplex units on 20.09 acres.
11.05 du/ac (gross)
192 (multi -family units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 614
30 (duplex units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 96
School Age Population:
Elementary: 192 (units) x .104 (pupils/unit) = 20
30 (units) x .104(pupils/unit) = 3
Junior High: 192 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 10
30 (units) x .050 (pupils/unit) = 2
Senior High: 192 (units) x .046 (pupils/unit) = 9
30 (units) x .046 (pupils/unit) = 1
TOTAL = 45
*Figures assume a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom multi -family residential units.
M1,bF1
L
�7(�A Sr.Pnic VIAWS Nlin
M
Ma
S.. ieeuaiw� o • � ����
e-2.
_ — MMINS
1�11 ■ �I1JS1
n..fmjr—
�l
.AI
..
REAM Sr-pnir- Vipw-q PtIF
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the
running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be
counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
E. The Final P.U.D. is feasible from a transportation perspective and promotes City
transportation goals and policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Scenic Views Final P.U.D., #3-96A subject to the
following condition:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final
plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans,
and final P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated'
between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to
the second monthly meeting (April 28, 1997) of the Planning and Zoning
Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan
was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer or the
City staff, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an
extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of .time
unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit
development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary
circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent
exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such
property and provided that such extension.can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in
the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the
Board for resolution. The Board may table any such decision, until both the
staff and the developer have had .reasonable time to present sufficient
information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects
to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the. term of this
condition until the date such decision is made.)
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended,
as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall
become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this
planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition
is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of
calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter
2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall
be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval;
however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
The proposal would provide access to/from the multi -family portion of the development via
West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail; access totfrom the duplex portion of the
development would also be gained via South Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street.
West Elizabeth Street is designated on the City's Master Street Plan as a "minor arterial"
(four lanes) street, and South Overland Trail is designated as a "major arterial" street (six
lanes).
The traffic study submitted with the Preliminary proposal states that 65% of the anticipated
trips generated from this development, will be traveling eastbound on Elizabeth Street,
toward shopping, CSU, employment, and most other destinations. The proposed Final
plans allow for recirculation of auto traffic from the duplex portion of the site to West
Elizabeth Street, allowing vehicles to travel to the east or the north (depending on which
part of the site the vehicle is coming from) without having to make more than one turn onto
an arterial. The condition put on the Preliminary requires this desired on -site recirculation
of vehicles, ensuring that recirculation of vehicular traffic is not forced to occur on the
arterial street system. As the condition has been satisfied, recirculation of traffic can now
occur as desired, internally.
Overall, the studied intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
As required by the City of Fort Collins, Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street will be improved
adjacent to the project site; however, no additional roadway or intersection improvements.
would be necessary due to the proposed project. The Scenic Views Final P.U.D.,
therefore, is feasible from a transportation standpoint, and promotes City transportation
goals and policies.
A. The Scenic Views Final P.U.D.; #3-96A continues to satisfy the applicable All
Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
B. The Final P.U.D. continues to exceed the minimum density requirements of the
L.D.G.S. and the required minimum point total (100 points) on the Residential Uses
Point Chart (Point -Chart H: Density Chart) with a score of 105 points.
C. The Final P.U.D. is compatible with the surrounding area and exceeds solar
orientation requirements.
D. The Stonmwater Utility Department recommends approval of the Scenic Views Final
PUD based on adequate on -site retention and Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal
approval.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
6. Stormwater.
There have been significant storm drainage concerns associated with the Scenic Views
development. The developer was required to acquire downstream easements that would
convey storm runoff from this PUD to the Plum Creek channel, which is located to the east
of the proposed pond. The developer had sought downstream easements from various
property owners, but to this date has been unable to acquire said easements. Instead, the
current proposal shows a retention pond. A retention system is one that would retain all
drainage in the pond without release; thus, no easements would be required from
downstream property owners. As proposed, the retention pond would include a pump
system that discharges all retained storm drainage runoff into the Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal.
Due to the high groundwater levels on the subject site, especially during the irrigation
season, it is anticipated that there will be considerable seepage of groundwater into the
retention pond. In order for this pond to still be able to handle surface runoff, the developer
will need to show that the provided pumping system can hold the retained water down in
a manner that would maintain the required retention volume. This volume is equal to twice
the developed runoff generated by a 100-year storm on the subject property.
The developerwill also need to seek and obtain approval from the Pleasant Valley and
Lake Canal company (PV&L) to implement the above described system. This approval will
be required prior to Stormwater Utility's signing -off on the Utility Plans associated with this
development. Thus, the approval of this development, subject to the recommended
condition would, in turn, also require the developer to obtain approval from the Pleasant
Valley and Lake Canal Company. In other words, the City will neither sign the Scenic
Views PUD Development Agreement, nor file its plat until PV&L has approved the plans.
It is based on these specific conditions that the Stormwater Utility recommends approval
of the Scenic Views Final PUD. It should be noted that these type of issues are commonly
resolved during the utility plan and development agreement reviews that are carried out
after final Planning and Zoning Board approval.
Pedestrian/bike circulation is provided by connecting sidewalks from within the
development to South Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street. Similarly, the West
Elizabeth sidewalk will be connected with the sidewalks along South Overland Trail. The
developer will be installing a pad site on West Elizabeth Street for a future Transfort bus
stop. In addition, the proposal provides for connections to the bike lanes on both West
Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail )
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
4. Design:
The streetscapes along West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail would be defined
by sidewalks detached from the curb by approximately eleven (11') feet and eighteen (18')
feet, respectively. Within the resulting parkway strips, street trees would be planted in a
formal, traditional spacing. Trees would also be planted behind the sidewalks, filling in the
spaces formed by the street trees. Together, this serves to create a safer pedestrian area
while beautifying the streets. The. eastern border of the site is bounded by a
pedestrian/bike path that would run alongside the existing ditch and provide access to the
proposed 167,878 square foot (3.85 acre) retention pond/recreation area. Pedestrian/bike
access to this retention pond/recreation area is also provided off of Overland Trail. Where
existing homes are found adjacent to the site, significant landscaping has been proposed
in an effort to provide visual screening, buffering, and privacy.
The proposed site and landscape plans provide for entry features at the main access
points off of both Elizabeth and Overland Trail. Internally, the site layout is designed to
provide for efficient use of land and substantial accommodation of pedestrian circulation.
Adequate parking is being provided in accessible garages and outdoor parking areas. The
proposal also includes a community clubhouse and swimming pool, as well as a 2000
square foot child care facility. Front yard setbacks for the duplexes would be at least 20
feet, and rear yard setbacks would be at least 10 feet. The closest structure to Overland
Trail would be more than 52 feet from the curbline. The closest structure to West Elizabeth
Street would be more than 35 feet from the curbline.
The architectural elevations submitted with this proposal depict two-story structures with
pitched roofs. The notes on these elevations state that "compatibility of elevations will be
created through the use of materials and colors. Considerations will also be given to
existing buildings, materials, and colors surrounding the site.' To avoid a monotonous
color scheme, a variety of colors will be used; base colors will include tans, beiges, and
soft pastels, with white trim and brighter and/or bolder accents. The potential materials list
includes asphalt shingle roofing, and brick, stone, or masonite lap siding (or equal).
Of the 15 applicable lots, 12 are oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east -west line, or
have a minimum of 50 feet of unobstructed access along the south lot line. This results
in a compliance rate of 80%, which exceeds the required minimum of 65%.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
(CSU Foothills Campus, see attached letter of verification); 5 points under base criterion
"g" for being within 1000 feet of a child care center (located within the proposed project);
10 points under bonus criterion "k" for achieving a minimum energy score rating of G-80;
10 points under bonus criterion "m" for devoting of open space to recreational use; 15
points under bonus criterion "q" for committing to develop a minimum of 15% of the total
number of dwelling units for low income families; and, 5 points under bonus criterion `b" for
connecting to the nearest City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane. The Final PUD continues
to achieve 65 base points and 40 bonus points for a total of 105 points, thereby continuing
to satisfy the requirements of the Residential Uses Point Chart.
The P.U.D., therefore, continues to be supported by its performance on the Residential
Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., as amended by Ordinance Number 161 on December
19, 1995.
A neighborhood meeting was held on January 18, 1996, prior to submittal of the
Preliminary P.U.D. Neighborhood compatibility issues were discussed at length; issues
surrounding school capacity, density, water pressure, park usage, occupancy, stormwater
runoff facilities, views, traffic, and street improvements were thoroughly addressed. The
Preliminary P.U.D. was found to be reasonably sensitive to and maintain the character of
the surrounding area. The request satisfies the applicable All Development Criteria
pertaining to neighborhood compatibility. These findings continue to be applicable to the
review of this Final P.U.D.
The surrounding area has been in a relative state of flux; that is, many of the remaining
infill sites found -in this area of the City seem to be developing in close temporal proximity.
For example, the proposed Scenic Views PUD site is across the street from the platted
Lory Ann Estates subdivision, which has approval for 29 multi -family lots on 10.8 acres;
Lory Ann Estates is currently under construction. Not far south of the proposed Scenic
Views PUD, on the west side of Overland Trail, final approval has been granted to the
Ponds at Overland PUD (an RF Cluster Plan of 284 single-family). In addition, along
Elizabeth Street, west of Taft Hill Road, final approvals have also been granted to the
Siena PUD (116 single-family units currently under construction), the West Plum Street*
PUD (thirteen single family units currently under construction), and the Jefferson Commons
PUD (192 multi -family units currently under construction); consequently, the area is
developing as a neighborhood of mixed residential densities. This proposal contributes to
this mix of residential densities in a compatible fashion.
Scenic Views P.U.D. - Final, #3-96A
February 24, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RP; One existing single-family home, a vacant lot, then County land (Mtn. View
Acres).
S: RLM; Lory Ann Estates (under construction) approved for 29 multi -family lots.
E: RL; Vacant, then Happy Heart Faun.
W: FA-1; CSU Equine Teaching and Research Center.
In July of 1985, this site was granted Final PUD approval for 210 two -bedroom units in
four- and six-plex configurations with a day care center, a,community clubhouse, and
tennis courts on 23.6079 acres. An extension on the approval, until January 24, 1988, was
later granted; however, as no site improvements were made, the PUD approval has since
expired. The current proposal is the first request involving this -parcel of land since the
approved Final PUD expired on January24, 1988.
2. Land Use:
All Development Criteria:
The request for 222 dwelling units (15 duplexes and 24 eight-plexes) on 20.9 acres equals
10.62 dwelling units per acre. The P.U.D., therefore, exceeds the minimum requirement
that there be at least 3.00 dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage basis.
At Preliminary, pursuant to All Development Criteria A-2.4 (Vehicular circulation and
parking), staff recommended a condition of approval which would connect the two portions
of the Planned Unit Development while providing access to both arterial streets, Elizabeth
and Overland Trail. This condition has been satisfied with the Final development plans;
thus, the request satisfies all applicable All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
Residential Uses Point Chart (Point Chart H):
At Preliminary, the P.U.D. was reviewed by the variable criteria of the Residential Uses
Point Chart of the L.D.G.S, as amended by Ordinance Number 161 on December 19,
1995. The project scored 105% which exceeds the minimum required score of 100%.
Points were awarded as follows: 20 points under base criterion "b" for being within 650 feet
of an existing transit stop; 20 points under base criterion "d" for being within 3500 feet of
an existing neighborhood or community park (both Rogers Park and Overland Trail Park);
20 points under base criterion "P for being within 3000 feet of a major employment center
ITEM NO. 13
MEETING DATE 3/10/97
STAFF Bob Blanchard
Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Scenic Views P.U.D., Final, #3-96A
APPLICANT: Solitaire Properties, LLC
% Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Snowoods Land and Cattle Jeanne A. Gidding
2900 Lincoln Center Building 1532 Addel Court
Denver, CO 80264 Fort Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Final P.U.D. approval for 222 dwelling units (15 duplex lots containing
30 units and 24 multi -family structures containing 192 units) on 20.9 acres located at the
northeast comer of West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. The proposal includes
such amenities as 4.33 acres of recreational open space, bike/pedestrian connections from
the public sidewalks to the recreational open space, a day care facility, a community
clubhouse, and a swimming pool. The parcel is zoned rp, Planned Residential with a
P.U.D. condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval with a condition.
The Final P.U.D. request continues to satisfy the All Development Criteria and the
Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. The Preliminary P.U.D. was approved with
the condition that the proposed "twenty foot emergency access" be changed, at final, to a
permanent roadway connection, of at least twenty-four (24') feet in width, between the
duplex and multi -family portions of this development; this condition has been satisfied.
The land use is compatible with the surrounding area. The project is feasible from
stormwater and traffic engineering perspectives, and it promotes City transportation
policies.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80.1?-0580 {970)2211.6:50
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board
Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
February 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Page 3
The LDGS defines recreational space as "privately owned space which is designed for
active recreational use for more than three (3) families and would qualify as one (1) of
the following categories:
(1) Active Open space
(a) A parcel of not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet and not
less than fifty (50) linear feet in the smallest dimensions;
(b) Public dedications may not contribute to the active open space
area;
(c) Partial credit may be given to active open space areas which are
devoted to improved flood control channels and areas encumbered
by flowage, floodway, or drainage easements ...................."
Under this definition, portions of the retention area can technically be claimed as
recreational space. However, continuing to claim points for the area labeled as
"created wetlands" on the final landscape plan and the adjacent slopes is inappropriate.
The applicant has revised the points claimed for recreational use from 10 to 8 after
deleting these areas. The project still exceeds the required 100 points necessary for a
density of 10.6 dwelling units per acre by earning a total of 103 points (see attached
revised point chart).
If there are any questions regarding the resolution of these issues, please call either
one of us. We will also be available at the Board's work session on February 21 and
the Board's March 10, 1997 meeting.
docfil\p&z\scnview.mem
u
Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board
Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
February 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Page 2
he made at the P & Z Hearing which is to eliminate it and therefore will not have
basements in the northern portion of the development.
Water Quality
To address water quality issues the developer has researched the "present state of the
art" concerning water quality and summarized the findings in the Stormwater Quality
and Management Control Plan (attached). As a result of the this plan there are now
many features shown on the construction plans to treat the runoff from the development
and, in fact, will be treating runoff from the CSU Equine Center as well. The plans now
incorporate "Best Management Practices", both structural and non-structural which .
includes extended detention and wetland water treatment. The plan includes control of
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, illicit discharge controls, grass buffer strips, grass -
lined swales, and a commitment to a monitoring program. The Stormwater Utility can
endorse this plan (staff feels it is one of the best ever submitted by a development
applicant) and will assure that agreements are in place to assure compliance.
Recreational/Active Open S ace
The applicant has made changes in the design of the retention pond that affect its
recreational use:
1.. The retention area is now 12 feet deep except for an area in which a
wetland will be created which is 16 feet deep (the previous depth was 10
feet).
2. The side slopes have been decreased from approximately 2:1 to
approximately 4:1.
3. A five foot path has been provided down the sloped area on the north side
of the retention area.
4. The landscaping has been rearranged (the numbers and types of trees
have been retained).
5. Two picnic tables have been added in the northeast section of the
retention area.
The Residential Uses Point Chart (Point Chart H) of the Land Development Guidance
system (LDGS) allows points to be awarded for recreational use based on the
percentage of the entire project area that meets the definition of recreational uses.
City of Fort Collins
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Commui..ty Planning and Environmental vices
Current Planning
Planning and Zoning Board
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
February 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
At the December, 1996 Planning and Zoning meeting, the Scenic Views PUD; Final
was continued until 'the staff is comfortable that all issues have been as fully resolved
as possible." Over the last two months, the applicant has addressed the concerns
expressed at the hearing and staff is comfortable that the issues have been addressed.
This memorandum is a summary of the issues and their resolution and should be
considered an addendum to the staff report. The original staff report has not been
amended and is included in this packet for your reference.
At the December meeting, issues surrounding the retention pond design focused
discussion on the actual feasibility of the pond and its functionality- what impact does
the depth of the retention pond have on ground water and will the underdrain system
back water into the sanitary sewer bedding. Two additional related issues include
water quality (what is the impact of pumping water from the retention pond into the
adjacent ditch, is there an impact on downstream users of the ditch water?) and the
ability of the retention pond to meet the requirements of the Residential Uses point
chart to count as recreational, active open space.
Groundwater Impact
The retention pond will be isolated from the ground water by surrounding the pond with
a cutoff trench of non -permeable clay soils extending into the bedrock. This will allow
the depth of the pond to be below the existing ground water table to accommodate the
additional volume of runoff being required to be retained - two times the 24hr. - 100
year storm runoff.
Underdrain System
The developer has decided to eliminate the underdrain system due to concerns of the
Water and Wastewater Utilities. The Stormwater Quality and Management Control Plan
prepared for the applicant is attached to the staff report. In that study the developer
was reconsidering the underdrain system but has since gone back to the commitment
281 North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 - TDD (970) 224-6002
Criteria A-3.3 - Water Hazards: If the project includes an irrigation canal,
water body, or other water channel, have necessary precautions been
taken to minimize any hazard to life or property?
The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs diagonally across the property in the
northeast portion of the site. No special safety precautions have been taken
along the canal. Any improvements along the canal must be approved by the
ditch company and are reviewed to ensure maintenance access to the ditch is
preserved.
d ocfil\p&z\ap peallscnicvw. mem
Criteria A-3.2 - Design Standards: Does the project comply with all design
standards, requirements and specifications for the following services or
have variances been granted?
Water Supply
Sanitary Sewer
Mass Transit
Fire Protection
Flood hazard areas
Telephone
Walks/bikeways
Irrigation companies
Electricity
Natural Gas
Storm Drainage
Cable television
Streets/pedestrians
Each of these services have been reviewed through the development review
process. Any issues pertaining to these services were resolved through the
development review process. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the
design criteria as proposed by the applicant and accepted by City and other
review agency staff.
Specific to the issues addressed in the appeal, the retention pond does meet
Stormwater Criteria. It is accurate that the preliminary plan did propose a
smaller detention pond with a storm sewer outlet in Orchard Place. During the
final review process it was discovered that the right -of --way for Orchard Place did
not exist. Therefore the applicant was required to either obtain the Orchard
Place right-of-way or an easement for the outfall system. The developer was not
successful in obtaining either. Therefore the applicant proposed an alternate
temporary drainage system (the approved retention pond). This system depends
on a pumping system to ensure the proper functioning of the retention system.
The Stormwater Utility will be'responsible for assuring that a gravity outfall is
installed so the pump system can be phased out as the properties downstream
redevelop. The approved retention pond also includes a wetland in a portion of
the pond which serves as mitigation for the wetland area being disturbed on the
site. This wetland also serves as extended detention to treat the water before it
is pumped into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal (PV&L). The maintenance
and operation of the pumps will be the responsibility of the Home Owners
Association. The temporary retention pond will hold twice the volume required
for a 100 year storm as a safety precaution in case the two pumping systems fail
or two 100 year storms should occur before the system is pumped down. This
pond will also treat offsite runoff from the CSU Equine Center which currently
flows into the PV&L canal after flowing through a wetland created by the runoff.
source control (those efforts to reduce the amount of pollutants from the source
or the users of the land) and structural (physical designs to limit the amount of
pollutants from leaving a site).
Source control BMP's include required educational programs by the Home
Owners Association to instruct on the proper disposal of household waste and
toxins. These types of programs are not required by the City and cannot be
enforced as a condition of project approval. Structural BMP's on this site
include the extended detention of stormwater that would occur in the retention
pond, grassed swales and grass filter strips.
Criteria A-2.3 - Natural Features: Do the physical elements of the site plan
adapt well to the physical characteristics of the site and minimize the
disturbance of topography, water bodies, streams, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, vegetation and other natural features?
The site is flat with a small wetland on the northern boundary of the property and
the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal running diagonally through the northeast
portion of the site. Only one natural feature, the wetland, is disturbed by this
project. As noted before, the Natural Resources Department determined it was
acceptable to disturb the existing wetland based on its small size, the character
of the wetland and an acceptable mitigation proposal. The applicant has agreed
to mitigate the loss of the wetland through the design of the retention pond.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that this change to the existing
natural features was acceptable and that the project complied with this criteria.
Criteria A-2.18 - Hazardous Materials: If the anticipated use of the project
may entail the use and/or storage of hazardous materials (including
hazardous wastes) on -site, has the project been designed to comply with
all safety, fire and building codes for the use and storage of hazardous
materials and have adequate precautions been taken to protect against
negative off -site impacts of a hazardous materials release, using best
available technology?
This residential project does not entail any known use or storage of hazardous
materials.
,$recreational space" in the LDGS. The design of the retention area does not
raise safety issues with side slopes of 4:1 and a pathway that is handicap
accessible.
Criteria A-1.5 - Ecologically sensitive areas (reserved).
This criteria is reserved for the preparation of future regulations and is not.
applicable to the review of any development. application. Therefore, it is not
applicable to -this appeal.
Criteria A-1.6 - Lands of Agricultural Importance (reserved).
This criteria is reserved for the preparation of future regulations and is not
applicable to the review of any development application. Therefore, it is not
applicable to this appeal.
Criteria A-1.9 - Water Quality: Will the project conform to applicable local,
state and federal water quality standards, including, but not limited to:
erosion and sedimentation, runoff control, solid wastes, and hazardous
substances?
Because of the wetland at the northern boundary of the property, the Corps of
Engineers were consulted to determine the applicability of Section 404 of the
Clean Waters Act. The Corps determined that, because of the size of the
wetland (approximately 8,000 square feet), disturbance was covered under a
nationwide permit and approval to disturb the wetland was granted. -
The appeal also terms the retention pond a "hazardous waste holding facility"
and claims that it will serve as a pollution waste filtration facility. In fact, water
quality issues were carefully reviewed the Stormwater Utility staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board accepted their review and determined the project
complied with this criteria.
Both local and national data reports indicate that urban runoff does not meet the
toxicity, reactivity or corrosiveness standards for it to be classified as hazardous
waste. Runoff from developed land does, however, frequently contain low levels
of pollutants which may cause a variety of responses in receiving waters often
resulting in a decrease in biological diversity. However, because no. specific
cause and effect relationships can be identified, urban stormwater control rests
with what are termed Best Management Practices (BMP's).
BMP's are intended to mitigate the effects of land uses on water quality. The
Stormwater Quality and Management Control Plan for the proposed project
(included in Attachment C) include two types of Best Management Practices:
Policy 11: Lands of agricultural importance should be identified and excluded
from the Fort Collins urban growth area.
The urban growth area (UGA) is the area located between the City limits and the
Urban Growth Boundary. The subject property is located inside the City limits.
Therefore, this policy does not apply.
Policy 20: Land use, site planning and urban design criteria shall be
developed to promote pleasant, functional and understandable
inter -relationships through and between land uses.
This policy is a recommendation that review criteria be prepared some time after
the adoption of the Land Use Policies Plan (1979). In fact, these topics were
included in the development of the Land Development Guidance System and are
represented in specific All Development Criteria and land use point charts. The
Board, through its approval of both the preliminary and final PUD applications
determined that the LDGS criteria had been adequately addressed.
Policies 43 b & c: The City shall prepare and utilize an environmental
management plan which will include the following measures:
b. Identification of environmentally scarce and
valuable lands such as wildlife habitats and
lands of agricultural importance.
C. Requiring development to mitigate negative
impacts on environmentally scarce and
valuable lands.
As with the policy 20, these policies are also programmatic. These policies have
been implemented through the adoption of the Natural Areas Plan which was
adopted in 1992 as well as the LDGS which has All Development Criteria relating
to wildlife habitat and natural features. The subject property is not identified in
the Natural Areas Plan.
Specific to Policy 43c, the project does disturb a small wetland on the northern
boundary of the site. However, the Natural Resources Department has
determined that the proposed mitigation program, which creates new wetlands in
the retention pond, is acceptable.
Policy 97: Parks should be designed for safe access by users.
The final PUD did not include a park on the site. However, a portion of the
retention pond is considered, an active recreation area under the definition of
appropriateness of this intensity, as well as the need for mitigation, must
be interpreted in the context of the neighborhood's character.
The intensity of use of a residential land use is typically identified by the density
and total number of dwelling units and any related impacts (ie: traffic, noise,
lighting, etc). While the intensity of the Scenic Views PUD caused the need for
specific amounts of retention, the retention pond itself does not relate to intensity
of use.
Paragraph D(1)(e), Engineering Criteria, which states that "criteria relate to
provisions of basic services and avoidance of hazards ... for public health,
safety and welfare... Preliminary and final plans shall comply with these
criteria."
The entire section that this statement comes from is from the introduction section
to the All Development Criteria of the LDGS:
These criteria relate to the provision of basic services and avoidance of
hazards and are based on community planning and administration for
public health, safety and welfare. These issues may be of concern to
people who live or work in the neighborhood, but they are also of concern.
to the broader community. Preliminary and final plans shall comply with
these criteria. ..
As noted in the responses below to criteria contained within the Engineering.
Criteria of the LDGS (Criteria A-3.2 and A-3.3), review of the project has
determined that there are no engineering issues with the final design surrounding
public health, safety and welfare issues. The Board, through their vote to
approve the project, concurred with this finding.
Criteria A-1.2 - Comprehensive Plan: Is the development in accordance
with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan? The Board
misinterpreted policies #11, 20, 43b, 43c, and 97 of the Land Use Policies
Plan.
For this project and this appeal, the Comprehensive Plan being referred to is the
City's Comprehensive Plan. in existence at the time the project was submitted
(pre-CityPlan). The Plan consists of several different elements and documents.
The appeal has focused on selected policies from the Land Use Policies Plan.
The appellant feels that the following policies support their appeal:
ALLEGATIONS OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
[NOTE: Based on the content of the Notice of Appeal, which addresses only issues
surrounding the approved retention pond on the subject property, staff comments are
limited to the retention pond also. Appellants allegations are shown in bold type. Staff
response is in normal type]
The grounds for appealing the matter of the Planning and Zoning Board's Final
approval of the referenced project are based on Sec. 2-48(b)(1) of the City Code;
that the P and Z Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter.
Specific Sections of the Land Development Guidance System include:
Land Use Conflicts Chart with consideration to proposed retention pond's
..."access and safety."
The Land Use Conflicts Chart is used to identify the kinds of conflicts that are
presumed to exist between different land uses (either neighboring land uses
within a development or adjacent to a development). Specifically, the types of
conflicts indicated on the chart are noise, odor, light and shadow; aesthetics;
privacy; access; and safety. The chart is used to identify issues that should be
considered during the review of a development application.
For Scenic Views PUD, the Land Use Conflicts Chart was used to identify
potential conflicts between this project and adjacent properties at the time of the
original submittal. Staff determined that all potential issues were adequately
mitigated and made this recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board.
With the approval of both the preliminary and final PUDs, the Board concurred
with this determination.
Specific to the appeal, access to the retention pond is by way of pedestrian
walkways from the West Orchard Place right-of-way (to the north) and from an
internal walkway within the project (to the west and south). The Board
determined that*access to the retention area was adequately addressed. They
also determined that the design presented no safety concerns.
Paragraph 1)(1)(d), Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria, which states that
..."the appropriateness of intensity, as well as the need for mitigation, must
be interpreted in the context of the neighborhood's character."
This language is a portion of a sentence from the introduction section to the All
Development Criteria of the LDGS. The sentence in its' entirety reads:
There are also criteria that deal with attributes that relate to the intensity of
activity of the proposed land use, such as noise, lighting and traffic, the
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
TO: Mayor and City Council
,
THROUGH: John Fischbach, City Man er
Greg Byrne, CPES. Directo
FROM: Bob Blanchard'"
Current Planning Director
DATE: May 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Scenic Views PUD, #3-96A - Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the Notice of Appeal of the March
10, 1997 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board granting final PUD approval for the
Scenic Views PUD.
BACKGROUND
The final application for the Scenic Views PUD, #3-96A was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board on March 10, 1997 by a 3-1 vote.
Section 2-48(a) of the City Code states:
(a) A party -in -interest may appeal to the City Council the final decision of any
board or commission to which this appeal procedure applies in the manner
provided in this Division. No action shall be taken in reliance upon any decision
of a board or commission that is subject to appeal under the provisions of this
Division until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted.
Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states:
(b) Except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds
for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed
one (1) or more of the following errors:"
The appellants base their appeal on the grounds set forth in City Code Section 2-
48(b)(1) which states:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter.
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002
3
Steven Hazel, 8332 Mummy, aKi e Roar, Ft. Collins, CO. 80525
593-0082 Signed _�
Party -in -interest; spoke at the Board, Meeting
Tara Hazel, 8332 Mummy Ran7-71—le
F-t. ollins, CO. 80525
593-0082 Signed �� ___ _____
Party -in -interest; spoke at the BoJr Meeting
+ T, ri•C., ;ti5; C �o�z�
Ai T i= '�Lt) iucY7'1�jC/
2.
The small detention pond of the original plan design, submitted at
the Neighborhood Meeting and to the Board at preliminary was a part of a
designated Neighborhood Park, which has since become more and more a
neighborhood hazardous waste holding facility. This so-called park is, in
its present incarnation, a 3 acre,16 foot deep hole in the ground that is
proposed to function really as a stormdrainage pollution waste filtration
system. It is an unworkable attempt at solution to procedural errors at
the beginning of this process, when the required stormwater utility stamp
was wrongly affixed to the preliminary approval, when the necessary
easements were never there.
This dangerous retention pond is not a park, and it was a park that
the Board and the neighborhood was shown, and it was a park which
granted this developer 10 points of density that allowed him to process a
preliminary plan that is of a much greater density than currently exists in
the surrounding neighborhood, and that is of a much greater density than
would be allowed if this project is considered under the newly approved
city land use plan. These points were recently modified to 8, but
questions arise as to whether the proposed density would have made
preliminary, which has obvious effects on final approval.
We have real concerns with safety hazards of the pond, concerns
with the effects on water volumes in the ditch, volumes in the
groundwater basin, destruction and sizing of an existing wetlands, and
water volumes in the down slope agricultual ponds that could be effected
by this retention pond. We are not satisfied with the HOA being left with
monitoring of the experiment. The other critical unresolved substantive
issue is water quality.
Appellants: Bill Roberts, 2922 W. Eliz bet t ;, Ft. ,Co tins, CO. 80521
221-4086 Signed{' _____
--------
Party-in-interest; spoke at Board Meeting
Dennis Stenson, 2820 W. Eli Labet..hSt., F . Collins, CO. 80521
482-3448#2 Signed LN- - __ _ _
Party -in -interest; Representitive of Rogers Park Neighborhood
Mary Davidson, 2212 Charolais„ Dr-.-,- t. Colli s, CO. 80526
493-2425 Signed _
Party -in -interest; spoye 'at a Board Meeting;
March 24,199
The undersigned parties -in -interest herebv submit thi;
MAR 2 41997 D
i
CITY CLERK
Notice o
Appeal to the City Council for the Citv of Ft. Collins. This Appeal concerns
the actions of the Citv of Ft. Collins, Planninq and Zoninq Board ("P and Z
Board") on March 10,1997 to approve the Final Plan for the "Scenic Views"
P.U.D.
The qrounds for appealinq the matter of the P and Z Board's Final
approval of the referenced project are based on Sec. 2-48(2) of the Citv
Code; that the P and Z Board failed to properly interpret and apply the
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
Specifically_ , the LDGS Sec.29-526, paragraph D. (Review
Criteria);(1)(d) eighborhood Comp t'bili y Criteria —states that the
..."appropriateness of intensity, as well as the need for mitigation, must
be interpreted in the context of the neighborhood's character".... and in (e)
Engineering Criteria, that "criteria relate to provisions of basic services
and avoidance of hazards... forpublic health safety, and welfare.
...Preliminary and final plans shall comply with these criteria." Also,
(b)Land Use Conflicts Chart with consideration to proposed retention
pond's..." access; and safety."
Specific elements of the Community -Wide Criteria were
misinterpreted as follows:
Sec.A-1.2 Comprehensive Plan; policies #11, 20, 43b. and c., and 97
of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, as amended March 1990.
Sec.A-1.5 Ecologically sensitive areas; A-1.6 Lands of Agricultural
Importance; A-1.9 Water Quality; A-2.3 Natural Features; A-2.18
Hazardous Materials; A-3.2 Design Standards; and A-3.3 Water
Hazards.
Our points fall into two categories; the first being of the failure to
follow proscribed city rules of procedures as it applies to elements of the
LDGS, and the second category of concerns relates to substantive issues
which are .parts of the project, and which we strongly feel put the
neighborhood at risk The categories are very much related and overlap.
04/02/97 10:27 V970 962 6730 HACH COMPANY Z 003/003
APR - 2 G97 D
April 1, 1997
1203 Cascade Ct.
CITY CLERK Ft Collins, CO, 80521
City Clerk, City of Ft Collins,
As of April 1, 1997 I am removing myself as an appellant against the Scenic Views final
PUD proposal which was approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on
March 10, 1997.
Roberti W./Davidson
April 1, 1997
City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
DATE: March 26, 1997
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: John Duval, Assistant City Attorney N
RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board's 3-10-97
Decision Concerning the Scenic Views Final PUD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-50 of the City Code, I have reviewed for any obvious
defects in form or substance the Notice of Appeal dated March 24, 1997, that was filed by the
following six individuals: Bill Roberts, Dennis Stenson, Mary Davidson, Steven Hazel, Tara
Hazel, Robert W. Davidson, Evelyn Anderson, and Phil Hackney ("the Appellants"). I have
found no obvious defects in form or substance of the Appellants' Notice of Appeal.
JRD: meg
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins. Colorado, on Tuesday, May 13, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. or
as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on March 10, 1997 regarding the Scenic Views PUD (#3-96A)
filed by Bill Roberts, Dennis Stenson, Mary Davidson, Steven Hazel, Tara Hazel, Evelyn Anderson,
and Phil Hackney. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings
held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750).
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by May 2. Agenda materials provided
to the City Council, including additional issues identified by City Council members, will be available
to the public on Thursday, May 8 after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance.
I
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
April 29, 1997
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295
Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board
Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
February 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Page 3
The LDGS defines recreational space as "privately owned space which is designed for
active recreational. use for more than three (3) families and would qualify as one (1) of
the following categories:
(1) Active Open space
(a) A parcel of not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet and not
less than fifty (50) linear feet in the smallest dimensions;
(b) Public dedications may not contribute to the active open space
area;
(c) Partial credit may be given to active open space areas which are
devoted to improved flood control channels and areas encumbered
by flowage, floodway, or drainage easements ...................."
Under this definition, portions of the retention area can technically be, claimed as
recreational space. However, continuing to claim points for the area labeled as
"created wetlands" on the final landscape plan and the adjacent slopes is inappropriate.
The applicant has revised the points claimed for recreational use from 10 to 8 after
deleting these areas. The project still exceeds the required 100 points necessary for a
density of 10.6 dwelling units per acre by earning a total of 103 points (see attached
revised point chart).
If there are any questions regarding the resolution of these issues, please call either,
one of us. We will also be available at the Board's work session on February 21 and
the Board's March 10, 1997 meeting.
docfil\p&z\scnview.mem
Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board
Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
February 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Page 2
he made at the P & Z Hearing which is to eliminate it and therefore will not have
basements in the northern portion of the development.
Water Quality
To address water quality issues the developer has researched the "present'state of the
art" concerning water quality and summarized the findings in the Stormwater Quality
and Management Control Plan (attached). As a result of the this plan there are now
many features shown on the construction plans to treat the. runoff from the development
and, in fact, will be treating runoff from the CSU Equine Center as well. The plans now
incorporate "Best Management Practices", both structural and non-structural which
includes extended detention and wetland water treatment. The plan includes control of
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, illicit discharge controls, grass buffer'strips, grass -
lined swales, and a commitment to a monitoring program. The Stormwater Utility can
endorse this plan (staff feels it is one of the best ever submitted by a development
applicant) and will assure that agreements are in place to assure compliance.
Recreational/Active Open Space
The applicant has made changes in the design of the retention pond that affect its
recreational use:
1. The retention area is now 12.feet deep except for an area in which a
wetland will be created which is 16 feet deep (the previous depth was 10
feet).
2. The side slopes have been decreased from approximately 2:1 to
approximately 4:1.
3. A five foot path has been,provided down the sloped area on the north side
of the retention area. I
4. The landscaping has been rearranged (the numbers and types of trees
have been retained).
5. Two picnic tables have been added in the northeast section of the
retention area.
The Residential Uses Point Chart (Point Chart H) of the Land Development Guidance
system (LDGS) allows points to be awarded for recreational use based on the
percentage of the entire project area that meets the definition of recreational uses.
City of Fort Collins
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Commui..ty Planning and Environmental Tvices
Current Planning
3�lo��T apera 44
3 - z 6 L);)
Planning and Zoning Board
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
February 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Scenic Views PUD, Final - #3-96A
xw'�L
At the December, 1996 Planning and Zoning meeting, the Scenic Views PUD, Final
was continued until "the staff is comfortable that all issues have been as fully resolved
as possible." Over the last two months, the applicant has addressed the concerns
expressed at the hearing and staff is comfortable that the issues have been addressed
This memorandum is a summary of the issues and their resolution and should be
considered an addendum to the staff report. The original staff report has not been
amended and is included in this packet for your reference.
At the December meeting, issues surrounding the retention pond design focused
discussion on the actual feasibility of the pond and its functionality - what impact does
the depth of the retention pond have on ground water and will the underdrain system
back water into the sanitary sewer bedding. Two additional related issues include
water quality (what is the impact of pumping water from the retention pond into the
adjacent ditch, is there an impact on downstream users of the ditch water?) and the
ability of the retention pond to meet the requirements of the Residential Uses point
chart to count as recreational, active open space.
Groundwater Impact
The retention pond will be isolated from the ground water by surrounding the pond with
a cutoff trench of non -permeable clay soils extending into the bedrock. This will allow
the depth of the pond to be below the existing ground water table to accommodate the
additional volume of runoff being required to be retained - two times the 24hr. -100
year storm runoff.
Underdrain System
The developer has decided to eliminate the underdrain system due to concerns of the
Water and Wastewater Utilities. The Stormwater Quality and Management Control Plan
prepared for the applicant is attached to the staff report. In that study the developer
was reconsidering the underdrain system but has since gone back to the commitment
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378•- TDD (970) 224-6002
Criteria A-3.3 - Water Hazards: If the project includes an irrigation canal,
Water body, or other water channel, have necessary precautions been
taken to minimize any hazard to life or property?
The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs diagonally across the property in the
northeast portion of the site. No special safety precautions have been taken
along the canal. Any improvements along the canal must.be approved by the
ditch company and are reviewed to ensure maintenance access to the ditch is
preserved.
docfiRp&z\a ppea I\,scn icvw. mem
Criteria A-3.2 - Design Standards: Does the project comply with all design
standards, requirements and specifications for the following services or
have variances been granted?
Water Supply
Sanitary Sewer
Mass Transit
Fire Protection
Flood hazard areas
Telephone
Walks/bikeways
Irrigation companies
Electricity
Natural Gas
Storm. Drainage
Cable television
Streets/pedestrians
Each of these services have been reviewed through the development review
process. Any issues pertaining to these services were resolved through the
development review process. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the
design criteria as proposed by the applicant and accepted by City and other
review agency staff.
Specific to the issues addressed in the appeal, the retention pond does meet
Stormwater Criteria. It is accurate that the preliminary plan did propose a
smaller detention pond with a storm sewer outlet in Orchard Place. During the
final review process it was discovered that the right-of-way for Orchard Place did
not exist. Therefore the applicant was required to either obtain the Orchard
Place right-of-way or an easement for the outfall system. The developer was not
successful in obtaining either. Therefore the applicant proposed an alternate
temporary drainage system (the approved retention pond). This system depends
on a pumping system to ensure the proper functioning of the retention system.
The Stormwater Utility will be responsible for assuring that a gravity outfall is
installed so the pump system can be phased out as the properties downstream
redevelop. The approved retention pond also includes a wetland in a portion of
the pond which serves as mitigation for the wetland area being disturbed on the
site. This wetland also serves as extended detention to treat the water before it
is pumped into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal (PV&L). The maintenance
and operation of the pumps will be the responsibility of the Home Owners
Association. The temporary retention pond will hold twice the volume required
for a 100 year storm as a safety precaution in case the two pumping systems fail
or two 100 year storms should occur before the system is pumped down. This.
pond will also treat offsite runoff from the CSU Equine Center which currently
flows into the PV&L canal after flowing through a wetland created by the runoff.
source control (those efforts to reduce the amount of pollutants from the source
or the users of the land) and structural (physical designs to limit the amount of
pollutants from leaving a site).
Source control BMP's include required educational programs by the Home
Owners Association to instruct on the proper disposal of household waste and
toxins. These types of programs are not required by the City and cannot be
enforced as a condition of project approval. Structural BMP's on this site
include the extended detention of stormwater that would occur in.the retention
pond, grassed swales and grass filter strips.
Criteria A-2.3 - Natural Features: Do the physical elements of the site plan
adapt well to the physical characteristics of the site and minimize the
disturbance of topography, water bodies, streams, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, vegetation and other natural features? .
The site is flat with a small wetland on the northern boundary of the property and
the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal running diagonally through the northeast
portion of the site. Only one natural feature, the wetland, is disturbed by this
project. As noted before, the Natural Resources Department determined it was
acceptable to disturb the existing wetland based on its small size, the character
of the wetland and an acceptable mitigation proposal. The applicant has agreed
to mitigate the loss of the wetland through the design of the retention pond.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that this change to the existing
natural features was acceptable and that the project complied with this criteria.
Criteria A-2.18 - Hazardous Materials: If the anticipated use of the project
may entail the use and/or storage of hazardous materials (including
hazardous wastes) on -site, has the project been designed to comply with
all safety, fire and building codes for the use and storage of hazardous
materials and have adequate precautions been taken to protect against
negative off -site impacts of a hazardous materials release, using best
available technology?
This residential project does not entail any known use or storage of hazardous
materials.
"recreational space" in the LDGS. The design of the retention area does not
raise safety issues with side slopes of 4:1 and a pathway that is handicap
accessible.
0
Criteria A-1.5 - Ecologically sensitive areas (reserved).
This criteria is reserved for the preparation of future regulations and is not
applicable to the review of any development application. Therefore, it is not
applicable to this appeal.
Criteria A-1.6 - Lands of Agricultural Importance (reserved).
This criteria is reserved for the preparation of future regulations and is not
applicable to the review of any development application. Therefore, it is not
applicable to this appeal.
Criteria A-1.9 Water Quality: Will the project conform to applicable local,
state and federal water quality standards, including, but not limited to:
erosion and sedimentation, runoff control, solid wastes, and hazardous
substances?
Because of the wetland at the northern boundary of the property, the Corps of
Engineers were consulted to determine the applicability of Section 404 of the
Clean Waters Act. The Corps determined that, because of the size of the
wetland (approximately 8,000 square feet), disturbance was covered under a
nationwide permit and approval to disturb the wetland was granted.
The appeal also terms the retention pond.a "hazardous waste holding facility"
and claims that it will serve as a pollution waste filtration facility. In fact, water
quality issues were carefully reviewed the Stormwater Utility staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board accepted their review and determined the project
complied with this criteria.
Both local and national data reports indicate that urban runoff does not meet the
toxicity, reactivity or corrosiveness standards for it to be classified as hazardous
waste. Runoff from developed land does, however, frequently contain low levels
of pollutants which may cause a variety of responses in receiving waters often
resulting in a decrease in biological diversity. However, because no specific
cause and effect relationships can be identified, urban stormwater control rests
with what are termed Best Management Practices (BMP's).
BMP's are intended to mitigate the effects of land uses on water quality. The
Stormwater Quality and Management Control Plan for the proposed project
(included in Attachment C) include two types of Best Management Practices:
Policy 11: Lands of agricultural importance should be identified and excluded
from the Fort Collins urban growth area.
The urban growth area (UGA) is the area located between the City limits and the
Urban Growth Boundary. The subject property is located inside the City limits.
Therefore, this policy does not apply.
Policy 20: Land use, site planning and urban design criteria shall be
developed to promote pleasant, functional and understandable
inter -relationships through and between land uses.
This policy is a recommendation that review criteria be prepared some time after
the adoption of the Land Use Policies Plan (1979). In fact, these topics were
included in the development of the Land Development Guidance System and are
represented in specific All Development Criteria and land use point charts. The
Board, through its approval of both the preliminary and final PUD applications
determined that the LDGS criteria had been adequately addressed.
Policies 43 b & c: The City shall prepare and utilize an environmental
management plan which will include the following measures:
b. Identification of environmentally scarce and
valuable lands such as wildlife habitats and
lands of agricultural importance.
C. Requiring development to mitigate negative
impacts on environmentally scarce and
valuable lands.
As with the policy 20, these policies are also programmatic. These policies have
been implemented through the adoption of the Natural Areas Plan which was
adopted in 1992 as well as the LDGS which has All Development Criteria relating
to wildlife habitat and natural features. The subject property is not identified in
the Natural Areas Plan.
Specific to Policy 43c, the project does disturb a small wetland on the northern
boundary of the site. However, the Natural Resources Department has
determined that the proposed mitigation program, which creates new wetlands in
the retention pond, is acceptable.
Policy 97: Parks should be designed for safe access by users.
The final PUD did not include a park on the site. However, a portion of the
retention pond is considered an active recreation area under the definition of
appropriateness of this intensity, as well as the need for mitigation, must
be interpreted in the context of the neighborhood's character.
The intensity of use of a residential land use is typically identified by the density
and -total number of dwelling units and any related impacts (ie: traffic, noise,
lighting, etc). While the intensity of the Scenic Views PUD caused the need for
specific amounts of retention, the retention pond itself does not relate to intensity
of use.
Paragraph 1)(1)(e), Engineering Criteria, which states that "criteria relate to
provisions of basic services and avoidance of hazards ... for public health,
safety and welfare... Preliminary and final plans shall comply with these
criteria."
The entire section that this statement comes from is from the introduction section
to the All Development Criteria of the LDGS:
These criteria relate to the provision of basic services and avoidance of
hazards and are based on community planning and administration for
public health, safety and welfare. These issues may be of concern to ..
people who live or work in the neighborhood, but they are also of concern
to the broader community. Preliminary and final plans shall comply with
these criteria.
As noted in the responses below to criteria contained within the Engineering
Criteria of the LDGS (Criteria A-3.2 and A-3.3), review of the project has
determined that there are no engineering issues with the final design surrounding
public health, safety and welfare issues. The Board, through their vote to
approve the project, concurred with this finding.
Criteria A-1.2 - Comprehensive Plan: Is the development in accordance
with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan? The Board
misinterpreted policies #11,, 20, 43b, 43c, and 97 of the Land Use Policies
Plan.
For this project and this appeal, the Comprehensive Plan being referred to is the
City's Comprehensive Plan in existence at the time the project was. submitted
(pre-CityPlan). The Plan consists of several different elements and. documents.
The appeal has focused on selected policies from the Land Use Policies Plan.
The appellant feels that the following policies support their appeal:
ALLEGATIONS OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
[NOTE: Based on the content of the Notice of Appeal, which addresses only issues
surrounding the approved retention pond on the subject property, staff comments are
limited to the retention pond also. Appellants allegations are shown in bold type. Staff
response is in normal type]
The grounds for appealing the matter of the Planning and Zoning Board's Final
approval of the referenced project are based on Sec. 2-48(b)(1) of the City Code;
that the P and Z Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter.
Specific Sections of the Land Development Guidance System include:
Land Use Conflicts Chart with consideration to proposed retention pond's
..."access and safety."
The Land Use Conflicts Chart is used to identify the kinds of conflicts that are
presumed to exist between different land uses (either neighboring land uses
within a development or adjacent to a development). Specifically, the types of
conflicts indicated on the chart are noise, odor, light and shadow; aesthetics;
privacy; access; and safety. The chart is used to identify issues that should be
considered during the review of a development application.
For Scenic Views PUD, the Land Use Conflicts Chart was used to identify
potential conflicts between this project and adjacent properties at the time of the
original submittal. Staff determined that all potential issues were adequately
mitigated and made this recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board.
With the approval of both the preliminary and final PUDs, the Board concurred
with this determination.
Specific to the appeal, access to the retention pond is by way of pedestrian
walkways from the West Orchard Place right-of-way (to the north) and from an
internal walkway within the project (to the west and south). The Board
determined that, access to the retention area was adequately addressed. They
also determined that the design presented no safety concerns.
Paragraph 1)(1)(d), Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria, which states that
..."the appropriateness of intensity, as well as the need for mitigation, must
be interpreted in the context of the neighborhood's character."
This language is a portion of a sentence from the introduction section to the All
Development Criteria of the LDGS. The sentence in its' entirety reads:
There are also criteria that deal with attributes that relate to the intensity of
activity of the proposed land use, such as noise, lighting and traffic, the
04/02/97 10:27 '2970 962 6730 HACH COMPANY 1&03/003
p RCS 9 W f
APR -2S97 D
April 1, 1997
1203 Cascade Ct.
CITY CLERK Ft Collins, Co, 80521
City Clerk, City of Ft Collins,
As of April 1, 1997 I am removing myself as an appellant against the Scenic Views final
PUD proposal which was approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on
March 10, 1997.
Robert W. Davidson
April 1, 1997
City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
DATE: March 26, 1997
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: John Duval, Assistant City Attorney 1
RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board's 3-10-97
Decision Concerning the Scenic Views Final PUD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-50 of the City Code, I have reviewed for any obvious
defects in form or substance the Notice of Appeal dated March 24, 1997, that was filed by the
following six individuals: Bill Roberts, Dennis Stenson, Mary. Davidson, Steven Hazel, Tara
Hazel, Robert W. Davidson, Evelyn Anderson, and Phil Hackney ("the Appellants"). I have
found no obvious defects in form or substance of the Appellants' Notice of Appeal.
JRD: meg
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, May 13, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. or
as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on March 10, 1997 regarding the Scenic Views PUD (#3-96A)
filed by Bill Roberts, Dennis Stenson, Mary Davidson, Steven Hazel, Tara Hazel, Evelyn Anderson,
and Phil Hackney. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings
held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). .
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by May 2. Agenda materials provided
to the City Council, including additional issues identified by City Council members, will be available
to the public on Thursday, May 8 after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special ,communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance.
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
April 29, 1997
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0590 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295
3.
Steven Hazel, 8332 Mummy a e Roa , Ft. Collins, CO. 80525
593-0082 Signed _ __ _ 23 -1-1- ____
Party -in -interest; spoke at the Board, Meeting
Tara Hazel, 8332 Mummy Ra+�,geoA, F.ollins, CO. 80525
593-0082 Signed
Party -in -interest; spoke at the Bo & Meeting
r i • C-cc(-'
Cut
60
tEk*� E'� �Zo 0EQ�iati TP• , Fr•C,% Ws, CO � Szj
Sic�NEA
1.
AT '-t*E 3,4P� !u6 t��)�?
2.
The small detention pond of the original plan design, submitted at
the Neighborhood Meeting and to the Board at preliminary was a part of a
designated Neighborhood Park, which has since become more and more a
neighborhood hazardous waste holding facility. This so-called park is, in
its present incarnation, a 3 acre,16 foot deep hole in the ground that is
proposed to function really as a stormdrainage pollution waste filtration
system. It is an unworkable attempt at solution to procedural errors at
the beginning of this process, when the required stormwater utility stamp
was wrongly affixed to the preliminary approval, when the necessary
easements were never there.
This dangerous retention pond is not a' park, and it was a park that
the Board and the neighborhood was shown, and it was a park which
granted this developer 10 points of density that allowed him to process a
preliminary plan that is of a much greater density. than currently exists in
the surrounding neighborhood, and that is of a much greater density than
would be allowed if this project is considered under the newly approved
city land use plan. These points were recently modified to 8, but
questions arise as to whether the proposed density would have made
preliminary, which has obvious effects on final approval.
We have real concerns with safety , hazards of the pond, concerns
with the effects on water volumes in the ditch, volumes in the
groundwater basin, destruction and sizing of an existing wetlands, and
water volumes in the down slope agricultual ponds that could be effected
by this retention pond. We are not satisfied with the HOA being left with
monitoring of the experiment. The other critical unresolved substantive
issue is water quality.
Appellants: Bill Roberts, 2922 W. Eli b t , Ft. o ins, CO. 80521
221-4086 Signed
Party -in -interest; spoke at Board Meeting
Dennis Stenson, 2820 W. Eli Labe,.t,.hSt." F . Collins,CO. 80521
—
482-3448#2 Signed �� _ __ ____
Party -in -interest; Representitive of Rogers Park Neighborhood
Mary Davidson, 2212 Charolais ..Dr:, t. Co ' s, CO. 80526
493-2425 Signed
Party -in -interest; spoJ�e'" at a Board Meeting
March 24,199
N
2
MAR 4 1997
CITY CLERK _
The undersigned parties -in -interest hereby submit this Notice o
Appeal to the City Council for the City of Ft. Collins. This Appeal concerns
the actions of the City of Ft. Collins, Planning and Zoning Board ("P and Z
Board") on March 10,1997 to approve the Final Plan for the "Scenic Views"
P.U.D.
The grounds for appealing the matter of the P and Z Board's Final
approval of the referenced project are based on Sec. 2-48(2) of the City
Code; that the P and Z Board failed to properly interpret and apply_ the
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
Specifically_ , the LDGS Sec.29-526, paragraph D. (Review
Criteria);(1)(d) Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria,_ states that the
..."appropriateness of intensity, as well as the need for. mitigation, must
be interpreted in the context of the neighborhood's character"..., and in (e)
Engineering Criteria, that "criteria relate to provisions of basic services
and avoidance of hazards ... for public health safety, and welfare.
...Preliminary and final plans shall comply with these. criteria." Also,
(b)Land Use Conflicts Chart with consideration to proposed retention
pond's..." access; and safety."
Specific elements of the Community=Wide Criteria were
misinterpreted as ' follows:
Sec.A-1.2 Comprehensive Plan; policies #11, 20, 43b. and c., and 97
of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, as amended March 1990.
Sec.A-1.5 Ecologically sensitive areas; 4-1.6 Lands of Agricultural
Importance; A-1.9 Water Quality; A-2:3 Natural Features; A-2.18
Hazardous Materials; A-3.2 Design Standards; and A-3.3 Water
Hazards.
Our points fall into two categories; the first being of the failure to
follow proscribed city rules of procedures as it applies to elements of the
LDGS, and the second category of concerns relates to substantive issues
which are parts of the project, and which we . strongly feel put the
neighborhood at risk . The categories are very much related and overlap.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I ITEM NUMBER: 28
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 20, 1997STAFF:
Bob Blanchard
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the March 10, 1997 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
Approving the Final Application of the Scenic Views PUD, #3-96A
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter and, after consideration, either: (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board
or (2) uphold, overturn or modify the Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Consideration of this appeal was continued to this date and time because of a lack of a quorum at
the May 13 meeting.
On March 10, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-1 to approve the final application of the
Scenic Views PUD, #3-96A.
On March 24, 1997, a Notice of Appeal from eight individuals was received by the City Clerk's
Office regarding the Board's decision (see attached Notice of Appeal).
The appellants cite Section 2-48(b)(1)of the City Code as the basis for the appeal:
(b) except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds for appeal
shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one (1) or more of
the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Code and Charter.
The appeal focused on one part of the approved project - the stormwater retention pond. Because
of this concentration, the staff response has focused on retention pond issues also.
The attached documents include: the March 24, 1997 Notice of Appeal (Attachment A); the Current
Planning Department response to Notice of Appeal (Attachment B); and, the Planning and Zoning
Board staff report (Attachment Q. *In addition, a verbatim transcript and videotape recording of the
Board meeting are included.
* Verbatim transcripts and videotapes were provided with the May 13 agenda packet.