HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - FINAL ..... SECOND PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HEARING - 3-96A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES122
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. rnold, Cou t Reporter
22 L--4 42 Westbrooke Court
ort Collins, Colorado 80526
23
24
25
My commission expires September 6, 2000
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
6i 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
11 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. itIs 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
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. i
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.
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. DUVAL: 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.
it 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 abouttwo 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.
g 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
11 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
11 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
astpart 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.
oteil
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 M5. 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 i's 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 one. slope, 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
m
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 knowledge 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 u
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.
F�
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
a!
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
93
1 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 --
is 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 parkarea 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
thenwe 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
ef�.
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.
1g 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?
W
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..;
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>,!_.
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, what
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
81
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
it 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
WA
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.
76
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 column here 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
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
a
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
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
65
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
it 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.
2 The 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.
g 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
0
r*a
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
11 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.
11 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
R
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
11 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 neighborhdod'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
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
it 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.
it Thank you.
12 1 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
11 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
50
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.
it 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.
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
M
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
it 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
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 some.very 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
N
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.
01r1
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 196.
24 It's important to note that all of the
25 elements of our position which we made on that date are a
"A
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'
11 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.
11 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
M
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. VE2O: 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. VETO:
That's true, that's true. What I
25
have here are some tables
to -- that you may have seen, but
30
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
10grass 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?
g 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
11 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
23
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
it 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
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
11 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
21
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.
20
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
11 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
N
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 11 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.
11 Thesepictureswere 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 2'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.
8 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
18 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.
PJ
11
.1 issues.
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
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
11 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
0
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 1MR. 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 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 Boara nave 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.
5
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
M
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