HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD PUD, FIRST FILING - FINAL - 7-95C - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFFFrom: Rob Wilkinson
To: tshoemaker
Date: 5/27/97 3:40pm
Subject: Waterfield PUD
The following are general issues for Waterfield/Bull Run still needing to be resolved:
1) The P&z board requested that staff and the developer evaluate wildlife movement
corridors between the wetland and other natural areas nearby. The nearest mapped
resource area appears to be Dry Creek to the south and west. The Lake canal also lies
to the west. The Larimer/Weld Canal also lies to the north. Establishing a corridor to
the east is questionable, but we need feedback from their wildlife consultant.
2) Questions arose during P&Z regarding the wetland delineation. Although I have
examined the boundary in the field, I have requested a field meeting with their
wetland consultant to walk the perimeter identified on the site plan - just to be
sure! There is currently no evidence that the Bull Run portion of the site will be
affected by wetland 'issues.
3) The issue of impact to the hydrology of the wetland needs to be addressed at all
stages of the project. Although the preliminary hydrological report would seem to
argue that the Bull Run portion of the site is not an area of concern, the developer
needs to convince Natural Resources staff that this is indeed the situation.
4) Stormwater management has been proposed for the wetland buffer zone, including
water quality protection measures. We will need to look at these plans in detail. If
stormwater from the Bull Run portion of the project will be directed to the wetland,
then these issues will need to be addressed with the Bull Run portion of the project.
5) Since stormwater quality could affect water quality, which could affect vegetation,
it would be a good idea to have a rare orchid survey performed on the wetland
perimeter this summer. Existing cropland can be excluded. Non -cropland areas along the
wetland perimeter should be the focus of such a site survey.
6) Natural Resources staff needs to determine if we want to acquire the wetland and
wetland buffer for City ownership and management. I think we should. This can possibly
occur later in the process, and does not necessarily need to be tied to Bull Run.
7) City staff needs to work with the developer to determine if County Road 11 can be
moved further to the west to allow more buffer to the wetland. This does not appear to
affect the Bull Run portion of the site.
8) There was testimony from an area resident regarding expansion and contraction of
the wetland. I saw no evidence in the field for flooding beyond the cropland
perimeter. The applicant will need to provide information and assurances that
developed portions of the project will not be affected by wetland boundary
fluctuations - particularly the Bull Run portion of the site.
9) It was also requested that the applicant examine lots 59-66 to see if they could be
redesigned to 'get a greater buffer zone along the northwest side of the wetland. This
would not seem to affect Bull Run.
These are all of the issues I'm aware of at this time. Let me know if you need further
information.
CC: mludwig, gbyrne