HomeMy WebLinkAboutWINDTRAIL TOWNHOMES PUD FIRST REPLAT MINOR SUBDIVISION - 66 93F - CORRESPONDENCE - STORMWATER-RELATED DOCUMENTSv^l
calls from citizens, ;ff became informed of th new
work. This happened Friday July 7th and continued
again on Saturday morning.
On Saturday staff visited the site and requested the
contractor stop work. Staff s request was based on the
fact that the mitigation plan called for had not been
submitted for review and had not been approved. The
developer was on -site and complied with our request at
that time.
Monday morning Utility installation and grading work
started up again on the Windtrail construction site
in a manner that violated previous agreements. Staff
(representatives from Natural Resources, Planning,
Engineering and Stormwater) met on -site with the
developer again and it was agreed that the developer
could resume construction activities provided he complies
with the following:
- Stay out of wetland
- Install fencing to
protect wetland are
- Install signage alo
citizens of the wet
- Agree to meet on We
consultants to fina
plan.
- Agreed to restrict
underground utility
with approved plans
End of Item 15.
areas.
clearly delineate and
as.
ng bike trail to inform
land mitigation plan.
dnesday with all site
lize wetland mitigation
work to traditional
installation in accordance
out of the wetlands.
n
1
HPDesk Local Print for Georgiana DEINES
Start of Item 15.
Message. Dated: 07/10/95Jat 1806.
Subject: Windtrail on Spring Creek Development l
Sender: Shannon GALLEGOS / CFC52/01 Contents: 2.
TO: Georgiana DEINES / CFC52/01
Part 1
FROM: Ted SHEPARD / CFC52/01
Tom SHOEMAKER / CFC52/01
Bob SMITH / CFC52/01
TO: DISTRIBUTION
Part 2
This is an update to an issue that may be in tomorrows
Coloradoan. We wanted to give you a heads up before you
read about it in the newspaper.
This is a background and a recap of recent events
regarding the Windtrail on Spring Creek and Windtrail
Townhomes development. These two sites are currently
being developed by Mr. John McCoy a local developer.
These projects went through extensive review through the
City's P.U.D. process and were given P&Z approval last
year.
One of the features of these projects is an off -site
drainage channel conveying runoff from the West to
Spring Creek along the South end of these projects. This
channel traverses an area where there is considerable
groundwater recharge and delineated wetlands. This
channel alignment was approved as part of the Utility
Plans. The path for the drainage channel going through
existing wetlands was necessitated by grade constraints.
We started receiving neighborhood calls and complaints as
soon as the contractor started to grade in the natural
area in early Spring 1995. The wetlands that were
disturbed were much more extensive in area than what was
shown on the approved Utility plans.
Representatives from various City Departments met with
Mr. McCoy in June to inform him that the City expects him
to comply with approved Utility plans and to mitigate the
disturbance of the wetlands in a manner that would
compensate on a 1 to 1.5 basis (meaning that if one acre
of wetland had been destroyed that it had to be mitigated
with a one and a half acre of created wetlands). The
City expected the developer to provide revised plans
showing the mitigation of the wetlands disturbance.
Next, the contractor started up work again prior to
submittal and approval of these revised plans. Based on