HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY & I-25 PDP/FDP SOUTH - FDP140028 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - PLANNING OBJECTIVESHarmony & I-25 PDP SOUTH Submittal
October 29, 2014
Planner: Clark Mapes
RE: Statement of Planning Objectives
(i)Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan.
Due to the nature and scope of this project, most of the City Plan Principles and Policies do not
directly apply. The goal of this phase of the overall Harmony and I‐25 project is to decrease the amount
of illegally exposed groundwater to the greatest extent possible based on the ½ foot flood way line. The
owner of the property, with the developer, is responsible for augmenting the exposed groundwater to
offset the evaporative loss. This proposal does not provide any developable ground, dedicate any ROW,
subdivide the land or propose any land uses.
(ii)Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping,
circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project.
This project proposes to fill in the illegally exposed ground water ponds that were left when
mining operations were abandoned on the site. There are impacts to the existing wetlands that total
approximately .38 acres and the existing groundwater surface that totals 30.76 acres. The mitigation for
the displacement of these features is currently being discussed between the applicant, their consulting
staff and the City’s Environmental Planner and Natural Areas staff.
(iii)Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas;
applicant’s intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development
plan.
The proposed improvements will not require any specialized maintenance, and the maintenance
will be the responsibility of the property owner.
(iv)Estimated number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses.
There are no proposed businesses or land uses with this project.
(v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant.
After several meetings with the State Engineers Office and the Division of Reclamation Mining
and Safety, it was determined that the best course of action to satisfy the SEO’s cease and desist order
was to begin to fill the ponds in as soon as possible. A SWSP, Substitute Water Supply Plan is in process
to begin to supplement for the water that is being lost through evaporation, but that is only a temporary
solution due to the total acreage of the ponds and the water dedication cost.
(vi)The Applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the
completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The Planning Director
may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence beyond what is required in that section.
Any variance from the criteria shall be described.
To this point the applicant is not requesting any variances or feels that any additional
information is required for the submittal.
(vii)Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbance to wetlands, natural
habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are
mitigated.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the project, there are some wetlands and open water being
displaced. The mitigation for the displacement of these features is currently being discussed between
the applicant, their consulting staff and the City’s Environmental Planner and Natural Areas staff.
(viii)Written narrative addressing each concern / issue raised at the neighborhood meeting, if a
meeting was held.
There has not been a neighborhood meeting for this specific project, however, there was one
held for the ODP. That meeting did not raise any significant issues or concerns from the public.
(ix)Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had at Conceptual Review.
This project has not been submitted under any other names.