HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (14)L. Ripley
4/4/11
Page 2 of 2
zone. Aside from the coyote willow, the only other woody species growing along the ditch embankments
are 14 large eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) and one green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The
bottom of the ditch and lower 2 to 3 feet of the inner ditch embankments are relatively bare of any
vegetation, probably the result of water inundation during the growing season and/or mechanical clearing
from ditch maintenance activities.
Once irrigation water is removed from the abandoned ditch segment, it is likely that the strips of reed
canarygrass and Emory sedge would slowly be lost and be replaced by stands of smooth brome that
would move down the embankment slope as soil conditions dry. It would also be expected that the two
pockets of coyote willow would die off as soil moisture levels drop. Smooth brome cover would likely also
spread down to the base of the inner ditch embankments. It is not anticipated that annual weeds would
dominate vegetation cover on inner ditch embankments since they are not currently common along the
upper portions of the ditch banks, and smooth brome should spread aggressively down the lower slopes
once soil moisture levels are reduced. It is somewhat uncertain what vegetation will become established
along the bare ditch bottom. Soils along the ditch bottom appear to be a mix of sands and clayey soils.
Smooth brome would likely spread into the day soil areas, but sandy soils are not favorable for smooth
brome establishment Sandy areas have low mosture holding capacity and may remain relatively bare of
vegetation except for few annual weeds such as cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum). Overall however, I
would not expect the majority of the currently bare ditch areas to become dominated by weedy species.
I discussed the possible fate of the 14 cottonwoods and one green ash along the abandoned portion of
the ditch with Tim Buchanon, City Forester. Tim indicated the fate of these trees is somewhat uncertain,
but since the trees have become established along the ditch and have adapted to increased soil moisture
conditions from ditch seepage, it is likely they will slowly decline and may die off completely in 10 to 20
years. Most of these trees are near the end of their maximum lifetime and loss of a water source to their
roots could speed up their expected decline. There is some potential that seepage from the new ditch
alignment could be a sufficient water supply replacement to maintain the current vigor of some of the
existing trees, but this is uncertain as well.
Wildlife use of the abandoned ditch segment as movement corridor is not likely to change and may be
improved without water flow. Mitigation plantings proposed by The Grove project for the buffer zone
would increase vegetation diversity and cover along the north side of the ditch, and herbaceous
vegetation cover would increase within the ditch once water flow is stopped. Lads of water flows in spring
and summer would also improve the travel corridor for terrestrial species. As the mature trees age and
die off, overall songbird diversity and use of the corridor may decline until trees planted in the buffer zone
mature in stature.
Linda, this concludes my second update for the ECSR for the Grove Project Please let me know if you
have any questions or require further assistance.
Sincerely,
_ J _
T Michael Phelan
Principal and
Senior Wildlife Biologist
INC.
April4, 2011
Linda Ripley
VF Ripley Associates
401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Grove ESCR Update #2 Regarding the Re -location of the Lanmer No. 2 Canal
Linda:
This letter report is submitted to address questions of Fort Collins has asked relating to habitat
changes along the curreatalignment of the Larimer once the_ 4R canal
to the Realignment of the difcTi o e soot ofiLs existing a grim nt would be the only
change in project area aseline conditions since submittal of the December 9, 2010 ECSR update for The
Grove project area. Based on a g,[oposal received from the Board of Directors of the Lanmer No. 2
Canal, the existing d4ph alignment along the southern edge of Tice Grove'project area would be
straightened and moved to the south because of concerns regardlaq dlfclt slope stability issues with the
curfBataliganaegta;id fbeproposed Grove development. The abandoned ditch segment would remain in
place and under ownership of the ditch company but would no longer carry irrigation water along most of
its length adjacent to the south boundary of The Grove project area.
The following text provides an assessment of how habitat values would change along the abandoned
ditch segment.
Projected Habitat Conditions for the Abandoned Segment of the Lanmer No. 2 Canal
The buffer between The Grove development and the abandoned segment of the Lanmer No. 2 Canal
would remain the same. The south edge of the proposed Grove development would maintain an average
buffer width of greater than 50 feet from the Lanmer No. 2 Canal, but there would be a buffer width of less
than 50 feet along a few segments of the south edge of the development. A constant 50-foot buffer would
create a buffer area of 88,849 square feet (2.04 acres). With the current proposal and an average buffer
width of greater than 50 feet, a buffer area of 100,068 square feet (2.30 acres) would be created.
Proposed buffer areas are depicted on the Site Plan provided in the PDP submittal package.
Buffer segments with less than optimal buffer widths will be mitigated and other buffer segments will be
enhanced by plantings of native shrubs and trees to create additional habitat and vegetation structural
diversity as well as natural visual shielding between the proposed development and the interior portions
of the buffers. Native shrub and tree cover is essentially lacking in the proposed buffer areas, and
plantings of native woody species would provide considerable habitat enhancement for these areas
beyond their existing conditions. In addition, plantings of native woody species to enhance habitat and
provide visual shielding is consistent with the performance standards described under Section 3.4.1(E)(1)
of the Land Use Code and would maintain the effectiveness of the buffer areas even where the buffer
distance would be less than the City buffer zone standards. Details of native species to be planted as
well as the locations, configurations, and density of native shrub and tree plantings are shown on the
Landscape Plan provided in the POP submittal package.
The existing outer slopes of the ditch embankments and inner slopes down to approximately 3 to 4 feet
from the bottom of the ditch are vegetated primarily by relatively dense stands of smooth brome
(Bromopsis inermis'r), an upland non-native grass species. Narrow (2 to 3-foot wide), non -continuous
strips of reed canarygrass (Phafarddes arundinacea) and Emory sedge (Carex ernoryrr) are the wetland
herbaceous species supported at the average high water line along the lower portion of the inner ditch
embankments. Two small pockets of coyote willow (Safix exigua) also grow at one site along this wetland
1 Scientific nomenclature for vegetation follows: Weber, W. A and R. C. Wittman. 2001. Colorado From: Eastern
Slope, third edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 488 pp.
Page 3 of 3
>meeting had nothing to do with the GROVE project but I frankly don't
>believe that. Lets not play with each other here Mr. Olt. It may or
>may not have been initiated by the ditch company but it had
>everything to do with the Grove project. You know that and I know
>that. No one seeks to move a ditch that has been there for so long
>when there's no indication of a need to move the ditch accept that
>this developer has a lease on the property to develop it and he
>needs it moved! DAH! You should have made note of that meeting in
>your email to Sarah and the others you cc'd. Where I come from, Mr.
>Olt, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it is a duck.
>And then you and the rest of the city staff wonder why it is I don't
>trust any of you as it regards this project? Peggy Loonan
file:///C:/Users/Heidi/AppData/LocaVremp/eudC.htm 6/15/2011
Page 2 of 3
of time. Also, the ditch has historically served as a wildlife movement corridor between S. Shields Street and
Centre Avenue.
After this meeting on March 7th, it became clear to stiff that three options were presented by the ditch company:
1) either the existing trees would be removed along the ditch to reduce seepage from the canal;
2) the ditch comparry would relocate the ditch to prevent seepage from being an issue; or,
3) the ditch company would realign the ditch to create more efficient functionality.
From all perspectives, staffs position is that preserving the existing trees is a critical component whether or not
there is any development on the -property to the north, as this. area_is_within a Natural Habitats Buffer Zone.
Thus, as representatives for the City, staff wanted to take every measure to work out how these trees could be
saved. In addition, staff actually saw the relocation/realignment of the ditch as increasing the Natural Habitats
Buffer Zone on the property. With the existing ditch not being filled, this would create areas for refuge for
wildlife species and'ensure the. viability of the trees. Staff is now working with Ripley Design to determine how
the vegetation along the existing canal can be improved for vertical and horizontal structure for enhanced wildlife
value.
This meeting was not noted in Steve Olt's email on March 11, 2011 to residents and other interested parties
giving the requested update on the schedule/time line for the proposed project known as The Grove at Fort
Collins, Project Development Plan and associated Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall
Development Plan. This is because the ditch is not located on the site of the proposed Grove project, and the
potential ditch relocation is not directly related or germane to the schedule for the projects.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further concerns.
Darin Atteberry
Fort Collins City Manager
datteberrv(abfcgov.com
(970)221-6505
---Original Message -----
_ From: Peggy Loonan [mailto:info@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org]_____________________
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:26 AM
To: Darin Atteberry
Subject RE: Steve Olt's Grove update email & on -site mtg with ditch company and Grove reps.
Just FYI Mr. Atteberry regarding communication between Steve Olt and
myself on the GROVE project Peggy Loonan
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:55:35 -0600
>To: sott@fcgov.com
>From: Peggy Loonan <info@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org>
>Subject: Your Grove update email & on -site mtg with ditch company
>and Grove reps.
>Bcc:
>info@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org,sarahmicornett@hotmail.com,lovelandlax@yahoo.com
>Mr. Olt,
>As I understand it there was a very recent meeting at the project
>sibe regarding the ditch and possible moving of that ditch and that
>the engineering firm for the GROVE and the designer Linda Ripley
>were present. Sarah said that you strongly indicated to her that
file:///C:/LJsers/Heidi/AppData/LocaVremp/eudC.htm 6/ 15/2011
Page 1 of 3
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
X-Spam-Threshold: 95
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
X-MessageSniffer-Scan-Result: 0
X-MessageSniffer-Rules: 0-0-0-32767-c
X-CMAE-Scan-Result: 0
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=pW7z4rJ1i18A:10 a=xgWC_Br6kY4A:10
a=Kd19P6gQXZgzJyduLjzn9g==:17 a=yd9tH41EAAAA:8 a=cRyPX4LCAAAA:8
a=CjxXg03LAAAA:8 a=101Y-IZz5350wifDWkEA:9 a=RP2gkoSOv9ihJNbsktsA:7
a=CjulK1q_8ugA:10 a=pjOxJsf8W9UA:10 a=lDlfuVQuFzMA-10 a=Hf63s9cGsCOA:10
a=DomiBcRdalQA:10 a=EfJgPEOeglMA:10 a=rC2wZJ5BpNYA:10 a=NOp_LZL5IEG-HiU1:21
a=byptQF9KaHYEND41:21 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=-HCENaokRg7YdmKuNSsA:9
a=oGDOFZukOWOzYzjPjFcA:7 a=iyeBmdV4QsN2FUUC:21 a=LLywwijggahBZMhi:21
X-Orig-To: info@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org
X-Originating-Ip: [164.104.65.301
From: Darin Attebery <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>
To: 'Peggy Loonan' <info@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org>
Sender. Debra Unger <DUnger@fcgov.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:09:24 -0600
Subject: RE: Steve Olt's Grove update email & on -site mtg with ditch
company and Grove reps. (SAR #15895)
Thread -Topic: Steve Olt's Grove update email & on -site mtg with ditch
company and Grove reps. (SAR #15895)
Thread -Index: AcvordVB8jyKj1FzSoOB6Kmlc&gNAHB17TQ
Accept -Language: en -US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
----acceptlanguage: en -US -
Dear Ms. Loonan,
Thank you for your email concerning the Grove project. I consulted with staff about the potential relocation of
the ditch and learned the following:
On Monday afternoon, March 7, 2011 there was a meeting at the Larimer No. 2 Canal Company irrigation ditch as
it runs west - east between South Shields Street and Centre Avenue. This ditch is one of four major irrigation
ditches that meander through the City of Fort Collins. Staff commonly meets with the ditch companies to discuss
ditches impacts/effects on adjacent properties.
The meeting was called by the City's Environmental Planner to understand the effects of a potential ditch
relocation/realignment on the existing trees and wildlife habitat. Present at the meeting were John Moen (ditch
superintendent), Nick Haws of Northern Engineering, Linda Ripley of Ripley Design, Lindsay Ex (City's
Environmental Planner), Tim Buchanan and Ralph Zentz (City Foresters), Denae Cameron (City Forestry Field
Worker), and Steve Olt (City Planner).
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a potential realignment of the existing ditch to a straighter alignment
to.the south of its present location. John Moen, representing the ditch company, wanted to discuss any potential
City concerns associated with a realignment because there are a number of significant trees (mostly large, older
Cottonwoods) on and within the ditch bank that could be impacted if the existing ditch were to be vacated and
filled. However, if the ditch is to remain intact and.pass irrigation waters on an annual basis, Mr. Moen indicated
that continued undercutting of the trees root systems will result in their loss, probably in a relatively short period
file:///C:/LJsers/Heidi/AppData/LocaVremp/eudC.htm 6/15/2011
X.vausScanned: OK
X geSrtifier-Scan-Rewlt 0
X-MessageSniffer-Riles: 0.0-0-18988-C
0 10 a=VQ77od_SywUA:10 a=1$_S3n9Qu0A10 a-W j hOEmmUlmVVWsr nNsO=:17 a=yd9tH41EAAAA8
al
x-CNFgnatysis: r1.0 �1 a=DzBrvVbucSkA: 10 a=rC2wZ15BPNYA10 a=ZadjF2o4D489T-OKPxUA7
a=CDXg03LAAAA.8 a=loXmdolukDod_He8No4A:s a-OEXdpD2ut3YA10 a=Htb3s9d>sCOA:
X-Ong•To: Pegg @rcfeandftertyfo+wOrMrL-a9
x-vmuScanned: OK
xspam-PW NO
x-Spam-Seas: 0
X No, sooner mgged_above-100 raquffed=6 test -[none)
X-Originatin9aP: I98-139.91.801
X-Yahoo-Newoum-ProDmtY- y�-3
X-Yahoo-Newman4c:820640.12252-bm@anP1052ma1.sp2- 1024; t=1303006327;
DKIM.Si mbffs: eat; a=rsa-sha256; Frafaxedhalexed; moo- D.X- YMajW:R - ( ailer.Dats:From:SubjectTaM1ME-
. - ••' _ - --.....o.a....are.PMAYh -rrsCDaSU81M8MA=, h=Masga9ea
Dom=rsa-chat. �. Fno(ws;
ahtKeysi9natirte'.a
s=sto24;d=yyat000.com;
Inv_w�a11c[;-Rnoeived-X-BAailer.Date:m: FtoSuttjeaTo:MIME-Vetsion:Corrterd-TYPa;
gfRq.KSUIDPy58wd_eVSc7CWSQ7a3)maann8o ^ ov........r......._
gnu3KWA%GiwMDklRmYdUsw'J7hUWU5cam7sUTAs)&pgRznEpY JSDbH_7
3hUQAKUTlT9ox7dKARPlm9dnaw- 8 109295617
X-Mailer YahooMai 1202 YahooMaiNMabSery " -
Date: Sat 16 Apr 2011 19:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Lam an yahoo -CORD Ditch ( $15895)
Subject Fw: RE Relocation of L.aniner No 2 Canal Company 1 mgation
To.. peggy@GfeandfibeAyforwomen.org
Tim Loonon
— On Tue. 4f12/1, Darin Atleberry <)ATTEBERHVWC9°V C0MI1AROm:
From: Darin Attaberry'DATTEBERRY@fcgov.corn> Ditch (SAR 815895)
subject RE Relocation of LW9W No 2 Canal Company Irtigatiar
To:'Jint Loonair <byeW%dlax@Yahoo-Carn>
Data: Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 1:24 PM
� !tr 1na®4 _ got jebcadng the ditch haS been proposed as a
Think- w for y� &Tall reprdttg the poss9rle celoraUm of the laitrrla No. 2 krkla0on ctEdr. ISE am d. Sere PAN Ply ha.e fx� s to ldei
onfto de
paterntlal Sot lion to cmmm raised by the Latina Nm 2 Board about the � Of dtdt seepage
Moen. Supahlendarl of tlfn larima No. 2 Beard, but de pmns taus not been cevieraed and the Board has not discussed nor voted on tills IssR-
tf R is dehamkied Bat edow" the dlidt is tle best at a ruet e a is avedrd Mat the iffigeb t company would not pay am mats to retomte the droll,.
Dann a Aulebe". CMAlm
Oty Maraga
Fort COMM, Cdwddo -
RaUC XM taaran Info--brda `c`a'1
Sew Wednesday, Apra 06, 20116:24 PN
Tie Dart Atteberry
Ca peggy@Msand-yatou-m'^• UNEWBUM_DATA AFTM -S MfAX-StOR
t>pXtotattmof tarimer No 2 focal Conn MW lreWbm Drodt
)
Mr. Aneberry:
with ova 30 years of experimoe inCivil Egpc"M
I have read your cruel to Peggy L.Oonam and it raised a coomn Wd me. I eon a professional Fagiaxr 2005 I was the owma of a Civil Fngiooaia6 comPaoY W"t'd in Fort Collins . 1 have been
including desi�ng bad development prgects. Between 1998 sail
involved with "irrigation ditchm and tbeir impact on the ad*eot lead shine 1995.
If I was the engincer for that parvet I weld have coof� the
Lorimer No 2 Canal is impacting the property to the mRh - tlx site of the Grove A'f ft pws. in all of my expertenw with irn�w comps I never
ungaiinm company about relomtmg or lining the ditch prig to Sterling the �iP oflhe t?roJ� t • m �y a � at the CIPCM Only ifthere was a ctear
seen any knptwn company waling to relocate the ditch at their CWWV. Iniptioo company
danger of the ditch "washing Our'
11
file://C:\Users\HeidiWppData\Local\Temp\eudB.htm
4/18/20
rage t of t
In you email, you stated the ditch company would relocate the ditch. Is the developer paying all costs associated with the relocation of the ditch?
I have been told by City staff that the City of Fort Collins is a major stock owner in the ditch company. If the cost of the relocation of the ditch is paid by the ditch
company, then isn t the City of Fort Collins subsidizing the development?
Sim Loonan
file://C:\Users\Heidi\AppDataTocal\Temp\eudB.htm 4/18/2011
X-VWUS Scanned: OK
X-MessageSniflan.Scan-Result 0
X-MessageSnifW-Rules: 0-0.0-18988c
X-CMAEScan-Result 0 :. -
X�NFS-Analysis: r-1.0 �1 a=DzBM/buoSkA:10 a=VQ77ud SywUA10 a=16_S3nsScGsC:to a=a=rC w ZJ5BPN A:10 amNcgF2c4 a,/d9tH41
a=C yXg03LAAAA:8 a=loXmdolukDod_He6No4A9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA10 a=Hf63s9cGsC0A:10 a=rC2wZJ56pNYA10 a=ZadjF2o4D489T-0KPxUA7
X-Otig-To: peggyalifeandibertylonvomen_org
XNaus-Scanne&OK
X-Spam-Flag: NO ... ..
XSpamScore: 0
XSpam-Levet above=100 required tests=[novel
XSpamSW tas: No. scored tagged_
X-Onginating4p: [S.139.91.801
X-Yahoo-Newmar*ProPerlY Yntai1'3
X-Yahoo-Now d: 820640-12252bm@omP10.52-marl-sp2-Y Lat+voBOKzJ1024;1=1303a:From:SubjectTo:MIME-
006327-,
DKIM-SignStUre: v-1: a=rsa-sha256. rrrela>md/rela>�: �Yahoo-
bh=N1d5p5+5WOlkMgWslgKAaEH4YIwttsCDBSUStM8MM h=Message-ID-X-YMaB-0SG:Received:X-Maher-
VHUyeayio}glyyEmBIr TK+XMW001Gd+addpEkOA2Nhglpr/A8on3PaWXvsowhFyaV27o0ceOMM049J7De8FXYGy62pileYf t2a.
ySn
DomautKeY-Signatiffe:3--1758ihat: V'-dm; Fnofws: .
s=s1024-,d=yah00-c0m;
n ---a '-x-k4ailer.Date:Fmm:SubjeetTo:MIME-VersiomContent-Type:
3hui0AKUTfTgox7dKAR'jm9artaw- 8.109295617
X-Mailer Yahoo-JCWssicf1202 YahoWail0kbSer vceM.
Date: Sat 16 Apr 2011 19:12-07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Loonan <tovYaIIO°•corn'
Subject Fvr. RE- Relocation of tanmer No 2 Canal Company Irrigation Ditch (SAR #15895)
To: fbertyfonvomen.org
Tim Loanan
— On Tue, 4/12/11. Darin Affeberry 4DATTEBERRYQkV0v com> wrote:
From: Darm AnebenY <DATTEBERRY@fa90v.c0m>
Subject RE Relocation of tanmer No 2 Canal COmparty Irrigation Ditch (SAR #15895)
To. -Jim Loonarr <Wvetand wc@Yahoo-=Min .
Date: Tuesday, Apra 12, 2011, 1:24 PM
-- rMr.tmr�4
the rebaBan of the IaMha No. 2lrrV30M dltdt GE-w bean in e"ned by my gaff that rdamOrS tea have been subrtatle 1n s a
Thanlcymu for Your amli possible
p� s,krfim to =,e ms rased by the Lamm lio. 2 Board abed the imPBd of ditch savage on the Caave rlevdopmert• `.,are n Otis issu
Moen. Supaudrndm[ of the larimer Nit 2 Board, bra the p� have not beer reviewed and the Board has rhmdsamed nor voted an the isue.
,fit 6 detm m st that rdoaffng the me h is the best alto afive, it is emected ttat the hri9adon company would not pay any Costs to rdaata the ditch.
Darin A. AM env, CPM/ARP
Gtv Manager
Fort CnBbs , Colorado -
From: Jim tnonah [maBm:b°'�nl
Seat Wednesday, Apra 06, 2011 624 PM
Tw Darin ABPbeM
C. p5yyyID6(tnd.VahW.omr: UNDMECrED DATA _AFfER_AODRESSOSNTAX-ERROR
subject Relocation Of tmmer No 2 Canal CrnnpanY 1 Dttrfi
I
Mr. Adeberry:
I have rod Your emmT to Peggy Laorhan and it raised a concern and
me. I am a Professional Engineer with over 30 years of experience in Civil Engineering
and 2005 I was the owner of a Civil Engineering company located inFort Collinso. I have been
including designing land development projects- Between 1998
involved with ongabon ditches and their vnpact on the adjacent land since 1995.
Lorimer No 2 Canal is im m the to the north - the site of the Grove Apartments. If I was tlx: engineer for that parcel f would have contacted the
t g or ditch or m starting the design of the project However, in all of my experience with irrigation companies, I never
irrigation company about relocating lining prior were codling to modify a ditch at their expense only there was a clear
seen any irrigation company willing torelocate the ditch at their e:�ense. to"gation company
danger of the ditch *washing mC
4/18/2011
file://C.\Users\Heid'\?.ppData\Local\Temp\eudB.htm
Cityof
rt Cottins
Mr. Gene Fischer, Legal Counsel
Mr. John Moen, Superintendent
The Larimer County Canal NO.2 Irrigating Company
125 South Howes Street, Suite 900
Post Office Box 506
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Fischer and Mr. Moen:
Planning, Development and
Transportallon Services
Cunent Planning
281 N. College Avenue
Po Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-058o
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - tax
f go"am burrenvann ft
March 29. 2011
I have received your two letters regarding the current and future activities of the
Larimer County Canal NO.2 irrigation ditch. From the information provided by
Mr. Moen, if appears that the primary purpose of the irrigation ditch in question is
to provide raw water for agricultural purposes, even though some of the water
delivered through the ditch serves properties that are not currently being used for
agricultural purposes.
In addition, the information I have been able to obtain from the City is consistent
with Mr. Fischer's representation that, over the years, the City of Fort Collins has
not regulated activities associated with maintenance, repairs and relocations of
the ditch.
_-- Based -on this information and an -Section 5.12 of the City of Forf-Collins Land --
Use Code, the afonementioned activities, being in'the context of an agricultural
use, would qualify as being exempt from `Development and would not be
considered a nuisance. Section 5.1.2 states:
"(2) Development shall not include:
(d) the use of ally land for the purpose of growing plants, crops,
trees and other agricultural or forestry products; for raising or
feeding livestock (other than in feedlots); or for other agricultural
uses or purposes, provided none of the above creates a nuisance."
If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to call our.
office at 221-6750.
Sincerely.
TC�d Ted Shepar
Chief Planner
TER LARifi4iRi:R COUNTY CANAL NO. 2IRRIGATING COWANN
125 South Howes Street, Suite 900
Post Office Box 506
Fort Coffins, Colorado 80522
(970) 482-4710
March 15, 2011
Mr. W. Pad Eckman
Assistant CityAtUomey
City of Fort Collins
3001APorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Co 90521
Re: Irrigation Ditch Work
Dear Pad:
As legal counsel for The Larimer County Canal No.2lrrqxting Company, Please beadviscd
theCompanyhasalwayspcfeamedaUnumtmence,repaus,relocations.de withoutgoingthr000
any City review process; and, finer, that the City, even with knowledge that time projects were
taking place, has never notified the company that a City process was marred.
The Company services many ag 6cultmal users and it is essential to efficient operations that
we are able to serve them without delav or interference
cc: Board of Directors
Lsrimer County Canal No. 2
John Moen, Superintendent
-rich 14, 2011
Mr. Fanl Eckman
City Aftorne-p OEic
300I.sgattg
port Collins. CO 80521
R:e: LarltnerNo 2 Carol
Dew Mr. FAlam.
i-rlia lWar is i n response to aghone Call Ireceived ret m*fi a the City about tioLaaz=-Me
2. into Laporte a mwestofTW%Ore LaTh= Yo 2 provides Irrigation water fosagriaitlrual
properties owned by rrm Bnztb Roo T=ber aced Ken ITilt Attar Thk trsigatiart wa!er
from ttts LsrauerM 2 gm to iaOWU PMPGfft of'E* Vrdk =16 JOhrs 8emts, ft widow of
Am®nd Mwtan mid the old Foamy sits before Sowingfo the 9Pertoa Lae temvoir
Tam io addittaa to WaICTM son« open *We, FWb sad gtdfowraes, *0 LarimerNo 2 brings
irrig am water toThe Leonard Ewypmperty, Mike SollmbezWa hay fates C20 30 ao)j and
03am 100-120 asps veined try Les Seplan close to Haemcay
AttbLough these ere some nou4s users ofLamger bb 2 vats; a signet volume of iai@aticn
water is delivered to des 5ar agcitxsitr>ral peeps
f '
John Moat
Iarir=No2 Compsrny
Supaivvmdent
Contact meat 970-21& 1126
cc Rztiriarim Harris
January 17, 2011
Mr. Steve Olt
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: #16-10B The Grove at Fort Collins PDP-Type II
Dear Mr. Olt,
The Larimer No 2 would like to comment on The Grove at Fort Collins PDP-Type IL
The Company is concerned about seepage from the ditch and the impact to The Grove in
the case of an extreme event that causes a breech of the ditch. As superintendent for the
Larimer No 2 Irrigating Company, I have experienced situations where drains cease to
operate. This can cause property damage and is upsetting to the homeowners. Often they
will direct their complaints to the Ditch Company. In my opinion, there are better
solutions to this problem. For example, the ditch could be lined or relocated. I would
like to further discuss this issue with you and the developer. Thank -you.
Sincerely,
John Moen
Larimer No 2 irrigating Company
Superintendent
Contact at 970-219-0726
cc Rosanna Harris
a
Questions for the May 23" Neighborhood Meeting Regarding The Grove At Fort
Collins PDP and the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP.
Note For Neighbors: This is a list of questions that we feel important to get onto the record and
answers for. This list is also being provided to Steve Olt so that if we run out of time at this evening's
meeting, Steve and The City have a list of our questions and can provide answers in their meeting
notes. You may feel free to ask a question from this list or you may ask any other questions which you
feel are important. It is up to you! Thank you for coming!
General Questions:
1. Who is paying for the canal move?
Campus Crest will pay for the ditch realignment project, but it is beneficial and a desired
improvement for CSURF, Larimer No. 2, Campus Crest and the overall neighborhood. It is truly a
win -win solution. (CSURF]
Questions for CSURF:
2. Please explain the relocation plan (and how it came to be) for Larimer Canal #2.
The ditch realignment project will shift an approx. 1300-foot section of the Larimer Canal No. 2
approx. 50 feet south of its current location. Unlike the current ditch, the realigned ditch will be
clay -lined. The possibility of realigning this portion of the ditch was suggested by the Ditch Company
superintendent in January as a way to address liability, maintenance and potential seepage
concerns. In addition, as part of the Ditch Company routine maintenance, it was indicated that the
trees would likely be removed. Since saving the large, existing trees and providing yet another
mechanism to address seepage concerns is also desirable to CSURF and to its lessee, Campus Crest,
CSURF agreed to allow the realignment on its property. [CSURF]
3. Why is the canal relocation not part of the ODP?
The relocation is off -site and controlled by the Larimer No. 2 and CSURF. In accordance with a
written determination by the City Planning Staff, after consultation with the City Attorney's Office,
maintenance, repairs and relocations of ditches that carry raw water for agricultural purposes are
exempt from the Land Use Code definition of "development' and, therefore, are not subject to City
review or approval. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the ditch relocation project
does not require a permit from the Corps. Please see the attached letters from City Planning Staff
and the Army Corp of Engineers. [CSURF]
The 4a�na jelocation (reali&nment) is not a part of The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development
Plan review process; and ' that a ur. The Larimer No. 2
Canal Ditch [ompany is norsucliecr to ine CITY o ort L011ins clevelopment review process and,
therefore, is not required to amend the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall
Development Plan as part of their potential realignment of the ditch. [City Staff]
Questions for the May 23,0 Neighborhood Meeting Regarding The Grove At Fort
Collins PDP and the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP.
Note For Neighbors: This is a list of questions that we feel important to get onto the record and
answers for. This list is also being provided to Steve Olt so that if we run out of time at this evening's
meeting, Steve and The City have a list of our questions and can provide answers in their meeting
notes. You may feel free to ask a question from this list or you may ask any other questions which you
feel are important. It is up to you! Thank you for coming!
General Questions:
1. Who is paying for the canal move?
Campus Crest will pay for the ditch realignment project, but it is beneficial and a desired
improvement for CSURF, Larimer No. 2, Campus Crest and the overall neighborhood. It is truly a
win -win solution. [CSURF]
Questions for CSURF:
2. Please explain the relocation plan (and how it came to be) for Larimer Canal #2.
The ditch realignment project will shift an approx. 1300-foot section of the Larimer Canal No. 2
approx. 50 feet south of its current location. Unlike the current ditch, the realigned ditch will be
clay -lined. The possibility of realigning this portion of the ditch was suggested by the Ditch Company
superintendent in January as a way to address liability, maintenance and potential seepage
concerns. In addition, as part of the Ditch Company routine maintenance, it was indicated that the
trees would likely be removed. Since saving the large, existing trees and providing yet another
mechanism to address seepage concerns is also desirable to CSURF and to its lessee, Campus Crest,
CSURF agreed to allow the realignment on its property. [CSURF]
3. Why is the canal relocation not part of the ODP?
The relocation is off -site and trolled by the Larimer No. 2 and CSURF. In accordance with a
written determination by the City Planning Sta_, er consu on the City Attorney's Office,
maintenan�irs and relocations of cIlUb s_that carry raw water for agricultural purposes are
iremot from Feian Use Coded nttton n an of fd_=1opmere,-are wtsabject to City
review laroval. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined tt at thi d"i `2fi rTcation project
does not require a permit from the Corps.. Please see the attached letters from City Planning Staff
and the Army Corp of Engineers. [CSURF]
The canal relocation (realignment) is not a part of The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development
Plan review process; and, it is not a certainty that the realignment will occur. The Larimer No. 2
Canal Ditch Company is not subject to the City of Fort Collins development review process and,
therefore, is not required to amend the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall
Development Plan as part of their potential realignment of the ditch. [City Staff]
Questions for the May 23� Neighborhood Meeting Regarding The
Grove At Fort Collins PDP and the Amended CSURF Centre for
Advanced Technology ODP.
Note For Neighbors: This is a list of questions that we feel important to get onto
the record and answers for. This list is also being provided to Steve Olt so that if
we run out of time at this evening's meeting, Steve and The City have a list of our
questions and can provide answers in their meeting notes. You may feel free to
ask a question from this list or you may ask any other questions which you feel
are important. It is up to you! Thank you for coming!
General Questions:
1. Who is paying for the canal move?
Campus Crest will pay for the ditch realignment project, but it is beneficial and
a desired improvement for CSURF, Larimer No. 2, Campus Crest and the overall
neighborhood. It is truly a win -win solution. [[SURF]
Questions for CSURF:
2. Please explain the relocation plan (and how it came to be) for Larimer Canal #2.
The ditch realignment project will shift an approx. 1300-foot section of the
Larimer Canal No. 2 approx. 50 feet south of its current location. Unlike the
current ditch, the realigned ditch will be clay -lined- The possibility of realigning
this portion of the ditch was suggested by the Ditch Company superintendent
in nua as a way to address liability, maintenance and potential seepage
concerns. In addition, as part of the Ditch Company routine maintenance, it
was indicated that the trees would likely be removed. Since saving the large,
existing trees and providing yet another mechanism to address seepage
concerns is also desirable to CSURF and to its lessee, Campus Crest, CSURF
agreed to allow the realignment on its property. [CSURF]
3. Why is the canal relocation not part of the ODP?
The relocation is off -site and controlled by the Larimer No. 2 and CSURF. In
accordance with a written determination by the City Planning Staff, after
consultation with the City Attorney's Office, maintenance, repairs and
relocations of ditches that carry raw water for agricultural purposes are
exempt from the Land Use Code definition of "development' and, therefore,
are not subject to City review or approval. The Army Corps of Engineers has
determined that the ditch relocation project does not require a permit from
UNDERSTAND that the City is a maior stock -owner in the canal company. Olt's claim implies the canal
company will pay. That means that Taxpayers, unbeknownst to them, will be subsidizing the Grove
development to the tune of - give or take - $30 thousand not to mention the value of the fill dirt.
In an email to my husband Jim - dated April 12 — City Manager Darin Atteberry, responding to my husband's
knowledge that the City is a major stock -owner, was forced to go on record saying "if relocating the ditch is
the best alternative, it's expected the irrigation company wouldn't pay any cost to relocate the ditch." He
never said who would pay.
I spoke to Michael Phelan, a wildlife biologist with Cedar Creek Associates in May, a month after Atteberry's
email to my husband. In a letter -dated April-4 to -Linda Ripley, -Phelan indicated -the ditch owner would-be
realigning the canal "as planned... because of concerns regarding ditch slope stability issues with the current
alignment and the proposed Grove development." Phelan said the ditch company will be paving for it.
At Campus Crest's Open House on April 27 Nick Haws, of Northern Engineering told my neighbor Terry
Podmore the ditch relocation is separate from the PDP. Stu MacMillian of CSURF told Podmore Campus Crest
is relocating the ditch. And answering a May 23 neighborhood meeting question about who will pay for the
canal move, CSURF again says Campus Crest will pay for it and Campus Crest's consultant said Campus Crest
will pay for it.
So - IF Campus Crest says they're paying to relocate the ditch, why did City Staff look for a way to place the
details of the relocation outside of your purview? Why didn't City Staff act on behalf of public safety and
ASSURE the relocation of the ditch by making the re -submitted PDP dependent on moving the ditch since
public safety will be so adversely affected if the ditch isn't moved?
Because, it gives Campus Crest an out. It means there's absolutely nothing preventing Campus Crest from
reneging on moving and or paying for the ditch relocation. Neither City Council nor taxpayers will allow tax
dollars to indirectly subsidize the Grove development by the ditch company moving it at their expense. And so
we only -have -Campus -Crest's flapping gums -as assurance that they'll -be moving the ditch and paying -for it.
Not good enough when there's risk to public safety.
Therefore - in the end —the Grove could very well be built WITHOUT the ditch ever being moved. IN FACT in
answer to a May 23`d neighborhood meeting question about why the canal relocation isn't part of the ODP —
City Staff said, 'The canal relocation (realignment) IS NOT a part of the PDP review process; AND, IT IS NOT A
CERTAINTY THAT THE REALIGNMENT WILL OCCUR."
Since City Staff, Campus Crest, and the ditch company maintain the ditch relocation IS separate from the re-
submitted PDP AND NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW, then the re -submitted PDP before you tonight must stand
as if the ditch will NEVER be relocated or realigned AND therefore to safe guard public safety; to protect lives
from injury or death, structures from massive damage from a potential failure of the retaining walls, and
prevent the uninterrupted use of Larimer Canal No. 2. - You MUST DENY approval.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
LP!ncer!y,
eggy Loonan
Peggy Loonan
708 Gilgalad Way
Fort Collins, CO 80526
June 16, 2011
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: The Grove, Project Development Plan
Dear Board Members;
Campus Crest is installing underdrains to prevent seepage from Larimer Canal No. 2 from causing major
damage to streets and they're installing retaining walls to allow them to build the site out to a "profitable"
density. There's always been a concern about the likelihood of a failure of those retaining walls from ditch
seepage resulting in heavy damage to Grove, buildings even loss of life.
According to CSURF, Ditch Company Superintendent John Moen suggested in January that realigning a 1300-
foot section of the canal and lining it with clay was a way "to address liability, maintenance and potential
seepage concerns."
In a March 14 letter to City Attorney Paul Eckman from Moen, Moen says the canal primarily carries raw water
for agriculture purposes. On March 15 in a letter to Mr. Eckman from Gene Fischer, attorney for Larimer
County Canal No. 2, Fischer tells Eckman that the canal company has always performed maintenance, repairs
and relocations "without going through any City review process; and further, that the City, even with
knowledgethese-projectswere taking -place has never notified the companythat-aCity process was required."
Of course Fischer never said whether that was true or even in his client's best interest in a situation where the
only need to relocate the ditch is because of its dangerous and adverse impact on the development and
public safety.
As a result, City Chief Planner Ted Shepard and City Attorney Paul Eckman concluded on March 29, that
because of Fischer's comments and the fact that the canal primarily carries raw water for agriculture
purposes, the ditch relocation IS EXEMPT from the Land Use Code definition of "development' (Section 5.1.2)
something City Staff didn't inform us of until June 9`h
Consequently, even though the last minute re -submittal of the PDP shows relocation of the ditch YOU ARE
NOT ALLOWED to consider the re -submitted PDP as if the ditch WILL EVER BE relocated or realigned.
I believe the motives behind "this determination" aren't as pure as they'd have us think.
On March 11, City Planner Steve Olt told my neighbor that nothing had happened with the project since
January 4. When she asked about a March 7 meeting at the canal that he, Linda Ripley and Nick Haws both
hired by Campus Crest, and John Moen attended, Olt claimed they were discussing THE CANAL COMPANY'S
DESIRE to move the canal to the south and he didn't include it in the March 11 update to interested parties
because it was INITIATED by the canal company and was UNRELATED to the Grove project.