"Massive" strikes me as being entirely the wrong word to use for this proposal, unless you're talking about the amount of open space left after the retreat is built.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
You're probably right, Nobody that matters. I'd be curious, though, to find out if the area depicted on this map is designated as the 100 year, the 500 year, or the 1000 year floodplain?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
ZHawke wrote: You're probably right, Nobody that matters. I'd be curious, though, to find out if the area depicted on this map is designated as the 100 year, the 500 year, or the 1000 year floodplain?
No idea. It's what comes up on the mapping application when you click "Flood Plain". I have been told in the past that this is the definition used when building sites are in question.
That means that should this retreat get shot down, there's plenty of meadow left for housing outside the flood plain.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
ZHawke wrote: You're probably right, Nobody that matters. I'd be curious, though, to find out if the area depicted on this map is designated as the 100 year, the 500 year, or the 1000 year floodplain?
No idea. It's what comes up on the mapping application when you click "Flood Plain". I have been told in the past that this is the definition used when building sites are in question.
That means that should this retreat get shot down, there's plenty of meadow left for housing outside the flood plain.
Thanks. If that's the case, then it is most likely the 100 year flood plain because that's what's used for flood insurance purposes under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Another question for the Archdiocese of Denver: has the Archdiocese already purchased this property? Sorry if this has already been addressed earlier, but I did a quick scan and didn't see it if it has been.
ZHawke: yes, they purchased this property for ~$2 million back in January.
MountainDollar: Yes! I did videotape it and I'm working on uploading and processing it now (have to clear out some older stuff first to make room in my drive, it should be sometime today). There were a lot of good questions asked and I believe the Archdiocese representatives (which included the architectural firm) sincerely and earnestly answered them all. Many were echoed here, some were previously unasked. Most of the people in the room were in favor of the project it seemed. A few more trickled in as the meeting went on, so about 90 all told were present.
I spoke with one of the deacons afterwards and he mentioned the meetings they'd had with Chief McLaughlin and that they were very thankful for all of the good information and suggestions he'd requested. They fully intend to mitigate the property, create fire breaks, have fire hydrants, buildings with sprinkler systems, and holding tanks of water (they are drilling two wells, one as primary, one for backup, will pipe water underground to buildings, and will test it for quality before use) that can all be used by the fire dept, and make it safer than it is now. One of his recommendations was that they make their parking lot large enough that they can use it as a helipad in case they have need for evacuations or medical emergencies. (One person in the audience asked last night how many spots they were estimating they'd need/what size parking lot did they plan, and their answer was preliminarily, 120 spaces).
They haven't started designing any buildings yet, but they do want it to go well with the environment (i.e. not look like the old retreat center that resembled a "Ramada Inn" as one of the reps mentioned). They were cognizant of lighting issues and Allison, the Jeffco P&Z rep who was there, was very glad of the wildlife migration concerns that people had - she said they would bring in CPW as consultants as they move along to the next stages of the process to solicit their input. The deacon I spoke with afterwards echoed that, saying that they don't want to disrupt the beauty of the landscape or wildlife, because that's the purpose of a "retreat" - to get away, meditate, relax, and recharge. It does not behoove them to harm that in any way - they seemed very conscientious and responsive to that particularly.
There's more, but I'm going to get back to working on videos. Thank you to everyone who came out last night, it was great to see such involvement in our community!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
I stopped for an accident and didn't get up there in time but plenty of neighbors were there. They said a cordial helpful meeting and much learned and much yet to be done.
And not surprising that there were many in favor of it as information was provided to members of the nearby Catholic Churches.
To answer a question about what they are showing for floodplain, if I remember correctly as I am not sure which neighbor checked but the riparian as opposed to floodplain is much larger. And there is still the issue of the Jumping Meadow Prebble Mouse.
Look forward to your video SC. Thanks for doing it. I am sure it will be very helpful to many who wanted to attend but couldn't.
