Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDED CSURF CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - ODP - MJA110001 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGAmended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP Planning Objectives Exhibit B — Neighborhood Issues Statement March 30, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Parcel C will further allow and emphasize this concept. Physical channel maintenance will occur after the PMR becomes effective. 20. Question: (Resident) Will the new streets in this development be owned and maintained by the City? Answer: (Applicant) All of the public streets being proposed would be dedicated to and maintained by the City. 21. Question: (Resident) Did I hear correctly, the streets will be built to Larimer County standards? Answer: (Applicant) No, what was said is that the streets will be built to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) and will have curb & gutter. The County and the City have jointly adopted LCUASS. 22. Question: (Resident) The preliminary report (staff comments) on the PDP showed that Neighborhood Services had no problems or concerns associated with this development. Is this correct? Answer: (Neighborhood Services/City Planner) No, not really. The City's Code Enforcement Department, not Neighborhood Services, is involved with development review and makes comments. That is what happened in this case. Staff will have to change that on the Project Comment Sheet sent to various departments. The reason Code Enforcement has no problems or concerns at this time is because there is no constructed project that could generate code violations. 23. Question: (Resident) Will CSURF have a representative at the Planning & Zoning Board public hearing, when it is scheduled? Answer: A CSURF representative plans to be at the next public hearing. 7 Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP Planning Objectives Exhibit B — Neighborhood Issues Statement March 30, 2011 Page 6 of 7 with me tonight that are available to you. I received his e- mail this afternoon that expresses the Larimer No. 2 Canal's concerns. I can also e-mail his concerns if that works better for you. 17. Question: (Resident) Will this Amended ODP be submitted tomorrow like the new PDP was in December, the day after that neighborhood meeting? Answer: (Developer) No, but we will be submitting the Amended ODP in a week or so. 18. Question: (Resident) At least 1 building is being proposed to be built in the floodplain, correct? What does FEMA have to do with this? Answer: (City Stormwater Utility) That proposed building is in the flood fringe, not the floodplain. This situation is administered locally by the City. New residential development, and the placement of fill, is allowed in the 1 00-yrfloodplain fringe of Spring Creek. The aforementioned PMR will likely make this a moot point, as the area in question may no longer be in the fringe. 19. Question: (Resident) Has any progress been made on cleaning out the existing drainage Swale? Answer: (City Stormwater Utility) The City has met with CSURF to begin a dialogue about this. There will be a memorandum of understanding created; however, no physical work can be done until then. The City is stepping in, in this case, to help because there are multiple Homeowner's Associations involved, as well as CSURF. Both the City and CSURF have every intention of getting the proper easements and agreements in place to transfer maintenance responsibilities of the Windtrail Outfall Swale from the HOA to the City. Any subdivision plat and/or PDP on C. Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP Planning Objectives Exhibit B — Neighborhood Issues Statement March 30, 2011 Page 5 of 7 12. Question: (Resident) If the seepage from the ditch is cut off by this subdrain system will not the source of water to the wetlands be cut off? Answer: (City Stormwater Utility) In our opinion most of the water feeding the wetlands comes from other sources. (City Environmental Planner) The developer has submitted a "draft" monitoring report that will be evaluated regularly by the City over a period of 3 years. 13. Question: (Resident) Who will be doing the monitoring and who will pay for the monitoring? Answer: (Northern Engineering) The money will be escrowed by the developer for the 3-year plan to ensure performance. The developer will be responsible for the monitoring. 14. Question: (Resident) What happens 3 years from now or 1-1/2 years after the 3-year study is complete if the subdrain system is not working? Answer: PDPs (not ODPs) require a Development Agreement prior to final plan approval, recordation, and construction. The long- term maintenance responsibilities of the subdrain system are expected to be addressed in such subsequent Development Agreements to ensure their ongoing performance. 15. Question: (Resident) Where does the 3-year timeframe come from? Answer: (City Stormwater Utility) It is a standard that has been used for a long time. 16. Question: (Resident) When can we see the detailed concerns of the ditch company? Answer: (City Planner) I have some hard copies of John Moen's e-mail 9 Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP Planning Objectives Exhibit B — Neighborhood Issues Statement March 30, 2011 Page 4 of 7 flood insurance situation for the neighborhood north of Parcel C. 9. Question: (Resident) Would someone please visually show the floodplain on the drawing? Answer: (City Stormwater Utility/Glen Schlueter) Went to the Amended ODP on the screen and delineated the floodplain. 10. Question: (Resident) What impacts will the road (Rolland Moore Drive) and the buildings have on the Larimer No. 2 Canal? Answer: (City Stormwater Utility) The development is below (lower than) the ditch. Seepage from the ditch will be cut off by a subdrain system being designed for the development. In addition to the subdrain system, monitoring wells have been installed along the irrigation ditch to more precisely assess seepage and to ensure that the proposed construction north of the canal is safe, stable, and sustainable. Also, CSURF and the Larimer Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company have agreed in concept to relocate the ditch further south on CSURF property. The newly cut and compacted ditch section located further south is expected to lessen seepage, protect numerous large trees, provide a larger and enhanced buffer for future development of Parcel C, and ensure that the Ditch Company can continue to safely and effectively transport water. 11. Question: (Resident) Can you share the ditch company's concerns about this development? Answer: The Ditch Company's primary concerns had to do with seepage, potential safety issues related to the existing trees, as well as the slopes and proximity of the proposed buildings (as indicated on The Grove PDP). However, the ditch relocation concept addresses all of the Ditch Company's concerns. E Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP Planning Objectives Exhibit B — Neighborhood Issues Statement March 30, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Answer: (Applicant) Yes, that is correct. 8. Question: (Resident) Has an environmental study already been done and what impacts will there be to the storm drainage and flood water? Answer: (City Environmental Planner) An Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is required if a project is within 500 feet of environmental or natural area. There are wetlands on this property and, therefore, an ECS is necessary and has been submitted. The jurisdictional wetlands on the site are not being impacted by this development. (City Stormwater Utility) This project will not touch the floodplain/floodway. It will not affect the floodplain. Development within Parcel C subsequent to the ODP amendment will be subject to all City Stormwater and FEMA regulations in place at the time of the application. The City does not allow any adverse drainage impacts to adjacent, neighborhoods. Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code does allow the placement of fill and the construction of residential structures in the 100-yr flood fringe of Spring Creek. A Physical Map Revision (PMR) is currently in process with FEMA to revise the floodplain/floodway in this location. Additionally, the City and CSURF are working together to allow the City to clean and maintain the Windtrail Outfall Swale. Also, a pending PDP application (The Grove at Fort Collins) for development of Parcel C proposes to redirect stormwater runoff away from the Windtrail Outfall Swale. All three of these items have to potential to substantially improve the drainage and 3 Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP Planning Objectives Exhibit B — Neighborhood Issues Statement March 30, 2011 Page 2 of 7 CSURF. CSURF owns all the property in the ODP and therefore must approve all the proposed changes, even though Campus Crest Development is the Applicant for both the CSURF ODP and the Grove PDP planned for Parcel C within the ODP. 4. Question: (Resident) Is a CSURF representative here tonight? Answer: (Applicant) No, no one from CSURF is present. 5. Question: (Resident) Is Parcel B on the Amended ODP still zoned E, Employment? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, it is. 6. Question: (Resident) With this Amended ODP, the only changes are happening on Parcel C, correct? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, with the exception of updated general Stormwater-related notes. This was made necessary with the flood of 1997. Changes to the ODP related to the proposed development of parcel C include: the realignment of Rolland Moore Drive; the elimination of the Northerland Drive street connection, and the illustration of local streets on Parcel C to comply with block size requirements. Other changes that affect the larger ODP include: updating notes to reflect current design standards and regulations; corrections to notes; updated mapping associated with the FEMA floodplain and wetlands; and removal of a maximum Floor Area Ratio requirement originally added by CSURF and not required by the City. 7. Question: (Resident) This new Amended ODP is being linked to the new Grove at Fort Collins PDP, correct? 2 Exhibit B Neighborhood Issues Statement The following comments, questions, and concerns regarding the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP, were raised at the Neighborhood Meeting held January 18, 2011. The Applicant's responses are noted and in some cases additional information has been added (in italic) for clarity and/or to reflect changes that have occurred since the Neighborhood Meeting was held. 1. Question: (Resident) The streets as shown in Parcel C, which ones are public and which ones are private? Answer: (Applicant) Rolland Moore Drive is a public street, the new street along the east side of the development is a public street, and the loop street along the north and west sides of the block north of Rolland Moore Drive is a private street. Currently all three streets are being proposed as public streets. The loop street mentioned in the original response cannot be a private street because it connects to two public streets and therefore does not meet the definition of a private street. 2. Question: (Resident) What is the status of all of the appeals? Answer: (Applicant) There are no active appeals. The previous Amended ODP approved by the Planning & Zoning Board was appealed by residents/neighbors. The Board's decision was overturned by City Council, thereby resulting in a denial of the ODP. The appeal on the Board's denial of the PDP (submitted by Campus Crest) was withdrawn by the developer. 3. Question: (Resident) Do you (Linda Ripley) work for CSURF or Campus Crest? Answer: (Linda Ripley) Technically I work for both entities. Ripley Design Inc. has a contract with Campus Crest Development. Campus Crest Development has a contract with