HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - DRAINAGE REPORT (12)Page 2 of 2
address the canal breach claim. I'm thinking is might be Marc since Engineering requires the ground water
report. It may be as easy as quoting or discussing what is in the report. I'm not even sure the report addresses
their concern. Maybe Marc has read that part of the report. I am not qualified to evaluate the report or make any
statements about it. It really isn't Brian's field either. Maybe you and Steve Dush can discuss this and decide
who and what to respond since there really isn't a department in the City for ground water issues.
Glen
From: Steve Olt
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:48 PM
To: Marc Virata; Matthew Wempe; Lindsay Ex; Glen Schlueter; Brian Varrella; Ward Stanford
Cc: Ted Shepard
Subject: The Grove at Fort Collins PDP appeal - staff response to appeal
Attached is the draft "boilerplate" for the staff response AIS to the Notice of Appeal for The Grove at Fort Collins
PDP approved by the P&Z Board. Please review this and provide responses where applicable to any of the
Allegations a — d (d having various parts). We will have deadlines for this AIS coming up soon.
Thanks,
Steve
7/25/2011
Page 1 of 2
Steve Olt
From:
Brian Varrella
Sent:
Monday, July 18, 2011 8:52 AM
To:
Glen Schlueter; Steve Olt
Cc:
Marc Virata; Steve Dush; Roger Buffington
Subject: RE: The Grove at Fort Collins PDP appeal - staff response to appeal
Gents,
I already responded to the statement Glen quoted below by e-mail, and the neighbors quoted
that e-mail in their appeal packet. The issue response stands as written; Chapter 10 (as
approved by the State and FEMA) allows neighbors to fill in the fringe, narrow the floodplain,
and flood adjacent neighbors. I have no discretion in this matter.
Brian
From: Glen Schlueter
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 11:09 AM
To: Steve Olt
Cc: Marc Virata; Brian Varrella; Steve Dush; Roger Buffington
Subject: FW: The Grove at Fort Collins PDP appeal - staff response to appeal
Steve,
The only allegation I can see that affects Stormwater is:
iii. LUC 1.2.20 protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage and LUC 3.3.3 regarding water
hazards
The Board misinterpreted the provisions of the LUC regarding protection of life and property by
avoiding inappropriate development and reducing flood damage. City goals for appropriate
development of flood -prone areas are noted pages 11-10 to 11-11 of the Resident report. The Grove
PDP fills in a portion of the floodplain for two buildings and a public street. The proposed fill narrows
the floodplain at a critical location and will cause a rise that threatens low-lying established
neighborhoods.
As discussed in the Resident Report, pages 11-15 and 16, The Grove PDP grading plan calls for
deep cuts near Larimer Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a storm/flood
event. The Board set as a Condition of Approval that the canal be relocated, but only by withholding
the Final Certificate of Occupancy after construction. By allowing excavation of the hillside before
relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose and intent of LUC 1.2.2(E) and LUC
3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to relocation unnecessarily
increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS & RESPONSE:
I'm sure Brian can respond to the floodplain fill just as he did for the ODP. However I'm not sure who should
7/25/2011