HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - DRAINAGE REPORT (20)Page 2 of 2
'-,xisitng neighbors.* You have mentioned the flood fringe development discussion but the part about
pushing floodwaters onto neighbors is not mentioned. This was a striking learning and I feel it should
be represented in the notes.
3) What do blank answers mean? That there was no answer? That the answer wasn't recorded and so
you do not remember? It would be good to describe what a blank answer means.
That is all from me. Thank you for requesting input. I hope to get to the ODP Neighborhood Meeting
notes next.
Heather
On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Steve Olt wrote:
Thank you for attending the neighborhood meeting on December 7, 2010 to participate in the presentation and
discussion of the proposed new Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan. This proposed development
plan was submitted to the City on December 8, 2010 to initiate the development review process. It has been
through one round of development review and revised plans (based on City staff comments) will be submitted to
the City's Development Review Center at some time in the future.
Per your request, I have attached the "DRAFT" neighborhood meeting summary notes from the meeting on
December 7th. I would very much appreciate it if you would take the time to review these notes and make any
appropriate suggestions for additions and/or corrections that you see fit, as these notes were taken in haste as I
tried to keep up with the rapid question & answer exchange at the meeting. Responding to me by e-mail will
probably be the best way to forward your input, although I assure you that I will do what is necessary to ensure
accurate summary notes that will be ultimately forwarded to the Planning & Zoning Board at a public hearing.
Thank you in advance for your time and effort,
Steve Olt
City's Project Planner
970-221-6341
solt - fcoov.com
<TheGrove'FC(Cam pusCrest)-120710. Neighborhood Meeting. Notes.doc>
1 /24/2011
i
Steve Olt
From: Glen Schlueter
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:07 PM
To: Steve Olt
Subject: RE: The Grove at Fort Collins - neighborhood information meeting
Page 1 of 2
Steve,
Question # 2 below. I don't know how she got that it was 49%, 1 certainly didn't say that because I didn't know. I
remember the question at a previous neighbor hood meeting ( I think it was the one these notes are for) and no
one knew so the facilitator said we would have to check. Last week Susan Smolnik told me she thought it was
about 72% so that is what I said at the meeting recently. She was also at the meeting and said it was around 69
to 70 %. So I have a voice mail message into her to get an accurate number for Heather. She needs to
understand this is not something I deal with or have access to the information. Also it doesn't make any
difference in how much we own. It is still the Larimer #2 board that makes the decisions and the amount of say
we have isn't relative to the percentage, at least that is what I have been told. Maybe Susan should weigh in on
this so they have "accurate" information. I will copy her on this email.
From: Steve Olt
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:23 AM
To: Glen Schlueter; Brian Varrella
Subject: FW: The Grove at Fort Collins - neighborhood information meeting
Glen and Brian,
Are you able to help me with these questions/comments from Heather Stickler regarding the meeting notes from
the December 7, 2010 neighborhood meeting for The Grove, PDP?
Thanks,
Steve
From: Heather and Paul [mailto:armstickle@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:30 PM
To: Steve Olt
Cc: Armstrong Paul
Subject: Re: The Grove at Fort Collins - neighborhood information meeting
Hi Steve,
I have had a moment to review the notes. I have the following comments/questions:
1) At this particular meeting, the Larimer Canal #2 City ownership was described to the audience
as "about 49%." It was definitely not described as 72%. While 72% is accurate, I think the purpose of
the Neighborhood meeting notes is to accurately record Q&A which occurred at the meeting. Therefore
it seems like the misinformation should be part of the notes, perhaps accompanied with a note
explaining that what was said was wrong.
2) There are no notes describing a discussion about floodwaters and the fact that a City employee
(forget his name but he is tall with glasses and dark brown hair) said that current City code allows for
development in the flood fringe *even if the result is that floodwaters will be pushed onto pre-
1/24/2011