Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIRAMONT VALLEY PUD - FINAL - 54-87AK - MINUTES/NOTES - MEETING COMMUNICATION (4)� � Miramont Valley, Mail Creek Crossing Meeting Attendees ' Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins, Engineering Ward Stanford City of Fort'Collins, Engineering Ted Shepa.rd City of Fort Collins, Planning Mitch Haas City of Fort Collins, Planning?� Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins, Stormwater Mike Grimm City of Fort Collins, Stormwater Bill Neal Mirainont .Associates Gary Nordic Miramont Associates Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design Terence C. Hoagland Cityscape Urban Design Dennis Donovan Land Development Services Norman Whitehead Jr Engineering, LTD Apri124, 1996 • Miramont Associates does not believe that they should be responsible for the crossirig of mail creek or for paying for it. o Miramont Associates does not own the land to the south of there lots, this is owned by GT Land, This is the land to the north of mail creek and south of it to the section line. • Miramont Associates proposed making a connection thru to Mail Creek Drive and improving this road to standards for the impacts. (Bill Nea1 stated that he understood the neecl for the connection to be made) � A new location for the crossing was proposed. This was based on a fields visit (involving City sta� after the erosion buffer limits were staked, The proposed location is between H'ighcastle Drive a.nd the cul-de-sac to the east. � The option of bridge vs. box culvert would require analysis to deterime impacts to the water-surface profile, as well as impacts to stream stability. The objectives ares not to increase flooding or increase instability with either the bridge or box culvert design, as well as minimizing the amount of structural controls placed in the channel. o The Mail Creek Stability Study by Lidstone and Anderson, Chapters 5 and 6, addresses ba.nk and bed stabilization altematives. The applicant should review these chapters and base any proposed crossing designs on the study. The range of alternatives include a"do nothing" approach to a very "structural" approach. Not a11 approaches are necessarily acceptable or approporaite for this reach. A floodplain management goal is to select the option that provides adequate protection while maintaining as naturalistic a stream corridor as possible. • Miramont Associates stated that they would rather look at enhancing the mail creek than doing the bridge across mail creek. This was in reference to a conversation that evolved around the eurrent eondition of this creek. C • Miramont Va11ey, Mail Creek Crossing Meeting (page Z of 2) Apri124, 1996 Again the discussion went to making a connection from RomaValley to Mail Creek Drive was brought up. 7r Engineering, Cityscape and Vaught Fry will get together to look at possible configuratioris. At least ttuee options will be produced, one showing the new crossing over Mail Creek and two others showing a connection from Roma Valley over to Mail Creek Drive. The connection to Mail Creek Drive would look at the possibility of reconfiguring this road in front of the houses that front on this .road (to the south of the connection) to provide them with some sort of a buffer so that they would not be as impacted. After these options are created they ase going to submit them to the City for City review and comments. These options will need to be taken to the lveighborhood. Therefore a neighborhood meeting is needed. This will need to be a meeting that covers a lot of different issues. Discussion need to occur regarding; The connection of Fossil Creek Parkway to the existing road through there neighborhood which is in dire need of upgrading; the means to how this road will be upgraded - neighborhood participation, Poudre R-1 participation? and City participation?; the inner corinectivity between Miramont neighborhood, Huntington Hills and the old county sub. The neighborhood meeting will be held in June (mid to late). Will wait to schedule this meeting until after Miramont Va11ey has gone to the Planning and Zoning Boacd on Ma.y 20, 1996. This is so that they don't get a bunch of neighbors in protesting this project talking about the possible corineetion thru to Mail Creek Drive. They are going to provide the Row to the south for the possible creek crossing and phase the project so that they could make the connection off of Roma Valley to Mail Creek if that is the desired change by replating that portiori of the project. Phase line will exist just to the south of the lots fronting on Highcastle Drive� They were wanting the Row to convert back to the home owners association (if the crossing was not made). The only way tlus eould happen is if the homeowners owned a strip of land on each side of this Row, otherwise the Row would be divided between the adjacent lot own_ ers; It was suggested by Ted Shepard that Nfiramont Associates and Mare Palcowitch go speak with the Fossil Creek homeowners association and present the street connection options prior to the formal neighborhood meeting. This would a11ow the homeowners association a chance to look at the configurations and a chance to digest them and formulate some questions ahead of time. The current schedule allows for this between the 1VIay P&Z meeting and the June neighborhood meeting. The following parties will need to be involved with the rieighborhood meeting: Mirainont Associates Marc Palcowitch � G�' Land Land Planners Private Engineers Poudre R-1 Parks a.nd Recreation Gary Diede Matt Baker City Planners City Engineers City Siormwater (Flood Plain Administrator) An agenda will be created closer to the meeting date and will be distributed around for all to see.