The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOLORADO IRON & METAL - PDP - 20-09 - CORRESPONDENCE -Page 6 of 6 Thanks, Emma Emma McArdle City Planner City of Fort Collins emcardle(@fcoov.com (970)221-6206 P Please consider the environment before printing this email. file://C:\Documents and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B7ADBEBF... 2/16/2010 Page 5 of 6 >>>'Troy Jones" <troy(cDarchitex.com> 2/2/2010 12:37 PM >>> Emma, Any word on this? Troy From: Troy Jones [mailto:troy(a)architex.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:28 PM To: 'Emma McArdle' Cc: 'Glen Schlueter'; 'Peter Barnes; 'Sheri Langenberger'; 'Wes Lamarque'; 'bob(a)apex-engineer.com; 'Kent Garvin' Subject: RE: CO Iron and Metal Emma, Please see the attached jpeg, which shows in red lines, the locations where we would put 10 foot tall perimeter screening fence for the minor amendment. Green line segments represent locations for gates, which would match the screen fencing. See the attached pdf for a detail of the fence. We propose that because the industrial recycling facility yard would be behind the 10 foot screening fence, and also because the surrounding properties are all zoned Industrial, a recycling facility would not constitute a change in character. Please let us know what City staff decides on this matter. Feel free to let me know if you need any additional information. Troy From: Emma McArdle [mailto:emcardle@jggov.coml Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 5:06 PM To: Troy Jones Cc: Glen Schlueter; Peter Barnes; Sheri Langenberger; Wes Lamarque Subject: CO Iron and Metal Troy, I talked to Peter and it seems that it may be possible to do a minor amendment to get the recycling facilities on the property. We do however need to make sure that this won't be a "change of character," so for us to say for sure we would need to have some plans showing how the scrap metal could be screened. Let me know where you want to go from here. fileWCADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B7ADBEBF... 2/16/2010 Page 4 of 6 some of which is closer to Buckingham Street than the existing building. We plan to setback the fence 30 feet from the street ROW. (see the diagram below). I'm wondering how 3.8.11(C)(1) will be applied in this case, where it says fences shall be no more than 4 feet high between the front building line and the front property line. I would like to suggest that because the fence is on a different parcel than the building, perhaps this doesn't apply in this case. If it does apply, would we need to request a modification to this standard, and if so, does staff approve such a modification as part of a minor amendment? 2. Emma's email said "will be asking for some landscaping around some of the metal fencing". Which code section is being referred to for this required landscaping? I want to read it through to be sure that my proposed plan satisfies what is required. 3. If you recall, the last time we did a minor amendment on this property to change the use of the interior of the building to allow their metal fabrication, there were some required landscaping improvements that we escrowed for. The idea at the time was that we knew that the PDP would be coming along and landscaping would ultimately be installed as part of the PDP, so we just escrowed for the landscaping improvements so we wouldn't have to plant certain things that would soon be removed. We will most likely wish to continue to have the City hold those escrowed funds for those landscape improvements associated with that previous minor amendment. Would we have that option to escrow for the required landscaping associated with this plan instead of installing them, for the same reason? Thanks, Troy Jones From: Emma McArdle (mailto:emcardle(cUcoov.comj Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 1:47 PM To: Troy Jones Subject: Re: FW: CO Iron and Metal Troy, I apologize I thought 1 got back to you. Peter and I discussed this and we think it can be done as a minor amendment. We will be asking for some landscaping around some of the metal fencing though. Feel free to come in to submit for the minor amendment at any time. Thanks, Emma file://CADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B7ADBEBF... 2/16/2010 Page 3 of 6 >>> Emma McArdle 2/10/2010 3:13 PM >>> Peter, Just to clarify for my sake, you say in #1, that they must convince the "decision maker," does that mean you for a minor amendment? Or would they need to go to the ZBA? Thanks, Emma >>> Peter Barnes 2/10/2010 2:23 PM >>> Emma, Here are my comments if you want to pass them along. Peter 1. Even though the fence would be on a different parcel than the buidling, the original development plan treated the entire development as one. The "accessory use/structure" fence and the building are all the same business and operation. Therefore, it doesn't matter that they are on different parcels with regard to the fence regulation in question. Since the original development was approved as an IL Site Plan under the code in effect prior to the LUC, a modification will be required per (3) in Section 2.8.1. The applicant will have to convince the decision maker that the request meets one of the standards in 2.8.2(H). 2. Landscaping around fence: Sec. 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) -full tree stocking within 50' of any structure. 3.2.1(E)(2)(d), foundation plantings. Maybe 3.2.1(E)(6) -screening with landscape elements to screen areas of low visual interest such as blank walls. 3. There are no escrowed landcape funds for the City to hold for the previous minor amendment. That guarantee was a letter of credit, which expired 12-1-09. Therefore any future minor amendment or plan will not be approved until a new financial guarantee is received for the previously approved landscaping. We can also accept a financial guarantee for the required landscaping associated with this plan. However, we will have a condition that the landscaping required for the fence be installed by August, 2010. A 10' metal fence will need some help. We can't allow the landscaping to be deferred for a long period. >>> "Troy Jones" <troyaarchitex.com> 2/10/2010 11:00 AM »> Peter & Emma, I am working on another Minor Amendment application for Colorado Iron & Metal and I have a few questions. See the email below from Emma clarifying that you and her discussed the issue, and decided that our request can be processed as a minor amendment. The PDP is still under review, and we are still pursuing approval on it, however the way the economy has been going, it has become necessary for my client to come up with an interim way for him to use the existing property for the recycling facilities associated with the business. To that end, we want to have recycling scrap piles on the existing unpaved areas of the site, and provide screening of the work . operations from the street. The property owned by my client is in pink on the diagram below, and as a result of the non -regulated land transfers we did back in 2008, the property consists of 5 parcels, each with their own county parcel number, and each with separate tax billing. Our intent is for the minor amendment to not include parcel 9712100051, which is the unplatted parcel. So, now that I've clarified our intent, I will now get to my questions: 1. We want to screen the work operations from the street with a ten feet tall metal privacy fence, as required in the LUC 4.28(E)(3)(b)(1). The existing building is entirely on parcel 9712153002, and is set back 128 feet from the back of existing Buckingham walk. We would like to enclose the work operations area on parcel east of the building (parcel 9712153003), file://CADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B7ADBEBF... 2/16/2010 Page 2 of 6 City Planner City of Fort Collins emcardle@fcgov.com (970)221-6206 APlease consider the environment before printing this email. >>> "Troy Jones" <troy@architex.com> 2/16/2010 9:08 AM >>> Emma & Peter, Thanks for getting back to me. I have just one follow up question for clarity. It sounds like I would need to do a stand alone modification if I were to propose to put the 10 foot screening fence closer than the existing building to the street (128 feet). I see that recycling facility is a type 1 use in the Industrial zone. Does this mean a hearing office would be the decision maker on a stand alone modification on this issue? Troy From: Emma McArdle [mailto:emcardle@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:44 AM To: Troy Jones Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: FW: CO Iron and Metal Troy, Please see the attached discussion between Peter Barnes and myself answering your questions. Let me know how you would like to procede. Emma Emma McArdle City Planner City of Fort Collins emcardle@fcgov.com (970)221-6206 APlease consider the environment before printing this email. >>> Peter Barnes 2/10/2010 3:21 PM >>> Right. >>> Emma McArdle 2/10/2010 3:20 PM >>> Ok, so they would need to do a stand alone modification of standard if they do not meet any standards. >>> Peter Barnes 2/10/2010 3:16 PM >>> I reference 2.8 in #1, which puts it to a hearing officer or the P&Z Board. file://CADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B7ADBEBF... 2/16/2010 Page 1 of 6 Emma McArdle - RE: Re: FW: FW: CO Iron and Metal From Emma McArdle To: Troy Jones Date: 2/16/2010 5:54 PM Subject: RE: Re: FW: FW: CO Iron and Metal CC: 'Chris Pederson; 'Kent Garvin'; Peter Barnes Troy, Please see the link to the Development Review Application Form and Fees: http://ww,w-.f cgov.com/currentplanningZpdf /developmen t-review-application-form.i)df It looks like Stand Alone Modification of Standards are $200 each plus the APO and sign posting fees you mentioned. Please provide us with 6 sets of plans and planning objectives for the Modification of Standard. Thanks, Emma >>> "Troy Jones" <troyC@architex.com> 2/16/2010 2:54 PM >>> Emma, What is the application fee for a stand-alone modification? I assume l need to bring in one copy of APO labels of all property owners within 800 feet of the property with $0.75 per label, and a $50 sign posting fee, plus the $200 Transportation Review fee. Is that correct? I'd like to submit this modification request concurrently with the minor amendment application, with the understanding that they are two separate applications, and the minor amendment cannot be approved until the modification has been approved. So, in addition to the 6 submittal copies for the minor amendment, how many additional copies should I submit for the modification request? Troy CC: Peter Barnes, Colorado Iron & Metal From: Emma McArdle [mailto:emcardle@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:48 AM To: Troy Jones Subject: RE: Re: FW: FW: CO Iron and Metal Troy, Yes you would need a Stand-alone Modification, that would go to an administrative hearing officer. If you choose to go this route, please submit site, landscape plan and planning objectives for our review. Let me know before you submit and I'll tell you how many you need, we will probably only need 10 or less departments to look over the modification request. Thanks, Emma Emma McArdle file://CADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B7ADBEBF... 2/16/2010