The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOLORADO IRON & METAL - PDP - 20-09 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)0 0 Page 2 of 2 As a reminder the final easements or letters of intent for these easements are needed before this project can go to hearing. I would also imagine that another submittal will be needed showing the expanded site plan and what work is to occur on the adjacent property so we have a chance to review the plan that will go to hearing. Let me know if you have any questions about the easement dedication process. Sheri >>> "Troy Jones" <troy(cDarchitex.com> 11/19/2009 11:25 AM >>> Sheri, I'm working on obtaining the easements and agreements necessary for Colorado Iron & Metal PDP. There are 3 instances: • First, we will be tying into the existing grades on the Odell Brewery Property in the southwest corner of the property. I assume this will require a permanent grading easement; • Second, we will be crossing the Vanworks property with our stormwater outfall pipe, so we will need a permanent drainage easement across his property; and • Third, we are working together with the property owner to the east to enclose the yard area by putting wrought iron fences from the paved area across the neighborhing property to tie into the neighbors existing building. Also, the existing pavement along our east property line straddles the property line. So, this neighbor crosses the Colorado Iron & Metal property to access his dust collection machinery. I was thinking perhaps the offsite fence and joint access of the paved area along the east property line could be handled with a written agreement signed by both property owners rather than a formal easement. Would that suffice for the City's purposes? Do you have boiler plate easement forms you'd like us to use, and if so, can you email them to me in Word? I'm assuming the permanent grading easement will need to be dedicated from the Odell ownership to the Colorado Iron & Metal ownership (GTG Investments), and the drainage easement will need to be granted from the Vanworks ownership to the City. Or would that drainage easement need to be granted to the Colorado Iron & Metal ownership? Also, will you be requiring temporary construction easements? Please let me know. Thanks, Troy Jones CC: Emma McArdle, Bob Gowing, Kent Garvin file://CADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B14F125FC... 12/1/2009 0 0 Page 1 of 2 Emma McArdle - RE: Easements for Colorado Iron & Metal From: "Troy Jones" <troy@architex.com> To: "'Sheri Langenberger"' <slangenberger@fcgov.com> Date: 11/30/2009 11:07 AM Subject: RE: Easements for Colorado Iron & Metal CC: "'Bob Gowing"' <bob@apex-engineer.com>, "'Kent Garvin"' <KentGarvin@coloradoironmetal.com>, "'Emma McArdle"' <EMcArdle@fcgov.com>, "'Peter Barnes"' <PBARNES@fcgov.com> Sheri, The topic of whether or not we need another round of review before hearing wasn't discussed in the comments. Can you and Emma discuss I was assuming the biggest issue we needed to address before we can schedule a hearing is to provide the I-Ols or actual easements. I'd like to avoid expanding the site plan for two reasons. First, we'd rather go to hearing without another round of review, if possible, and if that is the only thing triggering another round of review, maybe we can address the issue a different way. Second, we would rather not have to have the neighbor sign the mylars for the Final PDP. We are not proposing any development on his property. The paved areas on the neighbor's property already exist as such. As far as construction on his property, we are really only talking about building 2 wrought iron fences across his property other than installing two small lengths of wrought iron fencing. We don't have to have these fences necessarily, particularly if it complicates things excessively. What if we just brought our wrought iron fences to the property line, and worked out an agreement with the neighbor that he will apply for a permit to build those portions of fences that are on his property? Would that avoid another round of review? Troy From: Sheri Langenberger [mailto:slangenberger@fcgov.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:13 AM To: Troy ]ones Cc: 'Bob Gowing'; 'Kent Garvin'; Emma McArdle; Peter Barnes Subject: Re: Easements for Colorado Iron & Metal Troy Based on the last plans it does appear that these are the only off -site easements that are needed. The drainage easement for the storm pipe does need to be dedicated to the City. I have attached a base document and an information sheet on easement dedication processing. The grading easement can be dedicated to the City or if it is to be a private easement it should include language that would allow any future developer and the City access to do this work on the site. If the easement is dedicated to the City it would need to follow our process. If the easement is dedicated to the developer we do not process the document, but will need a copy of the recorded document. As for the placing the fence on the neighbors property. From what I understand of this - the PDP boundary would need to be expanded to include where all this work is occurring. The area within this plat from the street to the parking areas would need to remain a public access easement dedicated to the City, but a private agreement that spells out how the cross use of each property is to happen is fine. We will probably need a copy of this agreement just to know that both parties did agree and that you have the right to do the work and improvements that you are showing outside of the property lines. file://C:\Documents and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B14F125FC... 12/1/2009 Page 2 of 2 with those who made each comment, and save this revision routing sheet for the final compliance submittal. Let me know if you agree or not. Troy Jones file://CADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B13C640F... 11/30/2009 Pagel of 2 Emma McArdle - Colorado Iron & Metal items to resolve to go to hearing From: "Troy Jones" <troy@architex.com> To: "'Emma McArdle"' <emcardle@fcgov.com> Date: 11/30/2009 1:18 PM Subject: Colorado Iron & Metal items to resolve to go to hearing CC: "'Sheri Langenberger"' <slangenberger@fcgov.com>, "'Bob Gowing"' <bob@apex- engineer.com>, "'Kent Garvin"' <KentGarvin@coloradoironmetal.com> Emma, The topic of whether or not we need another round of review before hearing wasn't discussed in the Colorado Iron & Metal comments. We would like to avoid another round of review prior to hearing if possible. I think we can address all the issues working directly with to person who made each comment. Can you coordinate with Sheri and other reviewers regarding which comments need to be addressed prior to hearing, and which comments can be addressed at final compliance? I think I forwarded you an email conversation between me and Sheri. In that conversation Sheri had spoke of the need to expand our boundaries of the PDP if we propose fencing on the neighbor's property, which in turn she said would trigger another round of review. As I responded to Sheri, we no longer want to propose that fencing on the neighbor's property as part of the PDP, so the boundaries of the PDP will stay as proposed, so hopefully another round of review won't be necessary. Most of the comments seem to be final compliance issues except for the following, which I'm thinking we can make revisions and print them out and sit down with you and Sheri and go over each of your issues as follows: Emma's Comments 79) 1 will make fence revisions to comply with code; 37) 1 will work directly with Tim Buchanan regarding trees and show up to meet with you with the results of that meeting, and I will make revisions to include a raised sidewalk across the parking lot; 80) 1 will show % of trees; 77) 1 will show easement on site and I.s. plans as requested; 78) The roll -offs are not intended to go into building #2; Sheri's Comments 26) Apex will show how grades tie in, and we will provide L01s; 28) Apex will coordinate directly with Sheri regarding future street profile; 51) We will replace the section of wall over the easement with a 12' tall wrought iron fence and show this solution to Sheri; 54) We will show a gate to accommodate the access easement to property to the south and Apex will show Sheri how grading will allow access through or along the side of the pond; 56) We will provide a letter of intent for the storm pipe easement; Wes's Comments 48) Apex will provide Wes the requested documentation for pond sizing; 69) Apex will work directly with Stormwater to address volume and water quality concerns; Jenny's Comments 1) 1 will provide alternative compliance request; All other comments, as far as I can tell, seem to be final compliance issues. The routing sheet asks for 7 site plans, 5 landscape plans, and 4 utility plan sets. It seems like it would be much more efficient to work directly fi1e://CADocuments and Settings\emcardle\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B13C640F... 11/30/2009