HomeMy WebLinkAboutSILO STORAGE (EAST VINE STORAGE) - ODP - ODP120003 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFFSeth;
This note is sent to more clearly formulate questions to you and staff that we need to have answered to
proceed.
Seth Comment 3
You indicate that screening must equal the height of the item being stored. If we want to accomplish this
with a fast growing cedar that in two to three years becomes a visual year round block, can this method be
accepted rather than a 12 foot high fence?
You may propose a combination of fence and landscaping to satisfy this requirement. A proposal to this end would
have to provide an accurate rendering of the fence and landscaping used in context with the site and the material to
be screened. The abutting ROW is higher than the area you are proposing storage and therefore will create a
challenge in concealing the storage. Please note that "equipment that would remain visible despite screening, due to
differences in topography (i.e., a site that is at a lower grade than surrounding roadways) shall be completely
enclosed..." (Sec. 3.9.7(B)(2)
Seth Comment 4
What distance into the property do the requirements of the Mulberry Corridor Plan affect?
Comment #4 referenced the Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor for which the entire site is applicable to
these standards (Sec. 3.9).
Engineering Comment 4
The ability to provide street connection potentials with adjacent property is greatly hindered because of the
existence of wetlands on all four sides of the property. Are we just to show these even though they will not
happen. I wrote a brief explaination of why we think a varience should apply to this property. Is that what is
needed. It is part of the review comments that I sent to you previously.
Environmental Planning Comment 1
At our Concept Review it was expressed that we needed at least 20 acres of land that could be developed
inorder to proceed. At that time Dana outlined setbacksof vering widths that he believed we could satisfy the
intention of the wetland setbacks. We varified this in the field with him and our environmental consultant.
Now it is being stated that it is a flat 300 feet. We want to know why the change? The property was
purchaesed on these discussions that we would be able to use 20 acres. Now we are at best 70% of that. Is
there the ablity to return to the setbacks as we established with Dana?
Storm Water
Floodplain Comment 6
Item 2 States that storm drainage is allowed in the floodway. Is Enviromental Planning in line with this?
I hope these are specific enough so that we can meet to discuss. I have noted where in the comments our
concerns are based and you can read how we plann to address each issue. We need to see if we agree. In
addition if you have concerns with the way we responded to any of the comments please let us diccuss these
as well since they are concerns of you or other staff.
Thank you for your time and please let us know when we can get together.
Seth Lorson
From: Tyler Siegmund
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:06 PM
To: 'hattmanarchitect@qwestoffice.net'
Cc: bobpaterson44@yahoo.com; Seth Lorson
Subject: RE: Silo Storage Questions
Ric,
See response to your question below in blue:
Engineering Comment 4
The ability to provide street connection potentials with adjacent property is greatly hindered because of the
existence of wetlands on all four sides of the property. Are we just to show these even though they will not
happen. I wrote a brief explaination of why we think a varience should apply to this property. Is that what is
needed. It is part of the review comments that I sent to you previously.
I understand that the property is hindered due to existing natural features and the location of the Cooper
Slough through the property. I will refer back to my original comment that references 3.6.3(H) in the Land
Use Code about alternative compliance. If you cannot meet the requirements stated in 3.6.3(E) and (F)
related to connectivity to adjacent developable parcels (which I believe that you have a strong argument due
to existing natural features) than you will need to address not meeting those requirements through the
alternative compliance section. That said, I feel that you can achieve at least 1 vehicular access point (and
other pedestrian connections) to the property to the east, that would not conflict with the natural features on
the property, and that would help provide circulation through the site and provide a connection to adjacent
undeveloped land. Take a look at 3.6.3(H) Alternative Compliance in the Land Use Code and submit some
narrative why you cannot meet the code sections and possible alternatives that will work with this site. Feel
free to contact me with questions.
Tyler Siegmund
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
970.221.6501
TSiegmund@fcgov.com
From: Seth Lorson
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:14 PM
To:'hattmanarchitect@gwestoffice.net'
Cc: bobpaterson44@yahoo.com; Lindsay Ex; Tyler Siegmund
Subject: RE: Silo Storage Questions
See responses below. I have copied the appropriate reviewers for the engineering and environmental planning
comments.
Seth E. Lorson, AICP I City Planner
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.224.6189
slorson@fcaov.com
From: hattmanarchitect(abgwestoffice.net[mailto:hattmanarchitect(&gwestoffice.netl
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Seth Lorson
Cc: bobpaterson44Cabyahoo.com
Subject: Silo Storage Ouestions