HomeMy WebLinkAboutSILO STORAGE (EAST VINE STORAGE) - ODP - ODP120003 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (3)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?
The conceptual review held on 9/19/12 was for an Overall Development Plan, which according to Section
2.3.2(H)(3)(5) of the Code, requires that the "the overall development plan shall show the general location and
approximate size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the applicant's
proposed rough estimate of the natural area buffer zones as required pursuant to Section 3.4.1(E)." My comment
was that the ODP needs to show the approximate buffer, which is 300' for the Cooper Slough and between 50-100'
for the site's wetlands.
When the project moves forward to a PDP, there are two ways to meet the standards in Section 3.4.1 of the Code —
either quantitatively (300') or qualitatively (must meet the performance standards outlined in Section 3.4.1(E). So,
there is an opportunity to increase or decrease the 300' setback, but these determinations are made based on an
Ecological Characterization and site visits during the PDP phase of a project.
Is this project planning to move forward with a PDP in addition to an ODP? If so, then an ECS is required and that
document will be used to guide staff's recommendation for the best location for the buffers on Cooper Slough on
the wetlands. If the project is just proceeding with an ODP, staff recommends showing the approximate buffers for
the Cooper Slough and the wetlands on the ODP and then resolving the specific buffers at the time of PDP.
If you have any questions, this might be easier to discuss over the phone (224-6143) or in person. Let me know if I
can be of further help.
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 plane 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 dicsuss 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.
Its
Seth Lorson
From: Lindsay Ex
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:15 PM
To: Seth Lorson; 'hattmanarchitect@gwestoffice.net'
Cc: bobpaterson44@yahoo.com; Tyler Siegmund
Subject: RE: Silo Storage Questions
My response in red below.
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@fcgov.com
From: hattmanarchitecKa)awestoffice.net [mailto:hattmanarchitectC'0gwestoffice.net
l
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Seth Lorson
Cc: bobpaterson44(a)yahoo.com
Subject: Silo Storage Questions
Seth;
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).