HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARGILL GREENHOUSE 2540 EAST DRAKE ROAD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2016-05-20Tyler Siegmund
From: Sheri Langenberger
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 11:34 AM
To: SeonAh Kendall
Cc: � Ri__ 'cht� Peter Barnes; Tyler Siegmund
Subject:
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
SeonAh
I spoke to Peter Barnes about this project to get a better idea of the process that this project needs to follow and
here is some information.
The project submitted is not considered a minor amendment, per the code to approve additional green houses on
this site the process is a "Basic Development Review" which is similar to a PDP process there just is not a hearing.
The site is not currently platted and they are allowed to build the accessory green houses on the site without a plat,
but would be required to plat the site at such time as they want to build another principal building (such as an office
building). The plan that was submitted in does show an office/ storage building as phase 2. Right now they have not
provided enough information with this submittal to determine if this is a principal building or not. If it is considered
a principal building then to gain approval for this structure they will need to plat the property and go through a PDP
process with a hearing. I
In regards to the fees for this project:
Because the project is not platted it is one very large property. The policy and the way the TDRF were adopted is
that the acreage charge is the side of the development (area being platted or if not being platted the size of the
parcel accompanying all development).
The TDRF is the same whether the project is considered a Basic Development Review or a Project Development Plan
(PDP). So they could include a plat and the TDRF would not change. The planning fees might change if they were
going to plat the property.
Without platting if they come back in several years and want to submit another Basic Development Review plan to
add additional greenhouses then yes they would need to pay TDRF for the entire acreage again. There are a couple
of ways in which they could reduce these fees. One - If they plat the property now — they could divide the property
into several lots and then in the future we would only charge the fees for the size of the lot on which the building is
proposed. Two - they could show additional greenhouse buildings on this plan and get them approved now as
future phases. The current TDRF would increase slightly due to the additional square footage of the structures being
proposed, but they wouldn't have to come back into the process. And if in the future they needed to move or
change the greenhouses most likely this could be done by minor amendment ( currently the planning fee is $192 and
the TDRF is $158 for a minor amendment).
Engineering has been discussing with Cargill about the reimbursement that is due the City for the right-of-way and
road improvements that were done along the frontage of the property with Drake Road construction and that the
missing sidewalk along this frontage needs to be constructed by them. Although curb, gutter and pavement
improvements were constructed along the frontage of this property sidewalk does not yet exist along the Drake
Road frontage. This is something that they are aware of and have showed occurring with phase 2. This is an issue
for Engineering and Zoning. Engineering will be requiring the sidewalk to be installed with Phase 1, but will allow the
reimbursement that is due ($244,624.44) to be delayed until the next building permit. We will need to enter into a
development agreement with them to do so. Installing the sidewalk now is supported by Zoning since they need the
parkway trees installed to achieve the screening that is needed for the greenhouses and we don't like the trees to be
planted until after the sidewalk is installed. Typically foundation plantings are done at the base of the buildings, but
Cargill has indicated that this will create a problem for them and could potentially contaminate the plants in the
greenhouse, so the street trees will be accepted and required for the screening.
Vesting rights are for 3 years from approval — but upon construction of the sidewalk along the frontage of the
property which we are requiring to occur with Phase 1 of the project the site will have all of the infrastructure in
place and be fully vested. So at that point any future buildings shown on the plans per current code would be vested
and approved as shown.
Sorry for the length on this. Please let me know if you need any additional clarification or information.
Sheri
Sheri Langenberger
Development Review Manager - Engineering
City of Fort Collins
(970)s2i-6573
From: SeonAh Kendall
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:20 PM
To: Sheri Langenberger
Cc: Rick Richter
Subject: Re: Cargill
Sheri,
Cargill is currently under a minor amendment. Can the company show future buildings under a minor
amendment? Vesting rights are 3-years, unless approved by City Council for a longer period, correct?
Thanks for all your help on this!
Best regards,
SeonAh
On May 16, 2013, at 6:02 PM, "Sheri Langenberger" <SLaneg nbergerafc og v.com> wrote:
SeonAh
When the fee was adopted the fee portion associated with the acreage was identified as:
Size of the development (area being platted or if not being platted size of parcel accompanying all
development improvements)
Currently the Cargill site is one lot, one large lot. So if they are submitting a Basic Development
Review or a PDP the acreage fee would be based on the full acreage of the site.
If they have submitted I have not yet seen the submittal or the application and do not know what kind
of process they will need to go through. The fees for a project are dependent on the type of process
that a project has to processed through.
I can look into this further on Monday (I am out of the office tomorrow) and talk to planning about what
type of process the project will be going through. It may be possible to show the future buildings on
the plan as future phases and in doing so avoid another future submittal and future fees.
Sheri
Sheri Langenberger
Development Review Manager - Engineering
City of Fort Collins
(970) 221-6573
-----Original Message -----
From: SeonAh Kendall
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:27 PM
To: Sheri Langenberger
Subject: Cargill
Hi Sheri,
Hope this email finds you well. I have speaking with Steve Stadelmeier at Cargill and he mentioned
that there was some confusion about the Transportation Development Fees. Cargill is working with
Dohn Construction who is relaying information to the company. Steve was told that this fee is to be
charged based on the entire acreage of the Cargill owned property. Steve's concern is that they have
potentially two other greenhouses/buildings in the future and that Cargill will be charged each time for
this fee (est. at $13,000). Do you have any insight on this project? Is this information correct? If so,
any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
SeonAh Kendall, CPA
Business Retention Strategist
Economic Health Office
City of Fort Collins
970.416.2164 (0)
970.214.1724 (C)
skendall ..fcaov.com
Please excuse the typos.
Sent from my iPad