Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 15 - PDP - 28-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Under the development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The time spent on revisions is up to the applicant. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Administrative Hearing Officer (or Planning and Zoning Board, if necessary) for a decision and, if so, will be scheduled for the nearest open date. Please return all red -lined plans and reports with your revisions when they are submitted to the Current Planning Department. Please contact me at (970)221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments, if necessary. Sincerely, qSevUe0P1't--'J0W Project Planner cc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Water/Wastewater Transportation Planning Advance Planning PFA Stewart & Associates File 18. The setback from Midpoint Drive for the first few parking spaces in front of Building B may be a problem. There should be a minimum of 50' from the street flowline to the first space and in this case there is only 32'. This could create a potential safety problem because of conflict between cars backing out of the spaces and cars entering the site from Midpoint Drive. Transportation Planning 19. Secure, convenient bicycle parking is needed for Building A. Current Planning 20. The Landscape Plan does not appear to be in compliance with the requirements of the LUC. Foundation plantings are needed along the street side of Building A. Street trees are needed. Shade trees are needed along the side and rear property lines. The screening of the parking lot between Midpoint Drive and Building A may not be adequate, as it relates to the LUC requirements. 21. Please demonstrate how the Development Standard in Section 4.23(E)(2)(b)2 of the I - Industrial Zoning District has been met with this development plan. This section states: Within internal District areas, buildings may be surrounded by paving for vehicle use. To the extent reasonably feasible, side and rear yards in interior block locations shall be used for vehicle operations and storage areas, and front yards shall be used for less intensive automobile parking. This requirement can be met if the two buildings are to be "solely" residential or industrial uses and do not include offices as a primary use (see Comment 3, above). 22. Additional comments are on red -lines plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. 12. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that the Landscape Plan must comply with the Landscaping and Tree Protection standards as set forth in Division 3.2 of the LUC. specifically Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) regarding "full tree stocking", Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(b) regarding street trees, and Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) regarding perimeter landscaping. Additional comments can be found on a red -lined Landscape Plan that is forwarded to the applicant. 13. The comments received from Advance Planning are as follows: a. Can these buildings simply be called "Industrial"? If not, and office use is needed, then the plan does not work under Section 3.5.3(B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walhways and Parhing of the LUC. The parking and Building A would have to be flip-flopped. b. If the land use for this site is industrial and this plan proceeds, then please make the sidewalk more direct and functional (as shown on the red -lined Landscape Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant). C. A modification to several standards in Section 3.5.3 may have to be requested and justified. 14. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department stated that his comments are on a red -lined Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. The following comments/concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review Meeting on August 5, 1998: Stormwater 15. The drainage report and plans that were originally submitted do not consider the off -site stormwater flows from this site onto other properties. The developer's engineer wants to dump the stormwater into Midpoint Drive, recognizing that it will exceed the allowable flows without proposing a solution. On -site detention will help this situation. Engineering 16. An additional T of right-of-way for Midpoint Drive must be provided and dedicated on this property. 17. The access points into this site do not line up with existing access points on the other side of Midpoint Drive. This could be a problem. Please discuss this concern with the Engineering Department. g. Specify the surface and/or markings for the pedestrian walkway in the parking lot between the two buildings. Is it to be painted on the asphalt or will it be of a different material (pavers, scored concrete, etc.) and color. The latter is preferable. h. It appears that the service area behind Building A is still part of the driveway and landscaping needs to extend into the southeast corner of that site, even with the proposed fence. I. The designated "Industrial" on the buildings (on the Site and Landscape Plans) is a general heading per the LUC. Are the specific options going to be light industrial, heavy industrial, warehouses, research, etc.? The uses must be specified on the Site Plan. Measuring the property line between Lots 15-A & 15-B, where the 25' wide sewer easement intersects with it on the subdivision replat, shows that the location of the building envelope as defined on the Site Plan would have an overlap of a corner of the envelope into the easement. The proposed Building B could never be shifted into that sewer easement. The building envelope should not be within the easement whatsoever. Please contact Jenny, Peter, or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined reports and plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 8. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 9. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 10. An addition to General Note 5 on the Site Plan should further commit to the rooftop and ground -mounted mechanical equipment's compliance with Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC. 11. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department stated that bicycle parking needs to be added near the entrance to Building A. Also, 6' wide bicycle lanes are needed on Midpoint Drive. b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property [Midpoint Drive], and posted on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). C. The proposed building exceeds 5,000 square feet for Type V construction and must be fire contained or fire sprinklered. d. Corrosive, flammable liquids, reactive, or toxic materials if used, stored, or handled on -site must have a Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis completed and supplied to the Current Planning Department and Poudre Fire Authority. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 5. A copy of the comments received from Sharon Getz of the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 6. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Locate the proposed bicycle rack near the building entrance to Building B. The one at the westerly end of the parking lot is very near the street, out of good view from the building and could create a security problem. b. There does not appear to be a bicycle rack proposed for Building A. Please locate one near the entrance to this building. C. Additional handicapped ramps should be located as shown on the highlighted Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. d. Will the one proposed trash enclosure, as shown at the entries to the service areas on the Site Plan, be sufficient for both buildings? e. What is the proposed fence, at the southeast corner of the site behind Building A, to be constructed of and how tall will it be? Fences to be used for screening purposes cannot be chain link. The applicant must provide a detail/elevation of the fence showing height and materials. £ There are no street trees being shown along Midpoint Drive. There must be trees either in a parkway or behind the sidewalk. If a sidewalk does not exist, can one be detached to allow for the required street trees in a parkway? Streets, Walkways and Parking. The definitions of these types of buildings are as follows: Commercial development shall mean any land development activity except development activity intended solely,for residential, industrial and/or light industrial use. Mixed use shall mean the development of a lot, tract or parcel of land, building or structure with two (2) or more different uses including, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, public uses, personal service or entertainment uses, designed, planned and constructed as a unit. It is clearly understood that industrial uses or warehouses will need some associated, accessory office use with the operation. In this case, if the buildings are truly warehouses, industrial, or light industrial uses with only accessory office space then they do not need to comply with Section 3.5.3 of the LUC. However, if the intent is to provide office space to businesses unrelated to the industrial uses in the buildings, as "some potential office use" would strongly suggest, then the buildings would be defined as either commercial or mixed -use development and would be subject to the requirements of Section 3.5.3 of the LUC. This was expressed in the conceptual letter dated April 10, 1998. The Planning Objectives and Site Plan will need to be very clear regarding this issue so that the LUC can be appropriately applied. A modification of the standard may have to be requested. 4. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion if a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150' from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. Any building not meeting this criteria shall be fire sprinklered. NOTE: Buildings A and B are out of access and shall be fire sprinklered. Commur-ty Planning and Environmental - rvices Current Panning City of Fort Collins August 10, 1998 Linda Ripley VF Ripley Associates 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Linda, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the PROSPECT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 15, Project Development Plan - #28-98 that were submitted to the City on July 2, 1998, and is offering the following comments: 1. Under the City's development review process (and because the submittal date was Thursday, July 2nd) the starting date for the initial 4-week review process began on Wednesday, July 8th, with the first staff discussion of the project on Wednesday, August 5th. The project planner's comments to the applicant are then due within the week following staff review, and in this case it would be Wednesday, August 12th. 2. This property is located on the "east" side of Midpoint Drive near the intersection of Midpoint Drive and Sharp Point Drive, in the Prospect Industrial Park. This industrial park is located south of East Prospect Road, east of Timberline Road and is in the I - Industrial Zoning District. Warehouses, offices, and industrial uses are permitted in this District, subject to an administrative review (Type I) and,public hearing for a decision. The Project Development Plan (PDP) must go to a public hearing before an administrative hearing officer for a decision unless any modifications of standards are required, which would automatically change the request to a Type II, Planning and Zoning Board review. 3. Are the buildings in this development to be office, warehouse, or industrial uses? This really is a primary use question. The applicant's narrative in the Planning Objectives refers to it as a mixed -use warehouse/office facility, with the facility being primarily an industrial land use with "some potential office use". Section 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings of the Land Use Code (LUC) sets forth the Relationship of Buildings to 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020