Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 15 - PDP - 28-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)r Planning 13. 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. 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. The number of copies of each revised document to be submitted is defined on the attached Revisions routing Sheet. 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, *tevelt Project Planner cc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Water/Wastewater Stewart & Associates File C. Show all appurtenances, which are associated with water main lowering in the lowering detail (i.e.: gravity blocks, elevations, size/location of rebar for gravity blocks, etc.). Additional comments can be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about these comments. The following comments/concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review Meeting on October 14, 1998: 8. 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. This comment still has not been addressed and it is a BIG concern. 9. The drainage plans are not yet in an acceptable form. They lack a drainage summary table and off -site drainage solutions. 10. The plan as proposed is not complying with the City's water quality p0001e< measures requirement. A variance to the requirement has been °r` requested but no justification for the variance has been submitted. Engineering 11. The sidewalk along Midpoint Drive needs to be a 5' wide detached walk. The Site Plan is not consistent with the utility plans. 12. The setback from Midpoint Drive to the first parking space on the westerly side of Building A may not be enough. There should be a minimum of 50' from the street flowline to the first space and in this case there it is questionable. area for office uses. * example: if all the floor area is industrial uses then there could be a maximum of 47 employees in the two buildings (35 spaces divided by 0.75 = 46.666). d. A trash enclosure detail should be provided on the Site, Landscape, or Building Elevation plan. e. Will vehicles be parking in the service areas for the buildings? If yes, the service area behind Building B will need to be screened in a manner similar to Building A. f. Will there be any exterior building lighting on the southwest and northwest elevations? None is shown, other than in the canopies. If more lighting is planned then it must be shown on the building elevations. Please contact Jenny, Peter, or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 5. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan of 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. 6. 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. 7. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. Place curb stops one foot from the rear of utility easements and meter pits no more than two feet beyond that. b. Concrete encase the sanitary sewer main 10' each way at the water main crossing when the sanitary sewer is above or within 181' of the water main. NOTE: Buildings A and B are out of access and shall be fire sprinklered. (Planning Comment: It should be noted that General Note 13 on the Site Plan does commit to both Buildings A & B being fire sprinklered) 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. (Planning Comment: It should be noted that General Note 13 on the Site Plan does commit to both Buildings A & B being fire sprinklered) d. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire hydrant. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 4. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Locate the proposed bicycle rack nearer the building entrance to Building A. ,.\ Dr— , b. Be more specific about the potential uses in Building B as there are numerous "industrial" uses permitted. C. How many people will be employed in these buildings? The parking allowance is determined by 0.75 spaces per employee for industrial uses and 3 spaces per 1,000 feet of gross leasable floor 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 primary office space to businesses unrelated to the industrial uses in the buildings, as the proposed uses in Building B (as shown on the Site & Landscape Plans) 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. The Site Plan still shows Building B, Industrial/Office Uses to be set back from the property line/right-of-way a distance of 20'; therefore, a modification of the standard would have to be requested. 3. 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. Commun: Planning and Environmental SL ,ices Current Planning City of Fort Collins October 21, 1998 Linda Ripley VF Ripley Associates 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Linda, Staff has reviewed your revisions for the PROSPECT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 15, Project Development Plan - #28-98 that were submitted to the City on September 23, 1998, and is offering the following comments: 1. 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. 2. 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 Streets, Walkways and Parking. The definitions of these types of buildings are as follows: 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020