Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT PARK PUD - FINAL ..... 3/25/96 & 4/08/96 - 21-95A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS23. Will the Payless plaza conflict with the drive-thru lane? RESPONSE: No. 24. Your design would not be my first choice. I strongly encourage you to compromise and seriously consider some of our suggestions. We are trying to work cooperatively and proactively with you as this is the purpose of having neighborhood meetings. I do not think you want our opposition at the P & Z hearing, or at an appeal to Council. RESPONSE: We will look at your suggestions. I think there are things we can do on the elevations. The plazas may be hard to visualize since we did not do a detail and the area is covered by trees on the site plan. 25. Will the stormwater runoff be pre-treated so that it does not pollute the wetlands? RESPONSE: Yes, we have worked with, the Stormwater Utility. They prefer that we construct two water quality ponds at the storm outlets so that solids can settle to the bottom and contaminants be filtered out. We looked at many alternatives but the water quality ponds seem to be best management practice. With these ponds, the wetlands should be protected. 26. The buildings look better than last time. 27. Regarding the street trees versus view preservation, maybe an analysis can be conducted to see what the impacts of the street trees would be. RESPONSE: Our guess is that street trees would block the view since they would be planted so close to the street. C1 RESPONSE: Keep in mind that the stucco band will be the background for signage. The signage will be individual letters, no cabinets. Stucco provides the best, background for high quality signs. Regarding parking, retailers do not like remote parking that is not oriented to an entry. 17. Will there be conflicts with the left -in and Hobbit Street? RESPONSE: Our analysis indicates there will be room for 15 cars in the center left turn lane between Hobbit and the proposed left -in. Based on the volume and frequency of trips anticipated for these two curb cuts, this should be ample room to prevent the interlocking left turn problem where cars going in opposite directions compete for space in the center left turn lane., 18. No matter what you say, I do not like the left -in off Shields. The street is just too busy. 19. The south elevation of the multi -tenant retail building needs work. Service doors with security lights will not provide architectural relief. Please consider columns, pilasters, roof breaks, or anything to enhance this area. RESPONSE: We can look into this, especially on the western half. 20. 1 am concerned that our economy may not always be booming as it is now. I would be concerned about vacant tenant space like Raintree was for so long. Once we get tenants in there, we need to keep them. 21 Are these buildings subject to the Big Box Standards? RESPONSE: No, those are triggered at 25,000 square feet. 22. 1 was in the retail business in Campus West for ten years. As a shopping center, Campus West is poorly designed. It is not supported by the townspeople, only students. This P.U.D. needs to be more neighborhood -friendly to succeed. You need more pedestrian plazas and amenities. You should provide more plaza space on the south and create an exciting place for people to come to. You should tell your tenants that there has to be a compromise and that the entire orientation and parking cannot be to the north. RESPONSE: Keep in mind that our plazas are not small. There are two of them that measure about 50' x 30'. A lot can be done in this amount of space. Fi RESPONSE: We have provided four-sided buildings. There will be the same amount of brick on all four sides so the south side will not suffer in appearance. We have provided landscaping to screen the loading area. 13. How about providing more plaza seating on the south to take advantage of the open space to the south? The P.U.D. does not seem to recognize the value of the green area to the south. You could take advantage of passive solar with all that southern exposure. RESPONSE: We anticipate that the eastern endcap tenant of the multi -tenant building will provide plaza seating on the east and south elevations. Keep in mind that our retail tenants will need service entries on the south. 14. Will the northern entries be covered and protected? RESPONSE: Yes, the entries will be covered but there will not be an arcade across the entire north elevation. 15. The multi -tenant building should be shifted to the north, provide southern entries, take advantage of the views. Colorado Grill in Park Central (Prospect and Lemay) has a nice relationship to the Spring Creek Trail that is oriented away from the street. This P.U.D. turns its back to the amenity. RESPONSE: Again, I understand what you are saying. Our tenants are telling me they must have a strong orientation to the streets in order to have exposure to the arterial drive -by traffic. Without the visual relationship to the street, with a perception of available parking, it is difficult to attract retailers. 16. If this project were to come through the system a year from now it would be rejected. The City is in the process of adopting new design guidelines for commercial development and this project would fail. The amount of parking along Prospect is excessive and offensive. The buildings should be moved up closer to Prospect for a stronger pedestrian orientation that is more neighborhood friendly. Parking should be more distributed. My feeling is that the stucco sign band is a use of cheap material. This should be upgraded. I support the protection of preserving the views to Long's Peak since we need to have close contact with our natural environment to protect our quality of life. Having said this, however, I understand that you have gained Preliminary approval. In fairness, I do not think you should be forced into a re -design of the P.U.D. But my preference is for the new urbanism, not the layout as shown. 4 8. Where is the Payless wall signage in relation to Shields. RESPONSE: The wall signage would be about six feet above Shields. 9. Will the view of Long's Peak be blocked by Payless? RESPONSE: Based on citizen input, we have pulled Payless back from Prospect and located the multi -tenant building as far west as possible to preserve the view of Long's Peak from the intersection. We have intentionally not placed any street trees along Prospect for a distance of about 300 feet as measured from the intersection. This should preserve the view. 10. 1 am concerned that the P.U.D. looks too much like Raintree Shopping Center with the buildings pulled way back from the street and all the parking located between street and building. This is a typical "auto -dominated" layout that would probably score a negative five on the Visual Preference Survey. The P.U.D. contains no "new urbanism" like pulling the buildings up to the street with imaginative store fronts and putting the parking in the rear. It looks like a continuation of the South College Avenue strip. Based on our advice from Peter Calthorpe, this project is too auto -dominated and lacks pedestrian amenities. I am disappointed that as a City, we are all working very hard to discourage this type of development. RESPONSE: We talked quite a bit about new urbanism at the Preliminary and during the previous neighborhood meetings. Our concern is that the neighborhood itself is not a new urbanism area and that customers will still need vehicular access. Our retail tenants tell us that a certain amount of parking, in front of the stores, is critical to success. We have provided an eight foot wide pedestrian path along the entire south property line to facilitate bikes and pedestrian. We have provided two plazas that can be used for pedestrian spaces. The Preliminary P.U.D. was approved based on this basic layout. 11. 1 must also comment that the east elevation of the Payless building looks stark. This elevation needs work. How about an entrance on the east or south elevation? RESPONSE: It will be difficult. The east elevation could probably be enhanced architecturally but an entrance would not work for Payless. The south elevation is the service area. There is no parking on the south since the building was pulled back from intersection. 12. You seem to be disregarding the view of the center as one comes up from the south having been on the Spring Creek Trail. This will be a popular approach for Hill Pond residents as well as other residents to the south. 3 RESPONSE FROM MS. REID: Yes, there is a cost to add a bus. Mr. Spiess has not determined whether the new route can be accommodated within the existing budget or will require additional funding. The Fall routing has not been worked out yet. RESPONSE FROM MR. SHEPARD: Without knowing whether there is an added cost, it may be difficult to assess this impact onto the developer. There is no precedence of assessing a developer to pay for bussing students. 3. Having a large bussed -in population is one of the arguments for converting Irish Elementary from a traditional neighborhood school into the Washington Core Knowledge School. Will adding a seventh bus place Bennett at risk for being considered a location for WCKS? RESPONSE FROM MS. REID: Yes, both Irish and Bennett are being considered but safety is a more important concern. 4. As a neighborhood, we support the neighborhood school concept and would oppose Bennett becoming the WCKS. If this development places our neighborhood school at risk, then we are opposed any mitigation measure that adds bussing and thus places Bennett at risk as a neighborhood school. RESPONSE FROM MS. REID: As principal, I am not opposed to this development. This property will likely develop as a commercial property eventually as an in -fill project. My concern is safety. The decision on where WCKS will be this Fall must be made fairly soon, and probably before this commercial project becomes a reality. 5. The Shields Street elevation for Payless needs work. It looks like a blank wall. More detail is needed. The condition of Preliminary is that this elevation should feature architectural details. RESPONSE: We will ask the architect to add details to this elevation. 6. Will the site have to be raised? RESPONSE: Yes, in the area of the front of the Payless building, the site will have to be raised. The site will still be below street level. Incidentally, the raising will allow us to provide a sidewalk connection from Shields directly to the front entry of Payless. Before, we did not think we could do this. 7. What is the relationship of Payless to Shields in terms of grade? RESPONSE: The building floor elevation will be about five to six feet below Shields. The site is presently about 10 feet below Shields now. 2 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Prospect Park Final P.U.D. DATE: February 29, 1996 APPLICANT: Mr. Tim Sittema and Mr. Ed Mullaney CONSULTANTS: Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates Ruth Clear, Traffic Engineer PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner The meeting began with a description of the changes made since approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. (June, 1995) and since submittal of the Final P.U.D. (January, 1996). The amount of retail square footage has been reduced from 60,300 to 41,500 square feet. The architecture now features a pitched roof with eight feet of brick on the wall section. A left -in only from northbound Shields is provided. All responses are from the applicant or consultants unless otherwise noted. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. At Preliminary, there was a concern that the left -in from Shields would create an additional street crossing for kids walking to Bennett School from south of the site. What safety measures have been taken to address this? RESPONSE: Both the City and the consulting team have been in contact with the principal from Bennett, Ms. Sue Reid, regarding this issue. Ms. Reid is available to address this issue. RESPONSE FROM MS. REID: Safety is our primary concern. Based on the amount of traffic at the Prospect/Shields intersection and the development potential of this particular site, we are investigating adding a new bus route for the Bennett attendance area that is south of Prospect Road. This would be our seventh bus and would make our school almost entirely a bussed -in attendance area. The two crossing guards at the intersection would still be provided. Ron Spiess, Poudre School District Transpiration Director, has been informed and agrees to look into adding a route for Fall of 1996, if the project becomes a reality. 2. Is there a cost to add a bus? Can we make the developer pay for this cost based on the impact of the project? 1 Cultura. .ibrary and Recreational Servica Forestry Division MEMORANDUM DT: March 19, 1996 TO: Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner FR: Tim Buchanan, City Forester —r-� RE: Prospect Park PUD Street Trees I met with the Prospect and Shields Neighborhood Group to evaluate the impact of the Prospect Park PUD tree plantings on the view of the mountains. The changes and procedure noted on the attached plan were agreed to. Some tree locations were shifted and smaller types used at the northeast corner of the property. Additional shrubs to separate the parking lot from the street are added. We were unable to adequately evaluate the impact of street trees on screening the mountains prior to development. Thus, it was agreed to evaluate and decide on the street tree planting after the development is completed. These changes and procedure should be made and recorded on the final landscape plan. attachment cc: Linda Ripley Emily Smith 281 North College Avenue • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (970) 221-6361 • FAX (970) 221-6586 THE rAR0LINA" �r�—A--�T�—A B B C HATTERAS' A B C HAS Small Arm Mount 20" 15-3/4" — HAPS Small Pole Top 20" 15-3/4" 23-3/8" HAM Medium Arm Mount 1 25" 19" — HAPM Medium Pole Top 1 25" 19" 27-3/4" HILTOW _/ A B C I HIS Smal4 Arm Mount 20" 12" — —HIPSSmall Pole Top 20 12" 18° HI A Pdinm Arm Mnlmi 3 95" 115" — FAMILY �D,--A A B C KIAWAH' A B C D M Cm�ll Arm AM,,nt 1R_7 /9" 1'7-t /7" _ I R" KIM fIIL LGIIC MIIII IVIUUIII L7 IU — I�IL LClff MIIII IVIUUIII LI-I/L 18 — IY HIPL Large Pole Top 29" 18" 24-1/4" KIPL Large Pole Top 27-1/2" 18" 25-7/16" — Note: 6' arm standard on small. 14'standard on medium and large HOW TO ORDER LUMINAIRES Select appropriate choice from each column. Lumnaire Distribution Lamp Light Source' Lens Line Luminaire Options Prefix Wattage voltaget Finish Small Arm Mount 2— Type 11 50 HPS—High Pressure Sodium CT— 120V Standard Brackets HAS — Hatteras 3 — Type III 70 50, 70, 100, 150 Watt Contoured 208V BRZ — Bronze DSB — Delete Standard Bracket HIS — Hilton FP — Perimeter 100 MH — Metal Halide Tempered 240V COA — Cocoa (Kiawah arm mount only — KIS — Kiawah Forward Throw 150 100, 175 Watt Glass 277V VAN — Vanilla see Bolt -On Bracket ordering Small Pole Top 5 — Type V 175 CP _ 480V BLK — Black information on next page.) HAPS — Hatteras Square Contoured MT— PLT — Platinum Fixture HIPS —Hilton Polycarbonate Multi Tap WHT — White PCR — Photoelectric Control KIPS—Kiawah Architectural MGR — Green Marble and Receptacle ILL — Less Lamp Medium Arm Mount 2 —Type 11 150 PS — Hi h Pressure Sodium HAM — atteras 3 — Type III 17� BRD — Brick RDG — Red Granite CL — Coated Lamp FS — Fusing for 120V and 150, 250, 400 Watt HIM — Hilton FP — Perimeter 250 SMV —Super Metal Halide KIM — Kiawah Forward row 400 (Vertical) 400 Watt GYG — Gray Granite 277V (except for 1000W Medium Pole To p 5 — Type V MH — Metal Halide LMS — Limestone DTS — Desertstone in 120V) FS1 — Fusing for 120V for HAPM —Hatteras Square 175, 250, 400 Watt GRN — Green 1000W HIPM — Hilton FD — Double Fusing for 208V KIPM — Kiawah and 240V FD1 - Double Fusing for 480V Lair e A Mount 2 - Type II 400 PS - High Pressure Sodium ICT - HIL - Hilton FP - Perimeter 1000 400, 1000 Watt Contoured HSS - House Side Shield KIL - lawah onward Throw SMV — Super Metal Halide Tempered RPP — Round Pole Plate Large Pole Top FA — Automotive (Vertical) 400, 1000 Watt Glass NO — No Options HIPL— Hilton Forward Throw MH — Metal Halide Color Decals KIPL — Kiawah 5 — Type V 400, 1000 Watt 45 — Light Gold Metallic Square 20 — Charcoal Metallic 55 — Black 94 — Blue Metallic of — Chrome 59 — Dark Green 51 — Dark Red 21 —Tomato Red 575 — Putty 50 - White EXAMPLE OF A TYPICAL ORDER HIL - FP-1000 -SMV-CT- MT- PLT -19 Note: Reflectors are field rotatable on medium and large fixtures. Note: When ordering a small Kiawah luminaire in a D900, T900, TN1200 or 0900 i 'Consult factory for Deluxe Mercury Vapor order requests. mounting configuration you must order a 14" arm. See Bolt -On Bracket ordering J tFor international voltages, consult factory. information on next page. lighting S951e105 ., c/) U • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The Hilton Series Black with Chrome Decol . . . . . . . • • • . . • . . . . . . . • • • • • • . . .. . . . . • • • • • • . J 7i i I! Z fm �!E 0 U The Hilton'"Series Cocoa with light Gold Metallic Decal The Kiawah" Series Gray Granite with Charcoal Metallic Decal F� J -4— EAHl�G�E1/A1i01� �CKt: rT �i -6 YWYESST KAJLW �VA G 0 SM Archiects Inc ONau a S Gary N Elp Bue T p1e.lYn pmu n A 10M1 F R11tli .N sas m osppo m mm a cmmaoo u omi � ome mpO. �.pM1 pPaM Cr W Q S a Z g a W o U (U v W b U)j J o O Q a o W Ir WESAA T B"4G ELEVATION �E, lre' . -o= n EAST BU",JlC ELEVATION 9CGLE SB" • ..-O' Y77: /1 SOUTH BALDING ELEVATION SM AmbboM >mc Gga10 R Sled Gary w Ell r a.. w wa lob E NnOa A. 91� @ Eq..mc m eNll 1FL � >m Gem cu ®I At blm EmMVe w Y F oo Z a a W o r- U 0 0 i LU a J o C0 — U 0 Q a a F— o W C N 2<wr<•<w reuerNc r+ocw4rt seam, w . M1 � V eoo r./ ._ f000 X • w. a N-, ERJQ STORE v awc r«u. t. u.e. • • utmm M W 4N ryas . .rw •aaaJ n+W\ MOJF TER +.ac •a rti a a� e M" TOP GE O OPIIOE/DATOARC/ _ ' 9LMLDfi OP T DOL ^ / CATTALS w wCTLAND / -yw� V f� O M MIOe1NYnww\••M TOP or BANK, -.r.. PLANTLI5T ._—__—___ --_ LEGEND W� SIZE T T l a e� OMC._ 4~ ors r t o n WATER WAUTT POND Daw+pR4� _ 2 +r�.�w r �.va .. • a NATIVE CRASS SEED - - svua2TF fleta _ — MR V OOKRS PERENNALS AND/OR _ AGGCNi PUNTS CLSTNO TRIMS TO REMAIN NI •, �• "ram.+~ :' EXISTING TRCCS TO Of REMOVED IN �� 5OJ<CD CONCRETE IN RwuoN roes _ INDI It" AE I � I I LANDSCAPE NOTES . I � '� FYI I <'w rW Z u �+s� •o"'.muw. wa �i I I � M � r .w..• r... ` p,y. �. rrww rnv Nw ea u. au ` W I < wa�u.+ aw .r+ae� vv �an.•e r�•. h °� �nnu•�iaws� r rw.s n qn ..0 m rw .m4 I PROSPECT PARK PUD _ l FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN — �RIPLEY ASSOCIATES 51. u PATE. Yw 1114W � RCVISIONS� nOBBiT STR_� ©wAo� rRoxrranwc r¢T o w eo No �OF� YaL[• �. 30 m NatTn euwN eT. LAND U5E 5TATI5TI05 PROSPECT PARK PUD OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATION NOTES FWAL ME PUN RIPLEY ASSOCIATES LEGAL PLANNING ZONING CERTIFICATE � � _ iue+c nos ro z mwno cruo.wwc T n.w owoua II—�L�1----II©ruonorrNa2 erten �6G4L' III OFI2 l' � W' MCYAM p4M1 !1. FO L City of Fort Collins Commu_ .y Planning and Environmental vices Current Planning MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner DATE: March 22, 1996 RE: Prospect Park - Street Trees - Condition of Approval The City Forester met with the representatives of the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association regarding the planting of street trees at the intersection. An agreement was reached that further evaluation was necessary after the Payless Building was constructed. In order to document this agreement, Staff recommends the following condition of approval be added to the Prospect Park Final P.U.D.: Approval of Prospect Park Final P.U.D. is conditioned upon a further evaluation of street trees at the intersection of Prospect and Shields. Such evaluation shall take place no later than six weeks after issuance of a Temporary/ Final Certificate of Occupancy. Such evaluation shall include the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association, the City Forester, the City Planning Department, and the Developer. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine if the planting of street trees is desirable in relation to the view of the mountains and the project. In the event that planting is agreed upon, the City would plant the trees during the next planting season. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002 Prospect Park Final P.U.D., #21-95A March 25, 1996 Page 7 the Board for resolution. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made). If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final Decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Prospect Park Final P.U.D., #21-95A March 25, 1996 Page 6 4.) The view of Long's Peak will be available during the winter months. 5.) A compromise may be to plant a species that will not achieve the typical height of street tree thereby preserving a portion of the view. 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The Final P.U.D. is in substantial compliance with the Preliminary. B. The five conditions of Preliminary approval have been satisfied. C. The issue of planting street trees along Prospect Road versus preserving an open vista to Long's Peak was offered by the Board at Preliminary as a non- binding suggestion. Resolution does not hinge upon satisfaction of any particular All Development Criteria but remains a choice based personal values. The preference of the residents is to preserve the view. The preference of the City Forester is to plant the trees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Prospect Park, Final P.U.D., #21-95A, subject to the following condition: 1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (May 20, 1996) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer or the City staff, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to Prospect Park Final P.U.D., #21-95A March 25, 1996 Page 5 F. "It is requested that the applicant investigate and evaluate the impact of providing the traditional formal row of deciduous shade trees along the Prospect Road and Shields Street frontages. It may be more in the public interest to preserve a view of Long's Peak at this intersection by maintaining an open vista or view corridor rather than to close the view off with shade trees. It may be that the view of the mountains may be enhanced by removing two shade trees. This request is not meant to be a condition of approval but is offered as a non -binding suggestion." In response, the applicant has deleted the street trees along the Prospect Road frontage for a distance of 300 feet back from the Shields Street intersection. At the February 29th neighborhood meeting, this solution was found to be preferable to a row of street trees that would block the view. This solution is not acceptable to the City Forester. Normally a commercial P.U.D. would be required to plant street trees at 40 foot intervals along public streets. In the case of the Prospect Road frontage, this represents seven trees. The City Forester is unwilling to allow the loss of seven trees at such an important and busy intersection. The Choices '95 capital project planted street trees on the north side of the intersection and the lack of trees on the south would result in a significant gap. The desire to create an urban design element, on a city-wide basis, by planting street trees along arterials outweighs the need to view Long's Peak. Finally, the commercial project will be enhanced by the street trees which will help mitigate the impact of the parking lot and commercial buildings. This issue was raised by the Board for consideration as a non -binding suggestion. Staff believes that resolution of this issue does not hinge upon satisfaction of any particular All Development Criteria but rather on a personal values. While the Board evaluates the merits of trees or no trees, please consider: 1.) The City does not have a view protection policy or ordinance while a street tree policy has been in place for over ten years. 2.) The absence of seven street trees along 300 feet of Prospect Road may open up the view to Long's Peak (the distant view) but will also open up the view to the commercial parking lot, commercial buildings, and apartments beyond (the near view). 3.) The view of Long's Peak may be more appropriately preserved from a public park rather than from a moving car. Prospect Park Final P.U.D., #21-95A March 25, 1996 Page 4 D. "The proposed left -in turn movement at the Shields Street curb cut is not granted an expression of approval with this Preliminary P.U.D. A request for a left -in turn must be accompanied by further information and will be evaluated by All Development Criterion A-2.1 at the time of Final P.U.D." In response, the applicant's traffic engineer has provided additional data indicating that the proposed left -in only (no left -out) from Shields Street will not negatively impact the level of service of the Shields/Hobbit intersection. The data indicate that there will be sufficient distance between the Prospect Park curb cut and the Hobbit curb cut so that there will not be interlocking lefts competing for space in the left turn lane. The installation of a median will prevent left turn exits to northbound Shields. By intercepting left turns and allowing access to the site from Shields, there will be less congestion at the Prospect/Shields intersection. The Transportation and Engineering Departments have analyzed this proposed left -in, with new a median in Shields, and it is found to be acceptable. If for some reason, this left -in is found to not work acceptably, then the City reserves the right to revoke this turn movement and remove the median at the developer's expense. (See attached letter from Transportation and Engineering.) Staff, therefore, considers this condition of approval to be satisfied and in compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.1. E. "The applicant is encouraged to increase the "pedestrian friendliness" of the Payless building. Since this building is close to the intersection, it should feature an architectural character that is more pleasing to view from the intersection. Features such as display windows and additional entries should be considered. Please refer to the Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments for further ideas. Enhanced architectural details will be evaluated by All Development Criterion A-2.7 at the time of Final P.U.D." In response, the Payless building now features a pitched roof with high profile asphalt shingles instead of parapet walls. There is now eight feet of brick on the walls instead of concrete block. The east elevation now includes a gable feature for horizontal relief. As a whole, the building has a more residential character. In addition, a sidewalk connection is now provided from Shields Street directly to the Payless front door. Staff finds that with these improvements, All Development Criterion A-2.7 is now satisfied. Prospect Park Final P.U.D., #21-95A March 25, 1996 Page 3 B. "Site lighting is not granted an expression of approval with this Preliminary P.U.D. At the time of Final P.U.D., additional information and detail shall be provided, including but not limited to type, number, and location of both pole and building -mounted outdoor light fixtures, type of light source, wattage and pole height. Site lighting to be reviewed by All Development Criterion A-2.15." In response, lighting will be a combination of poles and building -mounted fixtures as shown on the site plan. All fixtures will be down -directional and feature sharp cut-off luminaries. The light source will be high pressure sodium to match the City's street lighting. Wattage will be 250 watt at the south perimeter of the site which requires less illumination. Wattage will be 400 watt in the parking and pedestrian areas of the site. The poles will be the "Hilton" model from the "Carolina" series by L.S.I. Lighting Systems (see attached). Pole height will be 20 feet maximum. Pole color will be white to match the window trim. The condition of approval is considered satisfied and in compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.15. C. "Wetland protection measures, including but not limited to, stormwater filtration/pre-treatment methods, and velocity dissipation facilities are not granted an expression of approval with this Preliminary P.U.D. At the time of Final P.U.D., additional information regarding wetland protection measures shall be provided. Such measures shall include aesthetic considerations and complement the natural character of the wetland area. Wetland protection measures to be reviewed by All Development Criteria A-1.9 and A- 2.3." In response, the applicant has worked with the City's Stormwater Utility to solve the water quality issues by the construction of two water quality ponds. These ponds are located so that storm flows from the site, and Prospect Road, are captured and temporarily detained before being released into the wetlands south of the site. This allows solids to settle out and contaminants to be filtered. These two ponds are considered to be "best management practice" and have been reviewed and accepted by the Stormwater Utility and the Department of Natural Resources. With the two water quality ponds, this condition of approval is found to be satisfied and in compliance with both All Development Criteria A-1.9 and A-2.3. Prospect Park Final P.U.D., #21-95A March 25, 1996 Page 2 COMMENTS: Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L; Existing residential and business (Camera Corner) S: R-P; Existing multi -family (Northwood Apartments) E: R-P; Existing multi -family (Landmark Apartments) W: R-P; Existing and proposed multi -family (Stone Creek Apartments) The property has not been a part of any previous development proposals. A City Storm Drainage Improvement Project, including a new bridge at Shields Street, has recently been completed on the southern portion of the site. The intersection of Prospect and Shields was reconstructed in 1994 as part of the Choices '95 capital improvement program. Prospect Road was widened from Shields Street to Taft Hill Road in 1993, also part of the Choices '95 program. Prospect Park Preliminary P.U.D. was approved, with conditions, on June 26, 1995 with a total of 60,300 square feet. The Final P.U.D. contains 41,500 square feet, a reduction of 18,800 square feet. 2. Conditions of Preliminary Approval and Their Resolution: A. "Flush wall signs are not granted an expression of approval with this Preliminary P.U.D. At the time of Final P.U.D., additional information and detail shall be provided in order evaluate flush wall signs by All Development Criterion A-2.14." In response, the Final P.U.D. indicates that flush wall signs will be located on the north elevation of the four buildings. On Payless Drugs, the wall signage will be contained within the area enclosed by the gable over the front entry. Due to the proximity of the building to Shields Street (27.5 feet setback from property line), flush wall signage is not allowed on the eastern elevation. On the multi -tenant retail building, bank, and office/daycare, the wall signage will be contained within a horizontal sign band defined by the stucco area located between the brick wall and the roof eve. The wall sign locations are balanced in relation to the architecture of the buildings and are considered appropriate. The condition of approval is found to be satisfied and in compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.14. Signage allowance, height, and type and governed by the Sign Code. ITEM NO. 17 ' MEETING DATE 3/25/96 STAFF Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Prospect Park Final P.U.D., #21-95A APPLICANT: Mr. Timothy Sittema, Prospect Park, L.L.C. c/o Linda Ripley Ripley and Associates 223 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Mrs. Ruthann Mullaney 2422 South Downing Street Denver, CO 80202 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Final P.U.D. for a commercial development at the southwest corner of Prospect Road and Shields Street. The proposed uses are divided among four buildings. The anchor tenant is a 15,000 square foot, one-story, drugstore (Payless Drug) with a drive-thru lane located immediately on the corner. A 14,500 square foot multi -tenant retail building, which may include a standard restaurant, is located in the middle of the site. On the western portion, a 5,000 square foot building may include a bank, retail, or standard restaurant/fast food restaurant. The fourth building is 7,000 square feet, two-story, and may be an office, daycare, or school. Total square footage is 41,500 square feet. The property is 7.1 acres and zoned R-P, Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval with Condition The Final P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary. The conditions of Preliminary approval have been satisfied. Architectural forms are residential in character. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT