The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutONE PROSPECT PUD AMENDED FINAL - 17 90B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 4 MEETING DATE 8-27-90 PLANNING1 ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: One Prospect PUD, Amended Final, #17-90B APPLICANT: The W.W. Reynolds Companies c/o Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3030 S. College Avenue #200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: The W.W. Reynolds Companies 4909 Pearl East Circle, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the Final PUD for One Prospect to decrease the building footprints for buildings C and D, to add a second story element to the northern sections of buildings A and B, and to include a daycare center as an allowable use with this PUD. The proposed project is located on the south side of East Prospect Road, between Specht Point Road and Prospect Parkway and north of Midpoint Drive. The north half of the property is zoned I-P, Planned Industrial, and the south half is zoned I-L, Limited Industrial. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request to decrease the square footage of buildings C and D and to add a second story element to buildings A and B remains in conformance with the criteria of the Industrial Uses point chart of the L.D.G.S. The second story elements will be below the 40 foot height limitation and will be architecturally compatible to the approved elevations. Adding a daycare center to the list of proposed uses is in substantial compliance with the approved Final which allows support uses, such as office supply shops, book stores, and food service uses. Daycare centers are an allowable use in the IL, Limited Industrial zoning district, and can be considered a support use for a planned industrial complex. The amended PUD is in substantial con- formance with the existing Final PUD. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. 00 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT fill a .r�a� y ^ Q `; • , ; t^ � a .1�� .. �: Ir, '= Qr ' A :%r "':XI•�! ... . . r. 1 _ �._� ..,>r� t ,� ��a•'3w .tbl, •1�.. � .,. Biel.`I117'iI:IN 2420 SQ F1 OFFICE / R&D SPACE FOR LEASE 2540 Frontier Avenue Suite 108 Boulder, Colorado • Reception area, four private offices • 600 S.F. open production area w/ overhead door • Private washroom • Tenant controlled WAC • Excellent visibility on Pearl Street and Foothills Parkway FOR FURTHER INFO: MARK LOCKWOOD 303/442-8687 RICK WOODRUFF 303/442-8687 ' , f yti THE Yv W CO�MPANIES 1419a14ttrStreet Suitefl= FCP.5=166& Boulder Cotorada80306% 303/442-8687 Fort Collins3031482-48M One Prospect PUD, Amended Final, #17-90B • August 27, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background: The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: N: i-p; Seven Lakes Business Park (Seven Lakes PUD) S: I-L; Larimer County Detention Center (Center Point Park 3rd Subdivision) E: I-P; Advanced Energy and I-L; Vacant (Prospect Park East PUD) W: H-B; Vacant The approved project is a replat of lots 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of Pro- spect Park East PUD which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 27, 1984. The Master Plan for the entire Prospect Park East PUD (lots 1-16) was also approved in August of 1984. These lots (1,2,13,14,15, and 16) made up Phase Two of the Master Plan and were designated for light industrial uses including high tech business uses, offices, support retail, research and development facilities, warehousing, light manufacturing, assembling and other non -offensive light industrial uses. The preliminary plans for One Prospect PUD were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 25, 1990. Final plans were approved on July 23, 1990. 2. Land Use: Land use associated with the Amended Final, with the addition of a daycare center as an allowable use, is not significantly different from the approved final. The project remains in conformance with the original eval- uation against the Industrial Uses and the Business Service Uses point charts of the LDGS. The project achieved a score of 50% on the Industrial Uses Point Chart. Points were awarded for being functionally a part of an existing planned industrial park and for being located adjacent to an arte- rial street. The project achieved a score of 75% on the Business Services Point Chart. Points were awarded for being outside of the South College Avenue Corridor, for being a functional part of an industrial park, for its mixed use concept and for being on greater than 2 acres of land. The project would be built in two phases. Buildings A and B, the two northern buildings, would be built first, with buildings C and D to be con- structed approximately 6 months later. This phasing is necessitated by the Spring Creek floodway map amendment which the City has applied for from FEMA. Buildings C and D, as well as the landscaping associated with this second phase, may be delayed if final amendments to the FEMA floodway maps are delayed. It is the intention of the developers to build the entire complex as one project. 3. Design: The Amended Final proposes to convert 4,800 sq. ft. of the southern section of Building A to an outdoor, fenced, play area for the proposed child care center which will occupy the southern most bay of Building A. The outdoor One Prospect PUD,Imended Final, #17-90B • August 27, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 3 play area will be fenced with a six foot high wood fence with brick sec- tions to match the building. The interior will be a grassy play area with additional landscape elements such as ornamental trees and various shrub- bery to soften the lines of the wall/fence and to provide additional buf- fering from the noises of the interior loading/parking area. Additional landscaping is proposed along the exterior of the fence to soften the lines and blend the fence element with the building facade. Approximately 4,800 square feet have been deleted from the northern sec- tions of Buildings C and D and the buildings have been moved 10 to 20 feet further from Midpoint Drive. Storm drainage issues on the site require that the separation between the northern and southern buildings be a greater distance than what was shown on the Final Plans. To accomplish this 2,400 square feet have been deleted from Building C and 2,400 square feet have been deleted from Building D. Approximately 7,000 square feet of additional landscaping is proposed for the areas vacated by the proposed buildings. The Amended Final proposes a two story element to be built on the northern sections of Buildings A and B, along the Prospect Road frontage. The com- bined total square footage of these second story elements would be approxi- mately 11,600 sq. ft. Total building square footage for the Amended Final would be 94,000 sq. ft. as opposed to 92,000 sq. ft. for the approved Final PUD. Architecturally, the two story elements would match the color, tex- ture, and materials of the approved final plans for the buildings. The finished buildings would be similar in character to the existing Vipont and Advanced Energy buildings to the east of this site. Landscaping and berming around the perimeter and interior of the site should sufficiently buffer parking and loading areas from view along the four roadways. Parking lot entries and islands would also be landscaped. Utility boxes, trash containers, and loading areas would be screened from roadways, pedestrian areas, and public view. All plant materials are to conform to minimum specifications. Landscaping, signage for Prospect East, and the walkway are already in place along Prospect Road. In general, all landscaping for the Amended Final will conform to the standards and spe- cifications of the approved Final PUD. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: The buildings and uses proposed for the Amended Final are compatible with the surrounding land uses in Prospect Park East, Prospect Industrial Park (south on Midpoint Drive), and Seven Lakes Business Park (to the north, across Prospect Road). No neighborhood meeting was held. 5. Transportation: With deletions and additions to the final plans the net increase in build- ing square footage is a relatively minor change and will not cause a sig- nificantly different traffic pattern than what was presented in the Pro- spect East Business Park .Traffic Impact Study conducted in May, 1984 and revised with the One Prospect PUD final. This study indicates that the One Prospect PUD,Imended Final, #17-90B • August 27, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 4 present street system and signals can handle this projected development. The addition of a day care center does not change the traffic patterns indicated in the traffic impact study. According to the City Transporta- tion Director, access and circulation proposed for the site are adequate as proposed and should not be adversely impacted with the addition of a day care center. 6. Storm Drainage The southern half of the property is currently classified by FEMA as flood - way and therefore, must be phased until the floodway limits are revised. The City is in the process of having the FEMA floodway maps revised by FEMA to reflect the revised Spring Creek Master Plan which takes into consider- ation recent improvements to the Spring Creek Drainage Basin. The City's Stormwater Utility anticipates this process to be completed within 6 months to one year. The changes proposed with this Amended Final, to separate the buildings in order for stormwater flows to be carried safely through the site, were made in addition to any requirements or constraints on develop- ment of the site as based on the FEMA map amendments. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the One Prospect PUD, Amended Final is in substantial con- formance with the approved Final PUD. Therefore, staff recommends approval of One Prospect PUD, Amended Final, #17-90B. ITEM ONE PROSPECT PUD NUMBER 17-90 J • „®„ EAST PROSPECT ROAD MIDPOINT DRIVE LAND USE BREAKDOWN SIGNATURE BLOCK VICINITY MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION l wsml p E'mccm One Prospect PUD at Prospect East LEGEND AMENDED A�„� "" 11(_//j/71I�1I(FINNf1AL SITE PLAN i aw.eewrc Ar( V V �1-�0 0� • 1 •I EAST PROSPECT ROAD ..—• —...1 vnnc I 1 PLANT LIRT LANDSCAPE PHASING PLAN �BT wlo�eor •ono [.Lla TWO ONE —A M M0000. MI- One Prospect PUD at Prospect East AMENDED FQIINNAL LANDSCAPE PLAN .� o w m — — sm •. Q a 8 ❑- -❑ -- ----------------------------- TVPOCA6 CE6MMATM M RM MAY 5L4LE V? _L _L J - _ �_____ J -- - - -� TYMAL BLEVATOO99 ®S TWO OTOR T PO B,Q9 E. Pak CO L.l L4C4 a's lhty 5}t-OiB M E AT __1_________________ ___ _ _ J _J l L _A@l_ ______________________________ ___ _ _ _ _ l FpPUCAd W MATOW o8 OME 8409tv 1" an I TVPMAd MEAN kELWAV1M 1 ROSPECr 'pup 0 1.4 -900 0 IIIIIIINIIIIIIII ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPUCABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION b m. anuan =04 ands Will me aeeWn a swatmav If no, please explain a�"°��`'�� Yes No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABAITY 1. Social Compatability �/ 2. Neighborhood Character v �/ 3. Land Use Conflicts �/ 4. Adverse Traffic Impact �/ ✓ PLANS AND POUCIES 5. Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY 6. Street Capacity 7. Utility Capacity ✓ B. Design Stanaards 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting 11. Water Hazards RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & SloDe Hazard 13. Significant Vegetation 14. Wildlife HabRat 15. Historical Landmark 16. Mineral Deposit 17. Eco•Sensitive Areas 18. Agricultural Lands ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19. Air Quality 20. Water Quality V 21. Noise 22. Glare & Heat 23. Vibrations 24. Exterior Lighting 25. Sewages & Wastes SITE DESIGN 26. Communiry Organization we ve 27. Site Organization 28. Natural Features ✓ 29. Energy Conservation ✓ 30.Shaaows 31. Solar Access 32. Privacv �3, Open Soace Arrangement 34. Building Height 35. Vehicular Movement 36. Venicular Design 37. Parking 38. Active Recreational Areas 39. Private Outdoor Areas 40. Pedestrian Convenience 41. Peaestrian Conflicts V 42. Lonascaping/Open Areas 43. Lonascoomg/Buildings 44 Lonascaping/$Greening 45. Public Access 46, S,an, I V 17