HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY CENTRE PUD CIRCUIT CITY STORE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-10Mitchell Blankenship ALA.
MIDLNARCHITECTS
R 8 ASSOC A ES
Joseph E , A rA
1833 vi rR y acuIOROW
l eaa via«y 3omevam
Foreio,
Gordon A Forrest, A.I A.
Glendaie, Oairtrnnia 3121
Herbert H- Horowitz, A.LA-
161AI246-60W
Won K. Kim, AILA.
FAx;alal 240 1-0
Gscar E. Leidenirfr ost, A I A.
Jay Martinez
Javan Nabili, A 1 A.
Lucy Padilla
September 30, 1996
Vincent H. Petito, At A,
Andrew L. Quarress
John C. Barlow, A.I.A.
City of Fort Collins - Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Ted Shepard, A.I.C.P.
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
Re: Proposed Circuit City Store, Harmony Town Center
Fort Collins, Colorado
LHA ID 96018
Gentlemen:
This correspondence will outline the planning objectives which we attempted to follow in the
organization of the site and the development of an architectural concept for building form and
exterior design development for this project.
This project is being developed as a part of the Harmony Town Center (H.T.C.) which adjoins this site
on the East and South sides. As such, our prime planning objective was to coordinate the
organization of this site to maintain continuous public vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns with
the H.T.C. and to coordinate the proposed service areas with those at the adjoining site.
The Architectural treatment for this project will be consistent in scale, building form and detail with the
design theme established for the Harmony Town Center. The proposed exterior materials for the
Circuit City building will be consistent with the H.T.C. exterior material pallette.
Additionally, we have incorporated many of the planning criteria and standards described in the Fort
Collins Land Development Guidance System and the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines
(which will be directly applicable to the adjacent H.T.C.).
We appreciate your consideration of our proposed project and look forward to a prompt and
successful completion.
Very truly yours,
LEIDEN FROST/HOROWITZ & ASSOCIATES
f r
4Jose. cio, FyyA
JEB:rf r
cc: Files
May 30, 2000
Mr. Robert C. Goltermann
Timberline Development, LLC
600 Grant Street, Suite 620
Denver, CO 80203
RE: Harmony Centre PUD (aka Harmony Marketplace)
Dear Mr. Goltermann:
This is in response to your letter dated March 8, 2000 (copy attached) requesting reconsideration
of the reimbursement request for $211,859.28 for the "enhanced crosswalks" on College
Avenue, Harmony Road, and JFK Parkway. Matt Baker forwarded this to me for review and
reconsideration.
It is clear from the PUD Final comments that colored, stamped concrete crosswalks were
considered important by our Planning and Zoning Board and our Transportation Planning
Department. Your designers then included these on your site plans and utility plans, and
scheduled them for construction along with all of the other off -site improvements. Fortunately,
the crosswalks on JFK and at the Harmony/JFK intersection were easy to construct in
conjunction with the; other street improvements in those areas. The crosswalks at the
Harmony/College intersection, however, were another story. To construct these properly, your
designers and contractors had to meet all of the City's and CDOT's requirements for traffic
control, for minimizing the traffic impacts to the public, and for constructing a structural product
that would withstand the pounding it would receive at the busiest intersection in Fort Collins. 1
do not believe that this was adequately anticipated, and clearly this is what caused the costs to
exceed your budget.
In reviewing the Development Agreement for this project, I can find no specific mention of the
enhanced crosswalks. The Development Agreement is clear, in paragraph I.E., that the
developer agrees to install and pay for all of the public improvements shown on the plat, site
plans, landscape plans, and utility plans. Later, in paragraph II D. L, the items eligible for street
oversizing reimbursement are spelled out, and enhanced crosswalks are not mentioned. In
discussing this issue with members of our staff who worked on this project, no one is aware of
any other agreement made by the City that would indicate our willingness to pay for these
�i , e C � -,/ F-A�k (�c 0
Page 2
Harmony Centre PCD
May 30, 2000
improvements. If you have other information or documentation concerning such an agreement, I
would be happy to look at it.
Feel free to call me at (970) 224-6015 if you would like to discuss this issue further.
Sincerely,
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
Attachment
cc: Charles Woods, Timberline Development LLC
Gary Diede, Director of Transportation Operations
Matt Baker, Street Oversizing Program Manager
MARCH & LILEY. P.C.
ARTHUR F. MARCH, JR.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
I UCIA A. LILLV
110 E, OAK STREET
.I. BRADFORD MARCH
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 ARTHUR 0 MARCH
(970) 482-4322 1908-1981
Fax f97M 482-5719
November 15, 2000
Mr. Cam McNair
Fngincering Department
City of Fort Collins I IAND DELIVERY
281 N. College Avenue
Port Collins, Colorado
RI : Street Oversizing Reimbursement/Harmony Centre PUD
Dear Cam:
Our firm represents Timberline Development, LLC, the developer of Harmony Centre PUD
("'timberline'"). This letter is to present additional information and to request a reconsideration of
your decision to deriy street oversizing reimbursement to Timberline for costs of the crosswalks at
the intersections of I larmony Road and College Avenue and JFK Parkway and College Avenue in
the amount ol' $21 1 ,859.28 (the "Crosswalks").
Based on your letter to Timberline denying the requested reimbursement, you state that
fmbcrline did not adequately anticipate the costs of the Crosswalks, causing an increase in the
original sweet contract amount. You then conclude that since the Development Agreement does not
speci f ically mention enhanced crosswalks, the costs therefor cannot be reimbursed. I do not believe
that the City's denial of reimbursement for the Crosswalks on the above -stated basis is legal ly sound
and would ask you to consider the following factors.
The Development Agreement for Harmony Centre PUD states that Harmony Road
i in prove mcuts are reimbursable, "for oversizing the street from local access street standards to major
arterial street standards..." and specifically references reimbursements for oversizing of Harmony
Road and JFK Parkway. The fact that the Development Agreement then goes on to cite other
specific elements to be included in such reimbursement does not in any way preclude reimbursement
Mr. Cam McNair
November 15, 2000
Page 2
for the Crosswalks which are a part of the oversized street section. This is further evidenced by the
provisions of Subsection II.D.2 of the Development Agreement which lists items which arc
specilicalk excluded from street oversizing reimbursement (and which does not mention
crosswalks). Obviously, if the intent of Subsection ILD.1 was to exclude from reimbursement
cvcrything not specifically referenced within Subsection ILD.1, then Subsection 1I.D.2 would be
complctcly unnecessary. Such an interpretation would also be contrary to City Code provisions
governing street oversizing reimbursement, which in Section 24-111 define street oversizing
improvements as. "...those capital improvements needed to construct arterial and collector streets,"
and including, "without limitation,...pedestrian way...." (Emphasis added.)
I he second factor we would ask you to consider relates to the factual circumstances which
gave rise to the disputed $211,859.28 in costs. All of those costs relate solely to changes in the
design and construction of crosswalks in the oversized portion of the affected intersections. fhe
changes were required by the City after the final utility plans were approved with the original
crosswalk design and after the Development Agreement was signed by the City. The rationale for
this requirement was that the City's standards had changed and the construction of the Crosswalks
now needed to comply with those new standards. Setting aside the issue of how the City could
legally impose such a change when Subsection 1.13 of the Development Agreement specifically
requires that improvements shall be constructed in accordance with approved utility plans which
remain valid for a three-year period, the fact is that the City did make such a demand and told
fimberlinc that it Could not receive a certificate of occupancy unless and until the changes were
made. Particularly under such circumstances, any changes so required by the City should fall
squarely under the street oversizing reimbursement provisions of the Code as well as the general
reimbursement statement of Subsection II.D. I of the Development Agreement.
I .ct's consider your assertion that Timberline did not adequately anticipate the requirements
for the Crosswalks. "that is absolutely true. Timberline could not have anticipated that the City
would require unilateral changes from approved plans, contrary to the terms of the City Code and
the Development Agreement, and refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy until the changes were
made. It would seem a very difficult proposition for the City to assert that this would be a reasonable
basis on which to deny reimbursement.
Matt Raker, in his letter to Timberline dated February 29, 2000, states as a ground for denial
o f reimbursement that the construction of enhanced crosswalks was agreed to by Timberline as part
ofitsprojeclapproval. What Timberline agreed to was the construction of crosswalk improvements,
but not the enhanced crosswalks ultimately imposed by City staff, and that is why they were designed
and approved by the City in the final utility plans, always subject to the City's obligation to
reimburse for oversizing costs.
Mr. Cam McNair
November 15, 2000
Page i
The salient facts remain that the costs requested to be reimbursed by Timberline were
necessitated solely by the City's requirement for changes to approved utility plans, and crosswalk
improvements fall squarely within the Code definition of oversizing improvements. Under the
above -stated circumstances, it is Timberline's position that it is entitled to full reimbursement ofthe
$21 1,8i9.28.
The City may also want to consider the policy implications of present position. If the City
is saying that any changes which occur in a project after a development agreement is executed are
not subject to normal City reimbursement provisions, i believe you will find developers very
unwilling to cooperate with the City in making improvements which may be desirable to the City.
"Thank you fix the opportunity to present this additional information. I look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
MARCH & LILEY, P.C.
%I
/i
By: --r -- i
L,L,iciq/A. Eile`t
r.
LAL/glr
cc: Joe Goltennan
Paul Eckman, Esq.
[ %d N AI AI':I l:umoiry (earn, PI U ( M KI( NAIR II TTI3R I Nl W,
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
December 15, 2000
Ms. Lucia Liley
March & Liley, P.C.
1 10 East Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524-2880
RE: Harmony Centre PUD
Dear Lucia:
I have once again reviewed this request for reimbursement for the costs of constructing concrete
crosswalks. After serious deliberation and consultation with staff, I can find no reason to change
my earlier conclusion.
The City only reimburses for the oversized street features that are required by our standards.
Enhancements added by the developer, whether for marketing purposes or at the suggestion of
City staff/boards/commissions, are done at the developer's expense. Enhanced crosswalks are
not a part of our standards (although they will be when the Urban Area Street Standards update is
approved by City Council). The enhanced crosswalks were not a requirement from the City
based on our design standards or LOS (level of service) standards — they were a request based on
concerns from the Planning and Zoning Board. We did reimburse for bike lanes, oversized
sidewalks and medians that the developer installed in accordance with our standards. We did not
reimburse for the turn lanes or other intersection improvements that were required to mitigate the
developer's impacts. And we will not reimburse for these enhanced crosswalks.
As I stated in my letter of May 30, 2000, the developer indicated agreement to install these
enhanced crosswalks by including them on the site plan for the project. The designer also
included a design for them in the utility plans. The design for the crosswalks was inadequate;
however, this was not detected during the plans review process. It was only when the contractor
was about to build the crosswalks that the deficient design was recognized. I am sorry our plans
reviewer did not realize that the durability and constructability of the crosswalks as designed
would be inadequate, but as I said, these enhanced crosswalks are relatively new features that are
not covered in our design standards. As you know, the City's review and approval of utility
plans does not constitute a transfer of responsibility from the design engineer to the City. We do
not accept liability for errors or omissions, and that is clearly noted on the plans. So the changes
in the design and construction of the crosswalks were a result of less than adequate attention to
detail by the designer in the first place, not changes in the City's standards as your letter states.
�til i i3or :,w liinr-. _) L715511 (970,_"_t-c605 f1\ j0701__i .,
us
It is not uncommon for changes to be made to utility plans after a project gets underway. Your
letter seems to imply that the City somehow becomes the owner of a project as soon as the plans
are approved and the development agreement is approved. Your interpretation implies that the
City should become financially liable for all changes that occur after that point, and this is
simply not practical nor appropriate.
I am sorry this misunderstanding has arisen. In hindsight, it would have been better to have this
discussion about who pays for what at a much earlier stage in the planning/design process.
Please let me know if I can be of further service in this matter.
Sincerely,
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
cc: Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Gary Diede, Director of Transportation Operations
File