Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH COLLEGE PROPERTIES ANNEX - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2012-01-19CITY OF FORT COI i INS, %A1 T AI IVKNtT'b VYtIGt MEMORANDUM Paul L anspery, Assistant City Manager Chuck Mabry, Planning and Development Director Donald C. Deagle, Assistant City Attorney DATE : November 21, 1978 SUBJECT: South College Avenue Annexation and Zoning 484-4220 EXT 352, 336 NOV 2-7 1978 As indicated at last night's (11/20/78) Planning and Zoning Meeting, we may anticipate extensive controversy and disagreement once this matter reaches the Council for their consideration. Present plans call for Council consideration at the first meeting in January, 1979. The subject properties are located on nearly the entire block east of College Avenue between Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road. Diffi- culties may be anticipated for the following reasons: 1. ZVFK Architects have coordinated and structured a - series of six "super blocks" for zoning purposes. We have never encountered an approach like this in the past. 2. The developers are looking to -the City to establish a special improvement district for the construction of the major roads and utilities in the area and will be requesting the City to make substantial amendments to our SID Ordinance to accomplish this goal. 3. The general commercial development along this area of College Avenue is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 4. The tracts under consideration involve substantial multiple ownership which compounds our difficulties in securing compliance with any covenants, conditions, etc. At the Planning and Zoning Meeting, the Board voted to recommend approval of a zoning scheme which was neither sought by the appli- cant nor recommended by the City. At several times during the CITY OF FORT COLLINS PUBLIC WORKS AND WATER UTILITIES MIEMOIR2MIDQTM ate' DATE: April 30, 1981 TO : See Distribution List FROM: Roger E. Krempel, P.E., Director of Public Works & Water Utilities RE Recognition of Ditch Company Needs The attached letter from Glen Johnson and Bill Stover to the Planning and Zoning Board is a good reminder to all of us to give do consideration to the ditch companies interest in all that we do that affects their operation and property. I am distributing this to all those whose work may in one way or another affect the South Side Ditch Companies. Please be sure your employees are aware of this. RK: s 1 Distribution: Roy Bingman Mauri Rupel Mike Herzig Bob Smith Bob Lee Larry Schneider Rick Ensdorff Mike Smith Curt Miller Jim Hibbard Dennis Bode M n MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 523 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 WILLIAM C. STOVER ATTORNEY AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET -SUITE 220 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BOS24 April 27, 1981 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: South College Properties Superblock Plan #1 Gentlemen: TELEPHONE: (303)482-3664 In regards to the above property, apparently being developed as a Y.U.D. by the City rather than individual developers, the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company has numerous, and we11 consider very important, matters for the City to consider. Over the past several years, the P & Z has been helpful and cooperative in working with the ditch companies in reconciling the inevitable conflicts between the continued viable use of the ditch companies and the demands of a developing urban community. There have been instances where projects have been approved to the great detriment of the several South End Ditch Companies, and others approved resulting in inevitable conflicts between the nonwater users and the companies, resulting in hard feelings and occasionally in some economic loss to the ditch companies. These have primarily resulted from P & Z personnel being new on the job plus a failure in the line of communications between the planners and the ditch companies. The above project only affects one of the ditch companies, the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company, but at a vital part of our system, and since the City itself is doing the planning as its own project, we feel this is an opportunity to establish procedures vital to the continuing operation of the companies and in contrast to some developments which have been extremely harmful to the companies, i.e. many years ago, in the construction of the bridge by the City entering Meadow- lark on the northeast, adjacent to Drake Park, curbing placed - in conjunction with the bridge construction precludes entry of company vehicles for maintenance and rescue purposes. This n n Planning and 'Zoning Board Page Three April 27, 1981 particularly in the cases of developers selling off lots, the individuals do not know of, nor understand, the rights of the ditch company or the need for these rights, and some violent disputes arise and threats are made by those suffering damage in the ditch company's ordinary and usual duties along the ditch bank. In addition to such use problems, such problems arise as the historic right of the ditch company to place the debris removed in ditch cleaning on its banks without the need for removing the same, creating irate phone calls from the ditch neighbors. In light of the above, the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company, in particular, and the South End Ditch Companies in general, stand ready and willing to give suggestions, specify requirements and discuss in detail those elements of the P.U.D. which involve and will in the future involve the ditch companies. Not by way of threat but just a general statement should be made that the directors of the ditch companies are bound by law to - .protect the interests of the ditch companies' stock- holders, including the City of Fort Collins which is a large stockholder in each of these ditches, and these interests must be and will be protected in any way necessary. Very truly yours, G en A. Johns , Presidents William C. ver, Secretary cc; Mr. Roger Rrempel Mr. Maurice Rupel Board of Directors - No. 2 Ditch I If %4SO APR 2 �9 A ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXT. 700 December 10, 1981 Mr. T. J. Pease Pease Home Improvements 3848 So. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Pease: I am writing in response to your letter of December 4, 1981, to Joe E. Frank and Mauri Rupel of the City's Planning and Engineering Departments. As you probably know, the City has been approached by certain of the property owners in your area, represented by Mr. Dennis Donovan of Osprey Homes, for the purpose of discussing a possible improvement district or other mechanism for the improvement of Muddy Road. My understanding of the proposal as it has been presented would involve the Potential abandonment of Muddy Road adjacent to your property, at least in part. I think though that at the present time I am operating in somewhat of a vacuum inasmuch as I am not certain of the location of your property, nor am I certain as to the precise intentions of the developers in your area. I can certainly appreciate your concern and I, too, believe that you and your neighbors should be actively involved in discussions pertaining to any improve- ment or realignment of Muddy Road. I have been assured by Mr. Donovan that he will be contacting each of you to explain the intentions of the property owners which he represents in these negotiations. I think it would be a big mistake for the City to pursue an improvement district without first informing you of the impact of such a district upon your properties and without receiving your input concerning these matters. Accordingly, by copy of this letter to Mr. Donovan, I am suggesting that, after he has contacted you and explained the proposal as he wishes to present it, it might be appropriate for us to sit down together in conference at the City Hall with such of your neighbors as would be willing to attend, as well as with the developers proposing realignment and improvement, for the purpose of discussing any issues which may be of concern to any party. On behalf of the City, I would be happy to attend such a meeting as would Mr. Frank and Mr. Rupel. Mr. T. J. PeasNaW • December 10, 1981 Page Two I suspect that in the final analysis, some improve- ment to Muddy Road and the continued utilization of Muddy Road for vehicular traffic, although perhaps through some realignment, is in the best interests of the community at large inasmuch as I understand that there presently exists some traffic difficulties in gaining access to and from College Avenue with the existence of a traffic light, and it is perhaps also true that, as our g Y properties eventually develop, you will stand to gain some substantial benefit from the improvement to Muddy Road. That is not to say, however, that a present improvement of Muddy Road should not be conducted in such a fashion to take into consideration Your particular needs as they exist at this time, and it seems to me that the City's primary goal in this connection would be to assure that the proposed development, if and when it occurs, is in consonance with the best interests of all adjoining property owners. It is for this reason that I propose a meeting of all the parties. Sincerely, t i W. Paul Eckman Assistant City Attorney WPE:sh CC: Mr. Dennis Donovan Osprey Homes Mr. Joe Frank Mr. Mauri Rupel l 303/221-4147 Corporate AOrANstrotion 303/211-4620 Commerckg DIVWon & Con$tructbn 303/221-4982 Customer Sen4ce 303/879-7260 steomboat DMWon 11.13 STO'NEY.MILL DR:, FORT COLLINS, '`COLORADO 80525 -0sre pInc. December 16, 1981 Mr. Roger Kremple Director of Public Works City of Fort -,Collins Post Office Box'S$o Fort Collins, Colorado 8OS22 Re: Special Improvement District for Landings Drive .and Boardwalk Drive Dear Roger: As indicated in our 'brief phone conversation last' Friday., I am representing several property owners within The Landings, P.U.D., and within the South College Properties are that are interested in forming an improvement district in the City.of Fart Collins for constructcin of the above refer- enced collector streets, As you suggested, a dratring is transmitted with this letter outlining the proposed district boundary. All of the property owners, except possibly some of -those on thenbrth side of the existing City right-of-way for Muddy Road, are strongly in favor of the formation of a Special Improvement District. The completion of these collector streets and associated utilities are of financial benefit to each property owner`fronting;on the streets, to the South College Property owners in general and to the City of Fort Collins in at least two -ways. First, the collector. streets and related utility improvements are important in providing adequate fire, police, electric, water, sewer, transportation/ traffic circulation and, other services to this and surrounding parts of the City. Secondly, the.increasea_,iax base created by commercial and high density residential development that will occur on properties adjacent to these collectors will provide significant revenues to the City. The purpose of this letter is to request a meeting with you and department heads that might have a reason for being involved in the planning, design, financing or other aspect of tho"#provement district. I would appreciate having the meeting some time* s4ay, Thursday or, if necessary, Friday morning of this week in a placeconvenient to you,'' THE PIER THE.I WOaDS • HARBOR WALK 7• PARK CENTRAL TpNEHENGE • BOARDWALK- CREGER PLAZATHE LANDINGS •PARK, HARMONY COVE • THE SHORES • LAUREL ST. STATION - • BEAR RUN, Air. Roger Kremple - December 16,'1s81 Page Two Re: Special Improvement District for Landings Drive and. Boardwalk Drive The purpose of this '%eting is to' establish a preliminary list of necessary improvemdnts relative to departments within the City and ,to establish the support by City staff for the.project before additional meetings are heft =with property owners and City Council members. Presently, if a.property owner calls the City offices regarding the proposed S.I.D., he or, she is told that 100 participation will be required before the City will back the district. This makes the formation axtreme,ly'difficult and, in fact, is not entirely true. I mentioned to you that it is possible that the majority of the properties in termstof average which frontonthe collectors might want to be assessed for all -`of the improvement costs. That would eliminate the opposition of anyone concerned only about paying assess- ments. If there are one or two extremely small owners who just do not want the traffic or`whatever, -I'm confi.dent the benefits of the S.I.D. far outweigh the Ostrimental aspects. In addition, the routing and location of Boardwal,'k- Troutman, Landings, etc.,, have been agreed upon and approved by C_ eil and staff.for some time. I believe in fact that these improvetents'are considered an absolutely vital part of the South College Properties approval. Please let me know when we can meet. Since I have discussed the legal aspects of formation of this S.ID. with Paul Eckman, it might be advisable to include him in the meeting. Thank you for your assistance and for taking a leadership role in this matter. ,' be:,4m Hays' E:! ! Y G F0 -1 C L1, 1"'!_ro P.O. �it� � '7��+?, ��>; t . u.L�a , °�r�.c>,.x�.�,� � r _ {��i($,,31 S 1-4_ L(1 tx�. /2() BRIEF I NG [IFNIi IRANDUH DATE: December 18, 1981 TO : John E. Arnold, City Mlanager f= ROi4: Roger E . Krempel , P.E. , Director of Public b;ork s & 14ater Utilities' f RE South Colleges Proper -Lies - Initial Development John, you will recall a great effort several years ago in connection with South College Properties. This is the area on the east si4;: of South College between Horsetooth Road and Haridony Road. This area is extremely fractured into multiple ownership with piecemeal rural type development. A few of the large tract owners with development pot onti al pulled the group together in an attempt to achieve a master plan for orderly development and efficient land use. This was a difficult task with trying to accommodate the diverse interest of the many owners, especially the small tract owners. This did lead to a plan, professed cooperation among owners, annexation and a commit- ment by the City to possibly use Special Improvement Districts for some of the public improvements because of the likelihood that 100 concurrence might not be achieved under any condition. As interest rates began to climb development potential was diminished for the past 18 months or so. Now Osprey, Inc. and others desire to do a small part of the total South College Property level op,ierrt utilizing an S . I . D . m a I rt ly t0 extend the Boardwalk from the Landings west to its intersection w4Ith College Avenue and also a small portion of the main north collector JFK Parkway. Our staff has held an i,itial meeting with other departments who would be involved and find no insurmountable problems. In that we have five new Council people who perhaps never heard of South College Properties, it might be appropriate to take 30 minutes at a January work session to bring them up to date on the planning for this area and explain the possible S.I.D. and its impact before taking any further action of any kind. John F . Arno 1(I Decninheir18, l9,31 f'cige Iwo South College Properties You find a conceptual map a.ti:ach d. Also a very preliminary idea of the a���o�irit of the S. I . r). You might want to pass this information along to the City Council. RK/sb cc: Curt Smith Ron Wood No Text n Memo to Paul Lanspery/Chuck Mabry November 21, 1978 Page 2 n course of the meeting, the P & Z Board requested the applicants -to' - give them additional time to consider the proposal; but this course of action was firmly rejected by the applicants (who are repre- sented, incidentally, by Art March). P & Z consideration of this single item was.in excess of four hours. In view of the complexity of this item. the substantial legal considerations involved and the usual time limitations we operate under at an actual Council meeting, I would most earnestly suggest we hold a staff briefing on this item in December prior to the preparation of the Agenda. Because of the special improvement district considerations, in addition to the lawyers and the planners I would also like to see Public Works and Finance involved. It seems to me that the best time to act on this matter would be some time prior to Christmas. Thank you. DONALD C. DEAGLE Assistant City Attorney DCD/rr cc: Roy Bingman Ron Woods a Street cons:_ ucti;:n $451,065.00 Water & Sewe:r- mains 142,000.00 Stone Drainage 82,0U,00 Total cOnSt-rucLion cost estLuete 7A-ninistration, Efeg;�I & Engirieering (1596) 101,259.00 CO'rtnIc' i-01-i FiTi.alicing @ 20O) 158, 7-).00 Cn1lect-ton & Certification (20) 15,526.00 Total to be financed $950,220.00 Annual cost to Eu=--)rt.jse $190,000.00 (ica-xiinii-ti 15% -.L7*c)r 10 years) r_ cc: Tom Hays Bob Lee 303/2214747 Corporate Administration 303/321-4620 Convywelal Division & Construction 3=221-4982 Customer Service 303/879-7260 Steom400t MWon 1113 STONEY HILL DR., ORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 0s-Y December 23, 1981 Ire nc. To: Willard W. Anderson/Margaret and Fred Bockman/Ed-Oard Umlauf/John B. Moore/H. E. Lestum/Clyde and MargaretMasters/Theron and Marjorie.. Pease Un Re:. Boardwalk,v.s .and INandins Drive in the, South College Properties Seasons greetings' I am writing to invite you to a meeting of property owners adjacent to the referenced collector streets in the South College Properties area. The meeting will be held in the office of Osprey, Inc., at 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, on 'Tr ay, January.: 7, 1382, at 7:(l© p,j Stoney Hill Drive is the entrance to Stonehhenge P.U.D. from Lemay Avenue and is located one black south of Stuart Street and approximately one-half mile north of Drake Read. The Osprey offices are in the second of two. redwood buildings, im%041 tely east of Lemay Avenue on the south side of Stoney Hill 'Drive. We feel the meeting is extremely important to all concerned. If you are not able to attend, please try, to have a representative,in attendance. I`will briefly explain the status of the collector streets at this time so that you might give it SoMe thought prior to the meeting. First, -1 will introduce myself and explain my involvement. My position with Osprey is that of .Vies President''Of. band, Devel-oprnent. i have been with the firm for over two Years and have greatly enjoyed ;my participation in the planning and development of ,several toP notch projects. I have a consulting civil engineering background. IaTi4etaber, a. meeting was held at Mr. Jim Petersen's home regarding Muddy Road and B#ardwalk Drive, Mse`in attendance other than`Jim and his wife Were Mr. Pease, Mr, An4orson, M�rS, Masters, Reid Rosenthal of Osprey: and myself. : THE PIER • THE REDWOQD • l ARBOR WALK PARK CENTRAL STONEHENGE + THE LANIJI • BOAROWALK • PARK PLACE • CREGER PLAZA HARMONY COVE THE SHORES • L ST. STATION • BEAR RUN r. „+ As in our first meeting, we will again be discussing the existing and the proposed alignment of the streets, the formation of a Special Improvement District (S.I.D.) to make street and utility improvements, and the needs and desires of individual Owners I relative to their property. At our first meeting, Mr. Petersen and presented some preliminary cost estimates for using an S.I.D. to finance the improvements. He;has since discussed those numbers with property owners not attending that meeting. 1 have authorized some field survey work to gather :information on the existing property corners and topography of the Muddy Road alignment. Additionally, i`met with City staff to review the -plan for the South College Properties, prepared and paid for by property owners in the area. wsld ;like to make• the"posit`ioti= th'�eprty Owners whom.I re#esent 1. They are very definitely .interested in the stream construction occurring in early and mid`1982` 2. They favor a Special Improvnent District approach to the improvements. 3. They want to cooperate with every property owner involved and try to address whatever concerns and needs they might have. 4, They feel strongly that these improvements will,greatly enhance the value of each property, 5, They also ;Feel this Special Improvement District will greatly benefit the "City of i�ort Collins. If you would care to discuss this matter with me prior to the January 7th meeting, feel free to call me at (303)221-4747, on either the 4th,'Sth, or bth of January. 1 hope you hzve'a t h xda season and -look forward to seeing the meeting; n. You d S ncerely, Dennis L. Donovan, P.E. Vice President -Land Development OSPREY, INC. Cat koij Romonthal Jim Petersen Roger Krremple,/ Curt Smith RECEIVED DEC 2 9 n n DEVELOPMENT CENTER EXT. 655 November 12, 1982 Carr Biecker ZVFK Architects/Planners 218 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Carr: Due to the fact that the 100 percent of the property owners within the South College Properties Superblocks 5 & 6 are not in agreement with the proposed Master Plan for those areas, the staff will initiate the actions necessary to.have the plans reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. The applicant, therefore, will be City Staff rather than the property owners. In reviewing the draft plan you submitted on October 5 to the Development Center, the staff was concerned about the proposed access points along JFK, College, and Landings Drive; and the proposed land uses and building heights in Superblock 6. The latest revised Superblock Plan successfully addresses our access concerns. The staff will be recommending to the Planning and Zoning Board the appropriate land uses for Superblock-6 as medium to high density residential with limited neighborhood commercial uses. Also, the building height for that superblock will be according to the zoning ordinance (40' maximum) with special review required of buildings over that height. Thank you for your cooperation and effort. If you should have any further questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Joe Frank Senior City Planner JF/gla cc: Mauri Rupel, Development Center Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Engineering Analyst n CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES � I�I�iL®I!� A%I lID1U�ii TO: Joe Frank, Planning Office FROM: Tom Hays, Assistant Water Utilities Directoxj��_ RE: Water and Sewer Service to South College Properties DATE: February 22, 1979 At your request, we will try to outline briefly how we believe the area known as South College Properties can be provided with Utility Services. We believe the entire area can be served without any substantial problems. EXISTING SERVICES At present, the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District has a 14 inch wide water line in the east traffic lane of College Avenue. This water line serves all existing commercial and residential structures along College Avenue from Horsetooth Road to Harmony Road. The South Fort Collins Sanitation District has an 8 inch sewer line that serves the trailer park on Harmony Road. This line also extends north of Harmony Road to serve some properties along the east side of College Avenue south of Troutman Parkway. The City has a sewer line on the west side of College Avenue from Horsetooth Road south to the Prime Minister Restaurant. This line also serves some pro- perties on the east side of College, generally from the lumber yard north. The Landings, first and second filing also have water and sewer installed. The Warren Lake Trunk sewer has been installed to a point one half mile east of College and 700 feet north of Harmony Road. PROPOSED UTILITY EXTENSIONS The City has awarded contracts to extend the Warren Lake Trunk Sewer west to College Avenue. This will provide service to the southern two thirds of the South College Properties. Sewer service to the northern portion of the remaining area can be provided through the Landings. We have made preliminary calculations using the topography of the area and the proposed street pattern and feel that there are no significant difficulties to providing service to the entire area including that presently being served by the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. We are taking bids on February 21st for the last segment of -water line that will bring water service to the west side of College Avenue just south of Troutman Parkway. This line can be extended east through the South College M Page 2 Joe Frank February 22, 1979 Properties to serve the southern portion of the area. The northern portion can be served and tied in through the Landings. The proposed street network would provide a good distribution network for water service to the entire area. As the properties abutting College Avenue redevelop, water service can be extended to these properties from the City mains. The only problem of any consequence we can see in the entire area is one of phasing the development to provide service when it is desired. This can be handled readily with adequate master planning of the area. cc: Roger E. Krempel Jim Hibbard /kd M n C I T Y O F F O R T C O L L I N S ME140RAN DUM DATE: February 23, 1979 TO: Chuck Mabry, Planning and Development Director FROM: Roy A. Bingman, Director of Public Worksi"�� RE: Special Improvement District - South College Properties There are several significant policy questions which must be answered in connection with a special improvement district, as proposed by the petitioners for the South College Properties. 1. The first of the policy questions is whether the City should use a special improvement district to provide financing for subdivision improvements for an area that is largely undeveloped. The City generally has not done this in the past, but has required develop- ers to obtain their own financing for these improvements, as required in the subdivision regulations. There have been two exceptions to this policy in recent years, where the City initiated street improvement districts for the purpose of widening and rebuilding arterial streets. Even though each of these districts included large undeveloped tracts, the overiding purpose of the districts was for the City-wide benefit of widening the arterial streets to four lanes for traf fic flow and safety as part of the street development plan. In the case of South College Properties, the City Council will have to decide whether the overall benefit to the City justifies the creation of a special improvement district for the area. An additional question is where does the City draw the line on improvement districts. If this district is approved, there will most likely be requests for other districts. Some sort of criteria would have to be established to judge the implementation of additional special improvement districts. 2. The. second question is that of City participation in the cost of street improvements. Under present policy, the City expense for street oversizing, medians, landscaping, traffic signals and street lighting could be as much as $612,000. Based upon Page 2 Improvement Distt priorities for other projects, and the fact that the seven year capital improvements program is nearing completion, that amount of money is not currently available. If the City Council determines that a Special Improvement District is in the best interest of the City, there are several possibilities for dealing with the problem, which include: a. Assessing most of the oversizing costs, median development and landscaping and street lighting costs directly to the properties. This would increase the assessment against the properties and reduce the City expense to a more manageable amount. b. Bonding for the City expense incurred in connection with the special improvement district, and repaying the bonds over a longer period (such as ten years) from capital improvement funds. This could perhaps be combined in a larger bonding program for streets to provide needed street improvements City wide. c. The establishment of a "plant investment fee" for streets, for the South College Properties area, whereby the City would issue bonds for the oversize cost, to be repaid from the proceeds of the street plant investment fee which would be collected as the property developed. 3. The final question with respect to a special improve- ment district is whether the bonds are marketable when most of the property within the district is undeveloped. The Finance Director and City'Attorney are researching this question with the City's bond advisors. RAB/eve f✓f: CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: February 23, 1979 TO: Chuck Mabry, Planning and Development Director FRCM: Don Parsons, City Engineer TOUGH: Roy Bi.ngman, Director of public 1,brks RE: Special ImProvem nt District -South College Properties The implementation of the development of South College properties as a Special IrrProvement District would have a significant impact on the work load and scheduling in the Engineering Division. Several street and drainage projects such as West Mulberry Street and North College Avenue would be delayed as much as a year depending upon the time frame for construction of the South College Properties improvements. This estimate is based on the following two assuptions; 1) South College Properties would have top priority following the North Lemay Avenue Extension. 2) A consultant would be hired to do the design and assist in contract. administration. These delays would occur whether our staff size remained the same or expand- ed to handle the added work load. It would take at least six (6) months to hire and train new staff to handle our present work load and South College Properties. It is customary for the City to participate in a project of this type. We estimate that the cost of City participation could run as much as $612,000. to help pay for 1) landscaped medians in College Avenue, Kennedy Parkway and Harmony Road, street oversizing, street lighting and traffic signals. The extent of City participation must still be determined. DP/jc Robert Sutter architects planners drake office center ........... 333 w drake road ft. collins, Colorado 80526 ......(303) 223 - 5198 April 8, 1981 Mr. Curtis Smith, Planning Director Planning Division City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Subject: South College Avenue Superblock No. 1—Plan Submission. Dear Curt: Enclosed with this letter are twenty (20) copies of the subject plan and a copy of our letter dated February 3, 1981 which conditions the submittal requirements of that plan. That letter speaks to a "Neighborhood Concept Plan" and we under- stand the nomenclature of the submittal has now been changed to "Superblock Plan." However, the conditions of the enclosed letter should still stand as do the sub- mittal requirements which we feel we have fully complied with. As you know we have agreed to submit the enclosed plan per the planning staff's conditions with no exceptions. We have done this but must qualify that it is done under protest. Our protest deals directly with the access point off of College Avenue -at the mid -point of the superblock. It is staff's contention that that access point should remain as a right -on and right -off turning point. We feel that this access point should be allowed Left- on and left -off as well as right -on and right -off. To date the only justification that staff has made to us in s upportj of their argument is that a left turning access point would encourage additional traffice on College Avenue and defeat a major premise of the South College Annexation. We are in disagreement with this premise on two points. First it is not felt that in terms of total traffic flow on College, left -on movements at this intersection will have a significant impact. Traffic analysis submitted with the South College Annexation shows this to be true. Additionally, with a properly timed signal, left turning at this point can be controlled so as not to interfere with the overall flow of traffic along South College Avenue. Tbis also was shown in the traffic analysis submitted with the South College Annexation. Second, it is felt that this particular Superblock must be considered somewhat exceptional due to its proposed size of approximately 56.4 acres. The next closest superblock appears to be approximately 28.2 acres in size. Based on this consideration the potential for building square footage yield and the accompanying required parking and consequent traffic requirements is higher here than any other superblock. Mr., Curtis Smith 140 April 8, 1981 South College Avenue Superblock No. 1 page 3 development of the area depicted on it. It is our understanding that this plan will require review of the Planning Commission one time only. We thank you for your help in preparing this document and look forward to further discussing it with staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. Meanwhile, if you have any questions, please contact our office. Cordially, Robert A. Sutter, A.I.A. RAS:sfj Copies: George Hol ter National Car Rental Systems Les Kaplan Enclosure