The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSPRING CREEK CENTER PUD FINAL - 17 90D - CORRESPONDENCE - TRANSPORTATION ISSUEFrom: Bob Blanchard To: Mike Ludwig Date: 5/28198 2:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Spring Creek Center PUD Trip Generation Since we depend on Eric for the analysis and support of the condition, it seems appropriate to remove the condition. See if you can get the info from Eric for the file. From: Eric Bracke To: Bob Blanchard, Mike Ludwig Date: 5/28/98 2:16PM Subject_. Spring Creek Center PUD Trip Generation Mike and Bob: Base on the traffic condition placed on the.above=stated PUD, additional traffic analysis regarding the Spring Creek Center PUD has been conducted by Matt Delfch. The analysis included a comparison of trip generation rates for 79.9 KSF of Business Park, General Office Bid, Single Tenant office, and Office Park. The trip rates vary by only an insignificant amount (size being the limiting factor). Other than the jail and the school, the other portions of the area have developed as a typical business park. Also, the retail portions of the development were separated in the Trip generation portion of the TIS. Additionally, after reviewing other office park developments, I can't think of any other development where this type of condition has been placed. At this point, I believe it is appropriate to remove the traffic condition placed on the development. Eric CC: Dave Stringer, Kathleen Reavis MAM8-98 THU 3:45 PM FT COLj�NS STREETS MAy-ae-i99B 13l2l 1IHEW LA_LIt-H Vt- FAX NO. 303 221 6270 P. 1 �.J,Jy/1./VNw1 Ui d '7 t Z 2 Vol Libby class, W.W. Reynolds Companies Eldoa ward, Cityscape urban Design City of Fort Collins staff > Matt Delioh i TMB: May 13, 1998 5980=Lc. ; spring Creek Center pUD trip generation analysis (File: 9683ME03) N This memorandum responds to a staff comment that ...... no more than 30i of the total square footage of the multi -tenant buildings (Lots 31 4, 0, and 1) may be occupied by nos-industrial/nOn-warehousing uses (such as retail, restaurant, or, office uses) without the review and approval of a X4inor Amendment by the City of Fort C0113115. Svch Minor Amendment sbali include a traffic letter amending the approved Trdnsportation impact Study, aaiess such requirement is waived by the city Traffic anginear., Bvsinesa Park was used as the general land use for all buildings than were not designated with specific land uaea. This seemed to be appropriate at the time the original txnFfic study *as Prepared. spring Creek Center is located in a bueineaa park known as Prospect Park. 2n selecting Business Park, I did notexpect the mix of uses stated in Trip Generation, Sth Editior 6th 'Edition to become a limiting factor for any of the uses within spring Creak Center. In. my 32 years experience as a traffic engineer, I have never had a limit such as is being suggested placed on a land use. z F Reading further in the description of Business Part in TS3,lZ donerptIgn, I could have selected a number of other land use categories for the buildings proposed in spring creek Comet. Among these are penaral Off lee Building, Single Tenant Office Building, or Office Park.. Pone of these have the percentage breakdown that is given in the Business Turk cacegory. However, by the fact that the word office is in the titia, one could reasonably.deduce that the categories, were largely made up of office uses. The four lots t3, 4, 6; and 7) have a Combined floor area of 79,900 square feat. Table 1 3ho.rs a comparison of the trip generation fo;e this Floor area using the different land use categories mentioned ;Lin this memorandum. In all of these categories, the daily trip generation ranges from 880 to 1019 trip ends, the morning peak hoar trig generation ranges frota 114 to 142 trip ends, and the afternoon peak hour trip generation tsliges from 102 to 130 trip ends. These differences are considered to be minor and insignificant when conducting an operational analysis at key intess4et3ons. It is concluded that placing a 308 limit on the office use is not reasonable, since the trip generation of i00% office will generate the same traffic as the Business Park use. MAY-28-98 THU 3:45 PM FT COJf tNS STREETS FAX NO. 303 221 6270 MA`f-28-1998 13� �'TTHEW AELICH PE Table 1 Trip Generation AN 4M hand use Daily In out in out 1. Business Park 1019 96 16 24 79 79.9 KSP (Code 770) (Rate) 112-76) (1.20) (0.23) (0.30) (0.99) 2. General OPti.ee Bldg. B$0 109 15 20 99 79,9 10F (Code 710) (Rate) (11_01) (1.37) (0.19) (0.25) 1.241 3. Single Tenant. OBE_ Bldg. 924 126 is 21 117 79.9 KSF (Code 715) (Rate) [lirS7) (1.56) (0.20) (0.25) (1.46) 4. OYLiee BAX)t. 912 124 1S 17 103 79.9 KSF (Code 750) (Rate) (11.421 (1.55) (0.19) P. 2 r.w TOTAL P.03 SPRING CREEK CENTER PUD 5/6/98STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS The March 2, 1998 traffic letter from Matt Delich (approved by Eric) indicates that the ITE 6th Edition defines "business park" as having an average mix of 20-30% 5 office/commercial and 10-80% industrial/warehousing. Based upon discussions among the Current Planning Department, Engineering Department and the City y\o Traffic Engineer, it has been determined that General Note 12 on the Site Plan should be modified as follows: Multi -tenant buildings (Lots 3, 4, 6 and 1) may include those land uses �d listed in the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart and/or the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the LDGS. However, based upon the March 2, 1998 Spring Creek Center PUD traffic addendum, no more than 30% of the total square footage.of the mufti -tenant buildings (Lots 3, 4, 6 and 7) may be occupied by non-industrial/non-warehousing uses (such as retail, restaurant, or _office uses) without the review and approval of a Minor Amendment by the City of Fort Collins. Such Minor Amendment shall include a traffic letter amending the approved Transportation Impact Study, unless such requirement is waived by the City Traffic Engineer. Review and approval of a Minor Amendment by the City will also be required for any land uses not listed in the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart and/or the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the LDGS. V2. Information such as access easements for private drives and between lots for shared parking lot drives are still missing on the Spring Creek Center PUD Final Plat. Please submit a revised/complete Plat. ✓3. Long dormers or a clear story are suggested on Buildings 3 and 4 in order to provide a visual break for the rooflines. Please consider. ,004. The design of the sidewalk and drainage sw.ale on the east side of Lot 5 has not been amended as agreed to at the February 26, 1998. Please revise. _ S01 wor K din b ✓S. The note which references the Specht Point Road and Midpoint Drive pedestrian crosswalk (and also the Specht Point Road and East Prospect Road pedestrian crosswalk) is not in compliance with staff's request on February 26, 1998. The enhanced pedestrian crossing should be a patterned concrete crosswalk, not surface applied vinyl or paint. Please revise the pedestrian crosswalk design and note. ,46. Please straighten the walkway at the southwest comer of Lot 3. 6, 7. Please delete the note regarding multi -tenant buildings located beneath the Land Use Breakdown. 8. Please place the trees that are proposed on the west and north sides of the Lot 2 building in, sidewalk tree wells, rather than a five foot wide planting bed adjacent to the building. 9. Please refer to the Landscape Plan for additional. landscaping revisions. 10. Please delete the note on the elevation sheets that reference "basic architectural intent", etc. 11. Please indicate where proposed utility meters are located and note that the meters will be painted to match the color of the building surface. 12. Please add a note to the Lot:2 building elevations that the windows will be tinted and that no window signage will be allowed.