Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARDWALK CROSSING PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-05-28BOARDWALK CROSSING P.U.D. MASTER PLAN PLANNING OBJECTIVES A. INTRODUCTION Boardwalk Crossing is a community shopping center proposed for a parcel of land at the south west corner of the intersections of Boardwalk Drive and College Avenue. This proposed, phased development appears to meet the criteria put forth in the Fort It is the intent of the developer to provide an attractive, well -designed facility for the citizens of Fort Collins. The following text presents the qualifications of the development. B. RESPONSE TO LAND USE POLICIES It is the opinion of the applicant that this project responds favorably to numerous land use policies. They are outlined below with their appropriate response. POLICY 14 -• Urban development standards shall apply to all development within the urban growth area. RESPONSE - Boardwalk Crossing will provide proper street construction standards, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, and underground utilities. All ofthese will be constructed to meet city or state standards as appropriate. POLICY 15 -• Development in the urban growth area should be consistent with development policies set forth in the Land Use P-Qii� i _e_5__P1-an. RESPONSE - It is the intent of the developers to respond to this requirement by close coordination with all applicable agencies, by integrating policies of phasing, responsiveness to location, and by respecting appropriate utility requirements. POLICY 21 -• All levels of commercial development including convenience, neighborhood, community, and regional shopping which have significant negative transportation impacts on South College Avenue will be discouraged from gaining their primary access from College Avenue. RESPONSE - The applicant fully realizes the significant traffic problems on South College Avenue. Consequently, the applicant CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION May 23, 1985 George A. Holter 3501 S. Mason St. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear George, Consideration of the application for development approval for the Boardwalk Crossings PUD has been continued until the June 24 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to allow sufficient time for staff review, any revised plans or information must be submitted no later than noon Wednesday, June 5, 1985. Also, on Friday, June 14th, 8 1/2" x 11" PMT reductions of all plans and colored renderings of the site and building elevations will be due. On Monday, June 17th, ten (10) full size copies of the site, landscape, and building elevations should be submitted. The signed mylars of the final site, landscape, subdivision plat and building elevations and including a signed "Site and Landscape Covenants" document should be delivered to this office no later than noon Thursday, June 20th. It is important that the above considered at the June meeting. feel free to call me. Sincerely, oe Fr nk enio City Planner deadlines be followed if the item is to be If you should have any questions, please CC: Sam Mutch, Planning Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator Roger Booker, Architecture Plus OFFICE OF COti9f.._..... . --- -1.1 -1- I I.- I v. - - - - l I( l�Vllll'J, I VIVICIUV uu- - �JUj)LL -V/JV nG%/Gl (I KIA:NIT PI AKJK11A1G nl\/ICIr1N HOLTER REALTY REAL ESTATE SALES AND BUILDING 113 (303) 226-1900 REALTOR' GEORGE A HOLTER BUILDER AND R.E. BROKER July 15, 1985 Bonnie Tripoli City of Fort Collins Development Coordinator P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Bonnie, 3501 S. MASON ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 Please find enclosed copies of Amendment Agreement No. 1 to the utility agreement for the Boardwalk Crossing P.U.D. a Portion of lot 7 in the Garth Commercial Plaza. For clarification purposes of A. paragraph 2.C. Storm drainage lines and appurten- ances, it would be my understanding that the storm drainage lines and appurtenances would be for that particular phase only. A certificate of occupancy could be re- ceived by me for structures on one single phase of construction without the storm drainage lines and appurtenances being required for the whole eight acre site. If this is not your understanding of this admendment please let me know as soon as possible. If I do not hear from you I would like to assume that my understand- ing is correct. Thank you for your help in getting this PUD approved. Si►lcerely yours, George A. Holter GARTH DEVELOPMENT INC. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND GEORGE A. HOLTER COMMERCIAL SALES & RENTALS 3501 SOUTH MASON ST. PRESIDENT FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (303) 226-1429 (303) 223-4411 RECEIVED s7p 16 1985 September 12, 1985 Bonnie Tripoli PLANN11Na 3 Development Coordinator DFErARTMENT City of Fort Collins, P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins„ Colorado Dear Bonnie, I have a question concerning the paving of Boardwalk Street between College Avenue and Mason Street in the Boardwalk Crossing PUD. The new specifications for paved streets now acceptable to the City of Fort Collins have raised the cost almost double to what it would have been under the original design and utility agreement I had before for this street. By now you have probably guessed what my question is. Will the city reimburse me for this additional expense. I know it will for the additional width but I would like to have an answer regarding the additional base and thickness. If you will review my original utility agreement and subdivision plat and get and answer to me I would appreciate it very much. Thank you for your time and help regarding the above. Singerely, George Holter CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION September 19, 1985 Mr. George Holter Garth Development Inc. 3501 South Mason Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Dear George, This letter is in response to your question regarding possible City reimbursement for additional costs for upgrading the street sections for Boardwalk Drive. When a project comes in for review to go before the Planning and Zoning Board, we review it each time as a new project that must meet current standards. Thus Boardwalk Crossing supersedes any previous plans that had been approved and new standards must apply. The City will not pay for any additional costs relating to the change in City standards. The City, though, will pay for any oversizing that meets the requirements of Section 99-6.F, of the City`s Code. The City will attempt to collect from the property owner to the north their portion of the costs of the street improvement if you comply with Section 99-6.B.(6) of the Code. Basically this section requires that you enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City within 90 days from the date of approval of the Street by the City. Jim Hoff in the City Engineering Office can help you with this. Sincerely, Bonnie Tripoli Development Coordinator cc: Jim Hoff, Engineering OFFICE OF COMMUNITY If 300 LaPorte Ave • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303)221-6750 DEVELOPMENT. PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF:: FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING SERVICES November 5, 11985 Holter Realty George A. Holter 3501 South Mason Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear George: This letter will confirm the items we discussed by phone last Thursday regarding the paving of Boardwalk between College and Mason. The pavement section must be built in accordance with the redesign specified in the new soils report done for the P.U.D. The old pavement design for the subdivision approved in 1980 is not adequate. In 1981 the City adopted new standards because so many streets built by the old ones were falling apart. According to our development procedures, you are required to develop with a P.U.D. for the type of development that you are doing. With the P.U.D. process we are allowed to require upgrading of plans to bring the project into conformance with current City standards. That is what was done with this development project. You asked if the City could participate or help out with any of the additional cost. The Street Oversizing Fund will pick-up the cost of pavement in the center of Boardwalk for the additional width over a local street width. However, we have no other program that could contribute to any other portion of the street cost. You mentioned that you were not aware that you could have developed the subject property with the existing subdivision and, therefore, could have used your original design. I would suggest that you discuss this issue with the Planning Department staff if you feel you may have been misled. 4 ENGINEERING SERVICES If 300 LaPorte Ave 9 P O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 2211 -6505 George Holter November 5, 1985 Page Two I have one last item. Please continue to work with Jim Hoff and provide him with your street costs. He will help you in getting repayment from property owners adjoining the street improvements you paid for as they develop. If you have any further questions, please call me. Sincerely, Michael R. Herzig Acting City Engineer cc: Linda Hopkins HOLTER REALTY REAL ESTATE SALES AND BUILDING { (303) 226-1900 { GEORGE A HOLTER BUILDER AND R.E. BROKER Michael R. Herzig Acting City Engineer P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 03 REALTOR' 3501 S. MASON ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 November 14, 1985 Hand Delivered: Subject: Paving specifications for Boardwalk Street in the Garth Commercial Plaza, Boardwalk Crossing PUD. Dear Mike, Please let me take this means to discuss items in your letter dated November 5, 1985 and also call your attention to the utility agreement dated April 29, 1980 of which I am enclosing a copy of for your convienence. I have held off this long in writing or getting back to you waiting an answer from Carol Osborn in the public works department who was to discuss this with the City Attorney for a clarification. First perhaps it: should be considered that Mason Stree has now been installed for almost three years and seems to be holding up well which might substantiate ,.the belief of some of the paving contractors that the design we are now talking about may be somewhat overdesign2d. Second, in 1980 when the subdivision plat was filed and the utility agreement signed, this was Gone at this time to accomodate the city in getting Mason Street improved and neighboring property owners in getting utilities and the storm sewer line installed. Namely to provide for an easement across my property for the installation of the storm sewer. I believe this should show my willingness to co- operate with the City to make all this possible. Third, I cannot see that bringing the land under the PUD process" gives reason for, the City not honoring the utility agreement since developing under the PUD process was one of my options for development from the beginning and also when the 4th paragraph of page one which states the property may be developed as a PUD which is allowed in the Highway Business Zone. As I understand the zoning code any pro- perty may be developed any way for any use if done so in the PUD process, there- fore I don't see that a PUD should be considered as any change or provide for any reason whereby the City should not be obligated to honor our agreement. Fourth, you have stated in your letter that the City has no program to contribute to the cost difference in the designs, therefore I believe that the old'desigh should be reconsidered for this street. Afterall the cost difference is a little more than double making it possible to install two streets fo the old design for the cost of one street of the new design. Of course this is the Cities decision to make. HOLTER REALTY REAL ESTATE SALES AND BUILDING [13 (303) 226-1900 REALTOR' GEORGE A HOLTER 3501 S. MASON ST BUILDER AND R.E. BROKER FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 Fifth, I'm sure you are aware of the urgency to have this street completed. It is only a short time until the paving crews will be shut down for the winter. At this time I aim ready to have a paving crew move onto the job to start the work. My understanding of our conversations and your letter is that the City will not accept any other design for the paving other than the one submitted by Empire Labatory dated August 22, 1985. I would assume that if the Street was built to the old specifications it would not be accepted by the City and I would be unable to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant when it is completed which is scheduled for January 1, 1986. If this is not correct please advise me differently sincy your department has to approve all the utilities and streets for a certificate of occupancy. If I do not hear anything to the contrary by Monday November 18, 1985 from you I will proceed to install the street with the new design creating an extra cost of approximately $20,000.00. ,., If it is determined at a later date that our utility agreement is legal and bind- ing I would expect to be reimbursed by the City for the additional cost. Thank you for your letter regarding this project of November 5, and also for the Cities cooperation and participation of having the cost of the street shared by adjacent property owners. Due to the time schedule I am working under please accept this letter hand delivered to you. S' cerely, George A. Holter C IT i °y" OF FORT COLLINS COMIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION November 19, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: Carol Osborne, Public Works Administrator f— Mike Herzig, Acting City Engineer ,� FROM: Linda Hopkins, Acting Director of Community Developmendojb_� RE: Boardwalk Crossing PUD This memo should clarify and reiterate the key points of dispute on the street construction requirements for the Boardwalk Crossing PUD. As we are aware, Boardwalk Crossing PUD is the new plan for a portion of the area previously platted as the Garth Commercial Plaza Subdivision. A significant reason forcing the change in plan for this property was the applicant/owners' desire for uses which in the H-B, Highway Business, zone require development as a Planned Unit Development. Specifically, Mr. Holter was interested in a shopping center design and a fast-food restaurant with a drive -up facility, both require a PUD. It is specifically these uses with the additional traffic concerns which require the upgrade of the street construction. The change of property from unplatted, to a subdivision, to a PUD is not uncommon. Many times we see development proposals that are quite generic in their inception become more refined as potential users and buyers are identified. That is not unusual; and staff did not handle Mr. Holter's property and proposals any differently than this anticipated norm. In fact, most recently a large national retailer has been identified as a user of Mr. Holter's site which will again require changes in the approved plan. If previous modifications had not been made, this change would warrant street construction upgrades to current standards. 4 �f 1 `1 ji 7�t", l � ^4,5r.'n�""'" r , OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. • P O Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303=1-6750 Rod rdw,; f �c � ro i n g pki� November 19, 1985 Pa; .z- ? Significant modifications as was the first PUD and subsequent changes are specifically reviewed for potential rhanges to the traffic impact, particularly along such crucial areas as 'ollege Avenue. Consequently, the change to the proposed shopping center and drive -up use properly dictated an amended plan and required the application of current street standards. To do less would have been remiss on Bonnie's part. The development agreement entered into as a condition of Garth Commercial Plaza remains valid, as the conditions of the agreement relate only to the required work and timing of construction, not the construction standards. The standard development agreements do not specify such things as pavement thickness. Such specifications are detailed and approved as part of the utility drawings, which were in this case prepared by Stewart Engineering as part of the final submittal and approval of the PUD. The misunderstanding with Mr. Holter is unfortunate, however, staff did not view Mr. Holter's project differently than the many we see mature through such a process of specificity as users are identified. Again, the specific user with certain traffic generation warranted the upgrade and improvement of the streets to current standards. Apparently Stewart Engineering was aware of these requirements and proceeded to prepare the proper utility and street cross-section plans. Final approval of the PUD was, in part, based on meeting these requirements. I'd be glad to further describe the elements of the development review if necessary. has agreed to orient the major access to this site on Boardwalk Drive rather than South College Avenue. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to the construction of a deceleration lane for access from Col I eae Avenue onto the s i te, and for an acceleration lane for traffic exiting the development onto south bound College Avenue. POLICY 22 - Preferential considertion shall be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous to existing development within the city limits or consistent with the phasing plan for the city's urban growth area. RESPONSE - Boardwalk Crossing is proposed to be built onto a parcel of land that is currently surrounded by similar use activities. POLICY 69 - Regional/community shopping centers should locate in areas which are easily accessible to existing or planned residential areas. RESPONSE - Boardwalk Crossing is located at the intersection of a major arterial and a collector street. Anyone wishing to travel from the surrounding residential areas to Boardwalk Crossinc would be able to gain access to the site with a reasonable amount of ease and a limited amount of time. POLICY 70 •- Regional/shopping centers shou I d locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the city. RESPONSE - Existing Transfort routes run both on College Avenue and Mason Street adjacent to this site. Discussions with a representative of Transfort advised the applicant that a College Avenue bus stop currently exists at Boardwalk Drive andanother bus stop is located at the Target Department Store shopping area. POLICY 71 -• New regional/community shopping centers locating within the proximity of existing regional/community shopping ►/ CITY OF FOIST COLLINS ENGINEERING SERVICES April 4, 1986 Mr. George Holter 3509 S. Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Certificate of Occupancy at 4001 S. College Avenue Dear George: I have been advised not to release the Certificate of Occupancy for 4001 S. College Avenue until the following issues have been addressed. - Submit to the City Planning Department for approval "as constructed" drawings for the design of the Decel/Excel lane adjacent to College, the drive approach into the Prime Minister parking lot on Boardwalk. - Dedicate as public right-of-way that portion of the northwest corner curb return at Boardwalk and College which is not right-of-way. - Pay in full the costs incurred by the City Traffic Division for the signal installation at Boardwalk and College. These issues need to be resolved prior to the City Engineer's office releasing a Certificate of Occupancy for 4001 S. College. In addition, the City will not enter into a reimbursement agreement for the collection of monies regarding the improvements on Boardwalk adjacent to the Prime Minister. Thank you in advance for addressing these items and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 221-6605. S'ncerely, David Stringer Chief Construction Inspector cc: / Bonnie Tripoli, Planning Josh Richardson, Traffic Felix Lee - Building Inspection Craig Farver - Construction Inspection CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION June 4, 1986 George Holter 3509 South Mason Fort Collins, CO Dear Mr. Holter: Staff has reviewed your request for an Administrative Change on _Boardwalk Crossing PUD (Kentucky Fried Chicken), to allow the substitution of seed for sod for the lawn areas. After meeting with you on the site, seeing examples of other areas which have been prepared in the same fashion, and noting that the seeded areas are achieving good stands of grass, staff finds it can approve your request for an administrative change. We might reiterate, however, that the normal procedure for administrative change, is to apply for such change prior to installing the modification. Sincerely fi , Bob Wilkinson City Planner CC: Tom Peterson, Planning Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator OFFICE OF COMMUNITY if DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CIVISION 300 LaPorte AVE). • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 centers shall be designed to function together as a single commercial district. All centers will be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation and discourage multi -stop trips with private automobiles or force traffic onto streets whose primary function is to carry through traffic. RESPONSE -- The applicant has made significant effort to encorporate reasonable circulation with surrounding developments. Agreement has been reached with the property owner to the south to provide for a common access point between their property and the proposed development at Boardwalk Crossing. Curb cuts on Mason Street have been aligned with existing curb cuts on the west side of Mason, and access on College Avenue has beenaddressed as recommended by the trafficstudy. Pedestrian access is clearly delineated on the site and is available for persons wishing to cross College Avenue via the signalized intersection at Boardwalk Drive. This effectively ties pedestrian activity and vehicular activity to the Fountainhead Development on the east side of College Avenue. POLICY 72 - Regional/community shopping centers should locate where they can be served by public transportation. RESPONSE - Refer to response for Policy Number 70. POLICY 73 - Regional/community shopping centers shall locate in areas served by existing water and sewer facilities. RESPONSE - Representatives from the Water & Sewer Department have advised the applicant that water and sewer are immediately adjacent tc the site. C. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN CONCEPTS The plan of this project is basically a traditional L-shaped shopping center with a modification to the traditional that allows pedestrian and vehicular circulation to penetrate the "L" at a point near the intersection of the two arms of the "L". In addition there are two other structures on the property, one of which would be architecturally and physically linked to the major structures. The second, free-standing, structure located on the corner of Boardwalk Drive and South College Avenue is anticipated to be a Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant Facility. 3 The major building materials for the entire facility will be stucco and terra Gotta tile with accent elements as described further in the text. The stucco will be a buff or creamy color while the terra Gotta tile will be used as a signage band and unifying element for the retail facilities. The base of the major buildings on the development will be a dark green the or dark green painted concrete block to serve as a base for the buildings and to serve zs another unifying element. Accent color for the project will be a blue/green generally used for trim materials. A port cochere will be constructed at the physical separation between building A and building B. The materials used to form the port cochere will be of a light and airy lattice work to continue the grid of the terra Gotta t l e sign band. A s i mi l ar treatment will visually tie together buildings B and C. This selective use of materials should prove to be compatible with the materials for the proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant. It will also have tan stucco as the base material. The mansard roof for the facility will be terra Gotta tiles. The terra Gotta tile on the Kentucky Fried Chicken will be a typical terra Gotta t le normally seen for Kentucky Fried Chicken Facilities and their roofing applications. The terra Gotta tile used for the sign band on the rest of the buildings at Boardwalk Crossing will be flat, square terra Gotta t I e of s i m i l ar or i dent i ca I col oration and texture as the tile used on the Kentucky Fried Chicken mansard. The developers of this property realize that Boardwalk Crossing will be a high visibility project. It is therefore their intent to provide a well landscaped environment to enhance the image of Boardwalk Crossing. This is evidenced by the accompanying documents. As the project proceeds in the development review process further, the landscaping will be designed and detailed. The main access to the shopping center will be on Boardwalk Drive. It will be provided w i th right and I of t turn exits for the convenience of people exiting the shopping center. Secondary access points will occur at College Avenue and Mason Street. The South College Avenue access is provided with a deceleration and acceleration lane. This ingress/egress point for the site is channeled through a heavily landscaped buffer zone. Access points along SouthMason Street will include a secondary access that is landscapedand with left and rieht turn lanes for customers leaving the shopping center. Tertiary ingress and egress points along South Mason Street are also provided for the convenience of people visiting the shopping center and for those leaving the shopping M center. An adequate number of loading spaces have been provided to minimize impact with parking and circulation on the site. Facilities to enclose the collection points of rubbish as well as recycling centers have been provided for this project. It will be noted upon inspection of this site plan and of the traffic impact and accessibility analysis that the site plan as submitted does not precisely follow the recommended access plan suggested by the traffic impact and accessibility analysis. The only variation in this concept is for the access point on Boardwalk Drive. It will be noted that the impact and accessibility analysis recommends a proposed full turn access approximately 360 feet from College Avenue and a proposed right turn out access approximately 220 feet from College Avenue. It is felt that by having two access points into the site on Boardwalk Drive, especially so close together, would become confusing to motorists trying to enter the shopping center. This would be especially true for those motorists coming from College Avenue. It also generates difficult circulation patterns on -site. It is for these reasons we have elected to not precisely follow the recommendations of the traffic impact and accessibility analysis. It should be noted that this site plan does, in all other respects, respond to the recommendations of the report. In an effort to generate setbacks for Boardwalk Crossing that are consistent with other developments along College Avenue and to not become too close to the right of way along South College Avenue, and to insure a reasonable amount of visibility for the proposed development, the applicant has made an effort to determine the approximate location of other structures and their setback from the curb line along South College Avenue. These dimensions were field measured in an attempt to obtain a reasonable base upon which to evaluate the location of the proposed structures of Boardwalk Crossing. These measurements are intended to be reasonably accurate but should not be construed to be a survey by a professional surveyor. BUSE.aa Winston's Restaurant Midas Muffler Target Department Store Sea Galley Restaurant Furr's Restaurant Foothills Chrysler Color King Paint 8 Paper D_1�I�N�.E_IQ_S�l3�L I NE 60 feet 93 feet 1 13 feet 26 feet 182 feet 114 feet 66 feet 5 Labelle's 165 feet Wendy's 46 feet Palmer House 66 feet Fountainhead Retail 30 feet Fountainhead Office 38 feet Proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken 66 feet Proposed Boardwalk Crossing Retail 63 feet * To acceleration or deceleration curb line. From observation of the above chart, note that the proposed buildings for Boardwalk Crossing are in a reasonable alignment with other structures along South Col i ege Avenue. I nd eed, i f large monumental department stores such as Target, Labelle's and structures such as Furr's Cafeteria are disregarded in the evaluation process, the alignment of Boardwalk Crossing becomes even more reasonable. It is actually greater than some of the other structures already constructed on South College Avenue. It should be noted that the small structure of Boardwalk Crossing with an approximate parapet height of 15 - 17 feet will be approximately twice as far from the curb line as is its neighbor across the street, the Fountainhead Retail areas. The relatively low profile of Boardwalk Crossing at its eastern most point should be a minimal conflict with the visibility of the large Labelle's facility. This development will be highly cognizant of energy conservation measures and will respond to those concerns in a reasonable fashion. Boardwalk Crossing is located in such a manner as to provide no conflicts with adjacent property owners as it related to solar access. Also, with the site providing more than the minimum landscaping required, it should prove to have reduced heat gain from the parking lot paved areas. It is the developer's intent to provide a quality of construction with insulation levels meeting or exceeding retail centers of similar size and character. Mechanical systems will be utilized that meet or exceed the Colorado State Code for Energy Conservation. D. DEVELOPMENT PHASING It is the intent of the developer to begin immediately with Phases 1 and 2 of Boardwa I k Crossing. Th i s w o u I d i ncl ude the construction of Boardwalk Drive between College Avenue and Mason Street, the construction of the Kentucky Fried Chicken fac i I ity, the deceleration lane on South College Avenue, the primary 0 entrances to the development on Boardwalk Drive and College Avenue, and the associated parking lots and landscaping. Phase 3 of the development would include additional parking spaces for landscaping and approximately 20,000 square feet of building in Building A. During Phase 3 the acceleration/deceleration lanes on South College Avenue will also be constructed as well as the on -site connection to Labelle's property. Phase 4 of Boardwalk Crossing would be all of those spaces remaining in the development not previously constructed. It would also include the related parking, circulation and landscaped areas, and Mason Street entrances. E. ESTIMATE OF NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES FOR COMMERCIAL USES Based on an estimated 1.33 employees for every 1,000 useable square feet of retail space, it is anticipated that approximately 141 employees will be utilizing Boardwalk Crossing. F. POINT CHARTS See attached point charts. 7 CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION March 13 , 1985 George A. Holter 3501 S. Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear George, Consideration of the preliminary and final PUD application for Boardwalk Crossing has been continued to the April 29, 1985 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to allow Staff sufficient time to review any revised plans or new information, it must be submitted no later than Monday, April 1, 1985. Also, on Friday, April 19, 1985, 8 112" x 11" PMT reductions of all plans and colored elevations of the site and architec- tural drawings should be delivered to this office. On Monday, April 22, 1985, ten (110) full size copies of the site, landscape, and building elevations should be submitted for both the preliminary and final plans. Lastly, signE-d mylars of the final PUD and subdivision plat, mylars of the landscape plan and building elevations, and a signed "Site and Lan.s, -De Covenants" document should be delivered to this office no later than noon on Thursday, April 25th. It is important that the above deadlines be followed if the item is to be considered at. the April meeting. If you should have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely CC: Sam Mutch, Planning Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator Roger Booker, Architectural Plus OFF, DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION vvv uu� J���.. rev �.. - I V. vVn JVV � 1 VII VVII IIIJ, VVIVIQUV VVJLL � `JVJ�GL 1-V/JV CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION April 12, 1985 George A. Holter 3501 S. Mason St. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear George, Consideration of the application for development approval for the Board- walk Crossings PUD has been continued until the May 20, 1985 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to allow sufficient time to review any revised plans or new information, it must be submitted no later than Mon- day, April 22nd. Also, on Friday, May loth, 8 112" x 11" PMT reductions of all plans ,and colored elevations of the site and architectural drawings should be delivered to this office. On Monday, May 13th, ten (10) full size copies of the site, landscape, and building elevations should be submitted. Lastly, signed mylars of the final PUD and subdivision plat, mylars of the landscape plan and building elevations, and a signed "Site and Landscape Covenants" document should be delivered to this office no later than noon on Thursday, May 16th. It is important that the above deadlines be followed if the item is to be considered at the May meeting. If you should have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Jloe F ank or City Planner CC: Sam Mutch, Planning Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator Roger Booker, Architecture Plus OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 19 300 LaPorte Ave • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • t303)221-8-50 DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION