Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCENTERPOINT PLAZA - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-04September 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Members Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Planning Objectives for Centerpoint Plaza Project Development Plan (PDP) Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members The proposed Centerpoint Plaza PDP is located south of Midpoint Drive and east of Timberline Road. The Burlington Northern Railroad runs adjacent to the south side site. An existing warehouse distributing facility is located on the southeast side of the property, which is accessed from Midpoint Drive. The site currently zoned E — Employment Zoning District. The applicant proposes three mixed -use buildings, which will be a combination of office, retail and warehouse uses on 4.5 acres. Building A is single story building consisting of office and retail uses. Buildings B and C are single story with a mezzanine level and will consist of office. retail and warehouse uses. Buildings B and C will have rear loading docks areas. Additional street right-of-way (ROW) has been dedicated to allow for a total 141 ft. right-of-way on Timberline Drive for future road improvements. An additional 3 ft. right- of-way has also been dedicated adjacent to Midpoint Drive to allow for a total 66 ft. right-of-way. Two points of access are provided off Midpoint Drive, which are to be aligned with the vehicular accesses to the Spring Creek Center development north of Midpoint Drive. The project has a total 144 parking spaces. Parking ratios are based on 1 space per 1,000 square feet for warehouse use and 3 spaces per 1,000 for office /retail. Sidewalks within the site provide for safe and convenient pedestrian circulation to existing and proposed sidewalks on both Timberline Road and Midpoint Drive. The maximum height of the buildings are 36 feet. The buildings are scaled to the pedestrian level, with tired roofs and the variety of complimentary colors and materials. Building materials consist of masonry, E.F.T.S and architectural pre -finished metal siding. udmire Fire Prevention Bureau Phone:970-221-0570 A 1ho t _ o Remington 8052treet Fax: net: www-6635 .poudre-fLre.org u�, �,`�J/ Fort Collins, CO 80524 Internet-. www.poudre-firc.org The Project known as "Centerpoint Plaza" is required to have an Emergency Access Roadway -The "Emergency Access Road" shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. All Emergency Access Roadways shall be of an all-weather driviing surface capable of supporting 40 ton. The "E.A.R." shall be maintained unobstructed. Minimum turning radii shall be 2511. inside and 50ft. outside. PFA Administrative Policy 85-5; 97 UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1 -/- D Alternative Compliance Request Centerpoint Plaza Project Development Plan April 12, 2002 This request is for an alternative compliance for parking as outlined in the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The alternative compliance being requested is from Sections 3.2.3(K) (3) and 4), Exception to the General Office Parking Standard. The applicant is proposing to construct the entire parking and access identified on the alternative compliance plan for Lot 1, which includes buildings A and B. Buildings A and B will be phased with building B constructed in phase one and building A in phase two. The maximum parking allowed for each building or phase per the Land Use Code under Section 3.2.2 (K)(2)(a) includes: Building A: General Office: 5,297 S.F. at 3/1000 Sq. Ft General Retail: 1,765 S.F. at 4/1000 Sq. Ft Total parking spaces General Office: 5,000 S.F. at 3/1000 Sq. Ft General Retail: 1,000 S.F. at 4/1000 Sq. Ft. 29 Employees at .75 Total parking spaces Parking Spaces 16 7 23 15 4 39 58 Criteria which supports the construction of Lot 1 parking and access include the following: • The need for an emergency roadway for fire access. • The need for necessary access and vehicular turning requirements for utility services and deliveries. Please see attached letters from Poudre Fire Authority and Gallegos Sanitation. • None of the following criteria exist on or near the site under Section 3.2.2(K)(3)(b): " availability of nearby on -street parking (if any), the availability of shared parking with abutting, adjacent or surrounding land uses (if any), the provision of purchased or leased parking in a municipal or private parking lot meeting the requirements of the city, trip reduction programs (if any)". • The parking does not impact items 1) to 6) under Section 3.2.2(K)(3)(b). Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours Sincerely Louise Herbert VF Ripley Associates P L A T T E RIVER POWER AUTHORITY Estes Park • Fort Collins • Longmont • Loveland April 22, 2002 Mr. Mike Randolph Stewart & Associates 103 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Centerpoint Plaza, Fort Collins, Colorado Overall Grading, Erosion Control and Extended Detention Plan Sheet Number 4 of 8 Dated 11/29/2001 Dear Mr. Randolph: Platte River's review of the submitted drawing does not indicate conflict between the existing high voltage transmission line and the project as proposed. Consequently, on the information submitted, Platte River has no objection to the proposal and the use of their easement for the specific uses indicated (parking and drainage). This approval by Platte River shall not be construed as giving up any of the rights granted Platte River for their transmission line easement crossed by this proposal. Contact me at (970) 229-5311 if you have any questions. Sincerely, PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY Tom McCormick Sr. System Design Engineer 2000 East Horsetooth Road • Fort Collins. Colorado 80525-5721 9701226-4000 • www.prpa.org Sheri Wamhoff - centerpoint plaza Pa From: Sheri Wamhoff To: Steve Olt; Tom Reiff Date: 5/28/02 10:02AM Subject: centerpoint plaza Just wanted to update everyone on the status on which buildings could be approved for final with this project. The applicant and Matt Delich met with Eric and myself this morning. They provided the information that Eric asked for and Eric has determined from the information provided that either building A or building B could be built. They will just need to decide which building they want prior to final submittal. Let me or Eric know if you have any questions. Steve and Tom I will provide you a copy of the additional traffic information for your files. Sheri CC: Eric Bracke V E RIPLEi ASSOCIATES INC. Memorandum June 24,2002 PROJECT / NO: Center -point Plaza PDP FROM: Louise Herbert - VF Ripley Associates TO: Eric Bracke -Traffic Operations Department Sheri Wamhoff - Engineering Cc: Dick Fisher - Cobalt Design Kevin Fraser - LLC Fraser and Company Ventures Matt Delich Marc Jackson - Transportation Planning Meeting held on 5/28/02 - 9.00 a.m. at Traffic Operations Department Re: Adequate Public Facilities. From the meeting the following was determined: I) Eric confirmed he had received the information on the highway capacity sheets from the adequate public facilities analysis. 2) Based on the Traffic Study Memoranda dated April 11,02 both buildings A and B individually meet the adequate public facilities. Initially, only one building, associated parking and improvements could be submitted for Final Compliance after the Project Development Plan approval. The second building, associated parking and improvements could also be submitted for Final Compliance after the first building had been approved and built. In order to determine if the second building could proceed with Final Compliance review a revised adequate public facilities study would need to be submitted to determine if the building would meet the adequate public facilities at that time. 3) Section 2.2.11 (C) and Section 2.2.11(D)(3) of the Land Use Code outline the time frames after approval of the Project Development Plan and Final Plan approval. 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite201, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 • 970-224-5828 FAX 970-224-1662 • E-MAIL vfripley@frii.com Please call if you have any questions. Yours Sincerely Louise Herbert VF Ripley Associates G,G�-ice _ 4-PA 7-CDC-' 4-JHH--' 7-PFA15 - 7-r 1-MSG— , f❑ �H -22-RA 2-TCG2-PCALO1 4-JSA 13-HAA - - -- •= 2-RA 1-FAA Building A>� I - Location of � I Condenser Units 2-JSB ri t 1' i --4-JSA 7 J -__ SB _ 1-PCA ❑ 20-HSD Transforme Location -- --4- PFA W W _ 2-JSB - 3-JHH 1-MSG H� 1 A- - I -� Ham- _-- JS6--� JHH 5-EEG 11-EEG 9-HAA 11-EEG 7-FFGJ - 2-CXC --3-MSG 1-JHH 3-RXM - -1-VL 3-RXM 1-JHH -4-CXC / -2-JHH 2-JHH 3-CSI 1-VL 3-CSI 3-RA Sheri Wamhoff - Re: Center Point Plaza Page 1 From: Cameron Gloss To: Eric Bracke, Steve Olt Date: 7/15/02 11:57AM Subject: Re: Center Point Plaza Eric: Compliance with APF is heavily reliant on our ability to document the public record. It is the legal right of the applicant to received PDP approval without meeting APF requirements. The PDP traffic study must merely identify the deficiencies and what transportation improvements are needed. The APF standard must be complied with at the Final Plan stage. Dave Stringer, Sheri Wamhoff and I discussed this issue earlier today, and this is what we arrived at: 1. PDP site plan needs to have a note clearly identifying the need for the applicant to comply with the APF standard for development phases 2 and 3. 2. The PDP project and Final Plan files need to include memoranda outlining the sequence of events and the need for APF compliance for subsequent phases. 3. Staff should recommend that the Hearing Officer conditionally approve the PDP, noting that the LUC requirements for APF must be complied with on all future Final Plan approvals. 4. The Development Agreement should include similar language about APF compliance. 5. With the lots for phases 2 and 3 being assigned addresses, "holds" should be placed in the Sierra system database for all building permit applications for those properties. Please let me know if you concerns with this approach. Cameron Gloss >>> Eric Bracke 07/15/02 08:15AM >>> Steve and Cameron, I have some concerns over the PDP submittal of Center Point Plaza as it relates to the APF requirements. In general, when I met with the developer, it was determined that Building A or B could proceed without triggering the APF requirements. However, in the plan submittal I received, I have three phases and three buildings on the plans. I was under the assumption that they would have to do each phase/PDP separately . I'm a bit uncomfortable with the developer showing all three phases on one plan set and claiming they met the APF. Any thoughts? Eric CC: Britney Sorensen; Dave Stringer; Sheri Wamhoff; Steve Olt, Tom Reiff; Ward Stanford RECEIVED Louise From: Sheri Wamhoff [SWAMHOFF@fcgov.comi Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:45 AM !RRENT PLANNING,' To: Iherberi@vfavfr.com �'IN Subject: Re: centerpoint plaza Louise You do not need to address this on the site plan - the note you had was fine. I seem to recall that on one of the utility Rlan sheets that the existing walk was no longer shown. Sheri >>> "Louise" <lherbert@vfavfr.com> 08/15/02 05:56PM >>> Sheri Re: Centerpoint Plaza. Comment 35 - Site Plan Comment was on the existing sidewalk to the bus stop and the 7- foot wide sidewalk on Timberline. We understand that we discussed this with you during our last redlines / revisions (second round) on 5/22/02. We added a note on the site plan stating that the " existing asphalt wall to be removed at a future date". We had the same ccmment on our third set of comments. Please could you confirm if this is acceptable or do we need to add / adddress anything else? Thank you for your help. Louise Louise Herbert VF Ripley Associates. There are number of existing trees on the site. The applicant has met with the City arborist, to review the trees. Please see attached letter. The design objectives of the proposed landscape plan are to provide an attractive streetscape, screen parking and service areas and to enhance the pedestrian and vehicular experience within the site. Deciduous and evergreen trees and foundation plantings will be used to enhance the architecture and provide shade and seasonal color. The project will be maintained by a Condominium Association. City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan include: PRINCIPLE LU-2: The city will maintain and enhance its character and sense of place as defined by its neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. Policy LU-21 City -Wide Structure. The mixed -use buildings compliment the surrounding development and promote a compact development well -served by all modes of travel. PRINCIPLE T-5: The City will acknowledge pedestrian travel as a viable transportation mode and elevate it in importance to be in balance with other modes. Direct pedestrian connections will be provided and encouraged from place of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work and public facilities. Policy T-5.2 Connections. Pedestrian connections are clearly visible and convenient. The site will also provide sidewalk connections with the surrounding development. PRINCIPLE CAD-3.: commercial developments create a powerful impression of the city, both individually and taken together as a whole. While corporate franchises and chain stores will remain vital and recognizable, commercial developments will be designed to contribute to Fort Collins' district visual quality and unigeness. Policy CAD-3.1 Policy CAD-3.2 The buildings have been designed to provide an interesting facade with entry features over main entry doors. Building materials consist of masonry, > .F.I.S. and architectural pre -finished metal siding complimenting the existing building characteristics of the area. PRINCIPLE ENV- 3 Policy ENV-3.3 Water demand management Policy. The proposed landscape plan for the project will utilize the following xeriscape principles: Plant material with low to moderate water requirements. Limited turf areas. Effective use of soil amendments and mulches. An efficient irrigation system. Appropriate maintenance. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you during the development review process. Sincerely, VF Ripley Associates Louise Herbert September 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Members Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Existing trees Centerpoint Plaza Project Development Plan (PDP) Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members There are a total of 12 existing trees on the site which consist of the following: eight ash , two crabapple and 3 pinon pine trees (See landscape plan for location, species and approximate size). Most trees are in reasonable condition and it is the applicant's intension to retain, protect or transplant as many of the trees as possible on the Site. There is also an existing stand of cottonwood trees located on the south eastside of the site. The stand consists of approximately 4 to 5 clumps ranging approximately from 6 to 12 inches in caliper. The applicant has met with the city forester to evaluate all trees on site including the cottonwood stand. The stand appears to consist of a percentage native cotton— bearing; trees which could constitute a nuisance to the public. The site plan layout allows for the required parking and vehicular circulation which conflicts with the location of the cottonwood stand making it difficult for it to be preserved. The applicant proposes to replace and mitigate the loss of any existing trees on the site including the cottonwood stand in order to achieve an overall balanced landscape plan that will comply with the landscape and tree protection requirements slated in file current Land Use Code. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you during the development review process. Sincerely, VF Ripley Associates �' % / �' 'a Louise Herbert Memorandum To: Mr. Gary Diede, TOP's Director Mr. Ron Phillips, Transportation Service Director Mr. Greg Byrne, CPES Director Mr. Tom Vosburg, Policy Analyst Mr. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director Mr. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney From: Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Traffic Engineer Date: October 31, 2001 RE: Center Point Plaza -Adequate Public Facilities Center Point Plaza is a project that is currently in the City's development review process as a PDP. The project is located on the southeast corner of Midpoint Drive and Timberline Road and is proposing three buildings of office, warehousing and retail. The intersection of Midpoint and Timberline is directly south of the Timberline/Prospect intersection. A Traffic Impact Study was submitted with the project and demonstrated that the project was feasible from a level of service/safety perspective, but the TIS assumed that improvements were in place at the Timberline/Prospect intersection. Additional analyses were requested concerning the Adequate Public Facilities requirements. The analysis has been completed and shows that the APE requirements cannot be met. Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code addresses the APF Requirements and specifically state: Section 3.7.3(C)(2) "The approval of all development shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to serve new development." Section 3.7.3 (C)(2)(b) "No site specific development plan or building permit shall be approved or issued in a manner that will result in a reduction of the levels of service below the adopted level of service standards for the affected facility." Section 3.7.3(D)(1)(b): "All development shall meet or exceed the transportation level of services standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -modal Transportation Level of Service Manual...". The Multi -modal Level of Service of Manual then refers to the TIS guidelines, which have been incorporated into the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (Chapter 4). The analyses that was conducted for the Center Point Plaza indicated that with the background growth in traffic and those projects approved (up through the Rigden 6'h tiling), indicated that the intersection of Timberline and Prospect would be at LOS E and in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the afternoon peak hour. According to our standards, the acceptable LOS for the intersection is D or better. However, the TIS guidelines tried to take into account the fact that failing intersections were acceptable if the added traffic was minimal. Section 4.5.2A(2) of the TIS guidelines state the following regarding significant impacts: "When the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) causes an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service standards; and when the project traffic causes more than a 2 percent increase in the intersection delay. The added traffic from the Center Point Plaza will increase delay by 1.7% in the morning peak hour and 4.0% increase in delay in the afternoon peak hour. Based on our standards, guidelines, and the LUC, and the fact that there is no City Capital project to increase the capacity of Timberline Road, I believe the APF requirements now apply and the project cannot move forward. The developer is considering revising the PDP to include only one structure in his first phase and he should be able to get in under the wire. There are several issues that may not be as obvious as one small development not being able to move forward in the develop review process. For example: 1. Spring Creek Farms will not be able to move into the PDP process. 2. Johnson Farm project will not be able to move into the PDP process. 3. .Any future filings of the Rigden Farm project will not meet the APF requirements and will be stalled. 4. Future development proposals on East Prospect (towards the Interstate) will also have APF requirement issues. There is the possibility that I am interpreting the APF requirements incorrectly. Please feel free to provide any advice, guidance, or "spin" regarding this issue at your earliest convenience. Xc: Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations Randy Hensley, Transportation Planning Steve Olt, Current Planning Cam McNair, Engineering Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning John Daggett, Transportation Planning Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Matt Delich, Transportation Engineering Consultant Louise Herbert, VF Ripley I�i sl/nI CENTERPOINT PLAZA ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ANALYSIS Timberline/Prospect Intersection Base Condition (2006) Background traffic Existing traffic factored by 1.5%/year (1.077) plus known, approved projects that impact the subject intersection (Rigden 6th Filing, Spring Creek Center, Midpoint Self Storage). Peak Hour LOS Delay Morning E 69.2 secs. Afternoon F 82.6 secs. Centerpoint Plaza — Buildings A and B Building A 25% Retail — 1,765 S.F. 75% Office — 5,297 S.F. Building B Office — 6,000 S.F. Warehouse — 21,306 S.F. Centerpoint Plaza site generated traffic added to Base Condition Peak Hour LOS Delay Increase in Delay Morning E 70.4 secs. 1.7% Afternoon F 85.9 secs. 4.0% COMMERCIAL • RESIDENTIAL • ROLLOFF • RECYCLING • PORTABLE TOILETS RO. Box 1986 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 PHONE (970) 484-555G FAX: (970) 484-0662 GALLEGOS SA N/aAT/ON i N coaro RAran March 29, 2002 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning To Whom It May Concern: It has been brought to our attention that the parking area in front of Building A & B on the project known as Centerpoint Plaza, described as Lot 1, Nor -Colo Subdivision, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, also know as 2155 Midpoint Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, will not be completely paved. If Gallegos Sanitation, Inc. is not able to make a 'complete turn around' in this area for trash pick-up, this will present a safety problem when our trucks make their pick-ups. If at all possible, there should be a 'turn around area' for the trash trucks to help eliminate traffic problems. Sincerely, Matt Gallegos Gallegos Sanitation, Inc. "LOCALLY -OWNED AND SERVING NORTHERN COLORADO SINCE 1959"