Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED USE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2014-06-27DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering .// i 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 MEMORANDUM �`'t"'L) G t. It F To: Jason Kersley, [au]workshop V ; o Jerod Huwa, BHA Design Incorporated City of Fort Collins %f 91-06 From: Joe/Matt Delich ;ONA, 1' Date- April 30, 2013 Subject- Nine Fish (Encompass) Transportation Impact Study — Final compliance (File: 1234ME02) This memorandum provides a final compliance statement that the Nine Fish (Encompass) development site layout, trip generation, and access locations have not changed significantly since the TIS dated July 2012 was completed and accepted by the City of Fort Collins. The office decreased from 19,874 square feet to 19,800 square feet and the Restaurant decreased from 5,639 square feet to 4,150 square feet. The 12 apartment units has not changed. This decrease in floor area will not have a significant change in the trip generation and level of service. No further transportation analyses are required. ti4k PINNACLE CONSULTING GROUPP, INC. 11-21-13 Mr. Marc P. Virata Engineering Department City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: River District Block One lender Via: Email Dear Marc, This letter is to inform you of a change in lender for the River District Block One Mixed Use project. The loan for the project has been provided by Bank of Colorado. Per paragraph III.N of the Development Agreement, dated August 12, 2013, please delete the First Bank contact information and add the following contact: Mr. Michael Bellus Bank of Colorado 1609 E. Harmony Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, r �G Rich Shannon (Owners Representative) CC via email. Paul Eckman Jeff Jensen Michael Bellus Kyle Lundy Loveland Denver 1627 East 18"' Street, I oveland, CO 80538 5300 DTC Parkway, Suite 260, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (970)669.3611 (303)333.4330 www.pinnacleConsultinggroupinc.com Marc Virata From: Rich Shannon <richs@pinnacleconsultinggroupinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:51 PM To: Marc Virata Cc: 'Jerod Huwa'; Randall Provencio Subject: Ranch -Way letter Attachments: Ranch -Way water line letter.pdf Marc, I think I forwarded this to you earlier but may have forgotten to do so. We are comfortable this provides us what we need to work with Ranch -Way on relocating the water line. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Rich Shannon Vice President PINNACL Loveland: (970) 669-3611 Denver:(303) 333-4380 Fax: (970) 669-3612 Cell: (970) 481-4438 RichsPpinnacleconsultinearoupinc com Loveland 5110 Granite Street, Suite C Loveland CO, 80538 Denver 5300 DTC Parkway, Suite 260 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 www.pinnacleconsultinggroupinc.com This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. November 26, 2012 Mr. Marc Virata Engineering Department City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Marc: Ranch -Way Feed Mills is familiar with the plans for the Block One project at 418 Linden. In exchange for relocating the Ranch -Way Feeds waterline that is on the Block One property, we agree to allow a limited construction access easement to allow deliveries to the site as long as it does not conflict with Ranch -Way Feeds operations. Respectfully, Kim and Bonnie Szidon F6rtte' DATE: July 1, 2013 Planning, Development, & Transportation Administration 281 North College Avenue, Suite 100 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970,221.6601 970.416.2081 - fax kgov. corn/pdt MEMORANDUM Agenda Item #28 TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager FROM: Karen Combo, Director, Planning, Development, and Transportation SUBJECT: Encompass (Block One) Easements At the July 2 meeting, CO'Uncil will consider, on Second Reading, easements for the Encompass/Block One project ozi Linden. Rich Shannon, representing the developer, sent an e- mail to City Council last week on this subject, and the Leadership Team asked the staff to provide a response. The first part of Mr. Shannon's a-zpail iefers to the riverbank and landscape improvements, and the staff recommendation to waive the fees for those easements seems to address his concerns. The staff recommendation is based -on the fact that the value of the riverbank improvements, including those on City property, exceeds the cost of the easements. The second part of the e-mail expresses concerns about the encroachments on Linden Street, and I will try to address those issues. The City's Engineering Department, under provisions of the City Code, considers and approves encroachments into the City right-of-way for sidewalk patios, signs, etc. We issue revocable permits for these items. We began conversations last year with representatives of Encompass and the DDA about these encroachments because we thought that the permanent nature of the sidewalk encroachments, which included the stairway entrance to the building as well as a deck from the restaurant, exceeded the staff s authority to approve. A permanent use of the City right- of-way seems to warrant Council consideration. Mr. Shannon argues that the community benefits from good urban design, and that the City encouraged the restaurant and other elements that impact the public right-of-way. At no time, however, did the City require, or even strongly encourage the restaurant, or opine that its deck as well as the entrance to the building should extend into the public sidewalk area. There are other buildings in the downtown area that have entrances or other encroachments into the sidewalk area, but in most cases those were added to existing buildings. We look forward to the addition of this development to the River District area, and believe it will be a great addition to this increasingly busy pedestrian area. Marc Virata From: Sarah Kane Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:14 PM To: City Council; Bruce Hendee; Jon Haukaas; Karen Cumbo; Rick Richter; Marc Virata; Marsha Hilmes-Robinson; Lindsay Ex; Ted Shepard; Helen Matson; Ken Mannon; Darin Atteberry; Diane Jones; Wendy Williams; Craig Foreman; Laurie Kadrich Cc: Debra Unger Subject: FW: Easements for Block One Attachments: Zoning Code picture.pdf, Site Plan Illustration.pdf, 28 - Encompass Block One Easements.pdf Council, Per June 24, 2013 Leadership Team request, please see the attached memo titled "28- Encompass Block One Easements", which relates to agenda item #28 on tomorrow's Council Agenda. Hard copies will be included in your read -before packets. 970.416.2447 Click Here to Tell Me About My Service I Want to Know! __ .._.. From: Rich Shannon[mailto.richs(&pinnacleconsultin roupinccom] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:58 PM To: City Leaders Cc: Bruce Hendee; Jon Haukaas; Karen Cumbo; Rick Richter; Marc Virata; Marsha Hilmes-Robinson; Lindsay Ex; Ted Shepard; Jeff Jensen (Jeffgjensenconsulting info); Kyle Lundy (kyle.Lundy(alsvn com); 'Jerod Huwa'; Angie Milewski (amilewski(fthadesign com); Jonathan m); Kent O'Neil (kentCcbencompass8 com); Kimberly O'Neil (kim(&encompass8 com); Randall Provencio; Randy Shortridge; ikersley(a)auworkshop co; Helen Matson; Ken Mannon Subject: Easements for Block One Mayor Weitkunat and City Council Members, The second reading of the ordinance granting easements to the Block One project and establishing a fee for the easements is scheduled for July 2, 2013. We would like to share our perspective on this item. However, before discussing the specifics of the easements, it is important to understand the history of Block One. Background. The O'Neil family, owners of Encompass Technology, originally had plans to develop an office building to accommodate their rapidly growing software company plus some apartments. We interviewed three architectural firms; spoke to the DDA staff, city staff and other design professionals in the community. We also studied the zoning code (see attached image from the RDR zoning district) and other adopted city plans for the River District. The message was very consistent, "This is a unique site, the only site in Fort Collins that can accommodate a restaurant with a river view. Please consider adding a restaurant to meet the city's urban design goals for the River District." The O'Neils are not real estate developers or in the restaurant business. However, they understood why this was important to the community and agreed to include a restaurant in the design. A restaurant can only be successful at this location if it has a commanding view of the river, just as it is shown in the RDR zone drawing. Without a restaurant, the building could have been set back 10-15 feet and avoided the need for easements from the city. This history is important as we look at how much financial compensation should be paid to the city for the easements. Riverbank and landscape buffer improvements. The city owns the river bank and much of the top of the bank adjacent to the Block One site. The Poudre River Enhancement Project (PREP) plan is an adopted component of the city code. This plan calls for major upgrades of the river bank and the top of the bank from Linden to Lincoln for bank stabilization, habitat and aesthetic reasons. Also, the zoning code requires a landscaped buffer and walking path along the river's edge to accommodate the public's ability to interact with the river. Block One asked for permission to rebuild a portion of the river bank, per the PREP design guidelines, to meet the needs of the restaurant. The city then asked Block One to extend the limits of construction all the way to the Linden Bridge. The O'Neils agreed for two reasons. First, it made sense to rebuild the balance of the bank up to the bridge now rather than have the city upgrade it at a future date at a greater expense. It also provided a more finished appearance for all parties. Secondly, the City Manager agreed to recommend cost sharing (approximately 60% Block One and 40% city) subject to City Council approval with the city share not to exceed $100, 000. This presented a Catch 22 for the Block One project. We could not ask the City Council for their approval of the funding because the project was still in the entitlement process and there could have been an appeal to the City Council. However, it was necessary to submit a design for the river bank to city staff and FEMA to get the CLOMR process initiated to allow work to be done in the flood way. Block One agreed to move forward on all 160 feet in good faith that the city would fund 40% of the cost up to the $100,000 limit. Block One also agreed to perpetually maintain the city portion of the river bank work. Thus we think it is unreasonable to ask Block One to pay an easement fee for any portion of the city funded river bank work. There is an additional reason why the city should not charge an easement fee for the portion of the work needed to accommodate the restaurant. The city policy for doing work in the ROW provides a good analogy. Block One will be required to complete the pavement section and sidewalk along Linden per adopted city design guidelines. This is very reasonable because the development is getting direct benefit while also helping the city complete the desired public improvements. However, the city does not charge an "easement fee" for the privilege of doing what is required by city code, the construction of upgrades within the ROW. The same logic should be used along the river. The developer should be required to build the improvements that are required and directly benefit the project, but should not be charged an easement fee for doing what is required by city code. The river bank improvements and the buffer are the equivalent of the asphalt and sidewalk along Linden Street. None of the river bank improvements would have been required if Block One was limited to office space and apartments as originally envisioned. All of the proposed river bank improvements would still be an obligation of the city per the PREP. Linden Street Encroachment Easements. The Block One design team was advised several months ago that city policy was changing and an encroachment easement, not a revocable permit, would now be required for Permanent public improvements in the ROW. The logic for this is understandable and not in question. However, because this is a change in policy, the city staff was not able to make a recommendation about the price for the easements until very recently. It is important to understand there are two categories of improvements being made in the ROW: 1. Those dictated by a change in site elevation. The land drops significantly along Linden as it approaches the river. This results in the need for stairs and a short retaining wall to access the building. 2. Optional improvements to enhance urban design. The planter box and dining deck are optional design features. Block One has two other decks, both facing the river. The deck facing Linden Street is the least valuable of the three. On several occasions our design team considered deleting this deck as a cost savings (approximately $20,600). We also considered building the deck as a non -permanent improvement, something that could be dismantled. This would have avoided the need for an easement. However, not building the deck, or building it with removable materials, was seen as inconsistent with the urban design goals reflected in the land use code and River District plans. These city documents strongly encourage a streetscape with interesting design features, outdoor dining, planter boxes, etc. Again, the deck would not be necessary except for the desire of the community to have a restaurant in that location. It is not in the best interest of the city to create a disincentive for doing what is strongly encouraged by city planning documents, dictated by good urban design principles and fulfills an articulated desire of the community. We believe an easement fee of 75% of land value, as proposed by city staff, will discourage good urban design on future project like Block One. Is the public receiving appropriate compensation for work done on city property? Hopefully the explanation above qualifies as treating the public fairly. However, there is one additional form of non -financial compensation being provided to the public in the Block One project that is significant. From early in the design process, the O'Neils recognized this is a unique site that should be shared with the public. The addition of the restaurant to the project would have met that expectation. However, the final design (see attached site plan) also includes a passage -way on the first floor that allows the public to benefit from two informal seating areas in the interior of the property. This allows the public to enjoy brown bag lunches and other informal gatherings while viewing the river. The passage -way could easily have been used as additional office space which would have restricted public access to the interior. Conclusion and Recommendation. We believe the public is receiving significant non -monetary compensation for the reasons stated above. 1. We ask that no fee be imposed for the easements associated with rebuilding the river bank and adding a landscape buffer. 2. Block One agreed to accept the recommendation in the staff report to wait until a policy is established for pricing enchroachment easements for permanent public improvements in the ROW or pay a fee of not more than $13,500 by December 31, 2013 for the easements on Linden Street. However, we would much rather bring this item to closure quickly. The staff is recommending that the easements for the stairs and retaining wall be valued at 25% of area land value. The same formula could be applied to the deck and planter box. We are recommending the ordinance be amended to reflect a total fee of not more than $5314 for all the Linden easements (1090 sq. ft. x $19.50 per sq. ft. x 25% = $5314). We believe this is a fair compromise given the fact that the deck and planter box could have been designed as temporary structures and approved by a revocable permit. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Rich Shannon Vice President PINNACLE (:'.) zstamNr. tapt vt Isc, Loveland: (970) 669-3611 Denver:(303) 333-4380 Fax: (970) 669-3612 Cell: (970) 481-4438 Richs@pinnacleconsultinggroupinc.com Loveland 5110 Granite Street, Suite C Loveland CO, 80538 Denver 5300 DTC Parkway, Suite 260 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 www.oinnaCleconsultinejZrouoinc com This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Marc Virata From: Marc Virata Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 9:32 AM To: Marc Virata Subject: Block One River District Encompass Transfort DA Language Memo to file: Per a phone conversation today with Emma McArdle, Transfort will not be wanting to place any language in the development agreement for this project. This includes not needing language addressing the construction and/or maintenance of Transfort facilities abutting the development. MarCG P. Virata,, P. E. Engineering Department City of Fort Collins 970 221-6567 mvirata@fcqov.com