Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/19/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Meyer, Schmidt, Gavaldon, Craig, Carpenter, and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Waido, Frank, Jackson, Byrne, Shepard, Wray and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Minutes of the February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. Discussion Agenda: 2. Recommendation to City Council for the Adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an Element of City Plan. 3. Recommendation to City Council for an Amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan and the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Item 1, February 20, 2003 minutes. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for the Adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan Recommendation to City Council for adoption of the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 2 Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation -recommending approval. He stated that the Subarea Plan specifically deals with the area east of 1-25, with a few exceptions. The policies that have been developed apply mainly to the east side from the Prospect interchange north to the Anheuser Busch area. During the development of the Subarea Plan there were actually two planning efforts going on dealing with the 1-25 Corridor. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan, which is a multi -jurisdictional effort that looked at the 1-25 Corridor from Anheuser Busch to Berthoud. The Regional Corridor Plan focused in on developing a unified set of Design Guidelines establishing plans for a multi -modal transportation network, developing policies and mechanisms to protect significant natural areas and open lands. The 1-25 Subarea Plan includes all of the above major efforts and also does detailed land use planning. Planner Waido summarized what staff considered to be key points, conclusions and policies of the Subarea Plan: • There will be no change to the city's Growth Management Boundary as a result of this Plan. Keeping with the 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan and the key recommendation in the Plan to develop some Activity Centers. This Plan identifies two mixed - use Activity Centers centered around the Mulberry Interchange and the Prospect Road Interchange. If a Regional or Community Shopping Center were to locate in the Corridor, it should be located at the Mulberry Interchange, specifically in the northeast quadrant. The Employment and Industrial Districts are concentrated within a quarter mile of the Interstate. There are a couple of exceptions, which is currently annexed and zoned Industrial in the city extends to''/: mile. Boxelder Creek is being recommended to be preserved as a green corridor. One of the values that we continue to hear was the openness of the Corridor and how we should attempt to preserve that openness to the greatest extent possible and balancing development potential. What we are proposing is a combination of Design Standards, setback requirements, and maximum building frontage allowances and the proper management of floodplain areas. Staff is proposing that there be a minimum 80-foot setback of buildings from the right-of-way of the Interstate to the buildings. Staff is also recommending that buildings only be allowed to extend no more that 50% of the frontage. There is an incentive in the Design Standards if the setback is increased to 120 feet we would allow an Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 3 expansion of their frontage to be up to 60%. Development that occurs adjacent to the interstate, we would like designed so that ultimately access to those properties would come from the parallel road system. Another value staff heard is to not let the Corridor develop into a strip commercial corridor. With the exception of the predominately Commercial Activity Centers along the Interstate, most of the frontage on the Interstate is planned to be Industrial or Employment Districts. There would be a policy that would eliminate secondary uses or retail and highway oriented uses from locating within a quarter mile of the interstate. The policy states that you cannot have any highway oriented or retail commercial uses in the Industrial or Employment areas within one -quarter mile of the Interstate. Properties that only go to a one -quarter mile depth would have to be Employment or Industrial uses. They could not add any retail or commercial uses. Staff believes that is the way to eliminate the commercial strip along the Interstate. Regarding residential, the direction from the Regional Plan was to push single family housing at least one -quarter mile away from the Interstate and staff has attempted to do that. In addition to the quarter mile separation, we are calling for rear detaching of family lots in the Urban Estate areas, which are along the eastern edge of the current Growth Management Boundaries. Those housing units would also be developed in the cluster development option that is included in the Urban Estate Zone. That would help maximize use, preserve open space features and also provide a buffer to any adjacent Industrial or Employment next to those Urban Estate neighborhoods. The Plan does include Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods and staff is proposing that they be concentrated within one-half mile of Mulberry Street. There is one exception of 160 acres located at the southwest quadrant of County Road 5 and Highway 14. The balance of the residential areas outside of the Mulberry Corridor will be designated in the Plan as Urban Estate areas. The Plan does show the Resource Recovery farm on the western side, at least most of the southern portion, the part that is currently zoned E, Employment to be preserved as Open Lands. In addition to the Land Use Plans, there are transportation related plans and one is to extend multi -modal options for travel into it, including mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian connections. There is a map in the Plan that shows the potential location of those facilities. Planner Waido explained the parallel roadway system. He also differentiated the parallel roadway in the Subarea Plan with what was in the Regional Plan. The Subarea Plan was more of an internal Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 4 collector street system that we have throughout the community that deals with inter -connections within and between neighborhoods within the Subarea. There is a plan to increase or change the function of classification of some roads; the roads are more less in the east/West direction, from what they currently are to minor or 4 lane arterials. Most of the undeveloped land within the Growth Management Boundary is expected to annex prior to development. Most of it is already contiguous to the city limits. According to the inter -governmental agreement with Larimer County, those properties would have to annex if they went to the County for rezoning or a development proposal. What that means is that when development does occur, that development would be subjected to all the provisions of the city's Land Use Code as well as the payment of any of the city's impact fees. Member Gavaldon asked about the southwest corner of 1-25 and Prospect Road and the Land being sold by the city. He asked for some background on why the city is selling the land and why could the city not use it. Planner Waido responded that the property that is currently for sale is the area that is bounded by the existing frontage road. It is part of the Resource Recovery Farm and is for sale and is zoned C, Commercial. The balance of the Resource Recovery farm that is zoned E, is the area that is being converted to open lands. The decision was made to keep this property commercial and sell the property on the private market and preserve the balance of the Resource Recovery Farm as Open Lands. Member Gavaldon asked why the city could not leave one of those corners Open Lands and not try and develop it. He asked why the city did not want to retain the land and what was the reason for selling it. He asked what the comparative market value of the land was and was the city making money on the land. Planner Waido replied that he has not been involved in all the discussions between the Utilities and the Department of Natural Resources on the negotiations of purchasing this property, and what the appraised value is. Director of Advanced Planning Joe Frank added that the Light and Power Utilities and the ratepayers of that utility own the Resource Recovery Farm. It is not a city of Fort Collins property that you can just transfer from one department to the other. There is something in the way the charter is set up for the Light and Power utility that they are to get a fair market value if another department were to purchase that property. The corner is prime property, which is some pretty Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 5 expensive property for open space. From a land use perspective a better use would be for a commercial type of land use. The balance of the property had more natural resource value and is connected into the river. The corner would be very expensive for the Open Lands program to purchase. Member Gavaldon asked what the appraised value of the property was. An audience member stated that the property was for sale for $2,000,000. Member Gavaldon hoped that the city used the money wisely on that because budgets are being cut. He does not see Utilities as separate. He sees them as part of the city. Director Frank explained that during study session with Council, their direction was, as shown on this plan, was to maintain the property as an investment and the value of that property back to the city and the rate payers and maintain the balance as open space. PUBLIC INPUT Steve Pfiester works for Realtec in Fort Collins and has over 30 years experience in commercial/retail development. He wanted to address the northeast corner of Prospect and 1-25. He believes that that site will do more to boost the sales tax than other sites he has worked with on South College or on Harmony Road. Many of the developers and major retailers he has worked with have identified that site as the best retail site in the city. That is because of its relationship next to Fort Collins and also being on an interchange on Interstate Highway. While Fort Collins is a major source of consumers for shopping centers, southern Wyoming, southwestern Nebraska and other towns in Northern Colorado also shop in Fort Collins. It is a very convenient location for people to come to. About a year and a half ago a group called Cousins Development had a series of meetings with John Fishbach and Greg Byrne. Cousins Development represents Dillards Department Store and selected that site as the number one site in this market area. Because of the anticipated delays and complications that they saw with that site, they went down the road to the Windsor interchange. Now as it stands now, a letter of intent has been signed with Windsor and it looks as though Fort Collins will loose the Dillards Department Store. There are a number of things that are important to retailers in deciding their locations, they found that the locations that are on interstate highways produce substantially greater sales and that means greater sales tax for the city. They want to locate where they can maximize their sales. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 6 Over the course of the last three years he has worked with many of the private consultants and staff on the 1-25 Regional Plan. The Regional Plan identifies Prospect and 1-25 as an Activity Center and he thinks it has been confirmed on many occasions as being one of the best sites. It also satisfies the two most basic requirements in retail real estate, which are visibility and access. This site has visibility and access, which is what they are looking for. Paul Gallenstein, represents a community called Sunflower, an active adult community. The residents in that community have spoken very strongly to him about the need for services in this area. They like the idea of not having to cross 1-25 to gain services such as shopping. On the northeast corner of Prospect there is a collector street, which connects in two different fashions that people could walk down to or ride bicycles to shopping and get other services. That would be a benefit to their community. There are other residential areas that have the same needs. The things that they, as a community, are trying to emphasize are the idea of walking, promoting health and alternative transportation here in the city of Fort Collins. In their community they also sponsor hiking and walking clubs, things like that. The idea of having a retail facility close to their community would be very important to these active adult people. Betty Willis owns a farm south of Prospect and just south of Homestead Estates. Her east boundary is on County Road 5. She asked if this Subarea Plan passes and she wants to develop her farm in the future, would she have to annex into the city of Fort Collins before she could do it. Les Kaplan, property owner of a 47 acre parcel which is in the subject area. The area is in Larimer County and has not been annexed into the city limits. It was petitioned for annexation in April of 2000, over three years ago. At that time, he was asked by staff to delay the processing until the 1-25 Subarea Plan was adopted. He did move forward after waiting about 2 '/z years for the Plan to be adopted. He brought the annexation before the Planning and Zoning Board, which recommended approval of the annexation and the zoning. It went to the City Council and based upon the three hour discussion at City Council, it appeared it would be prudent to withdraw the annexation and continue to wait for the 1-25 Subarea Plan to get to them. He wanted to update the Board on the status of his annexation. Just for the record he reminded everyone that this has been over a three-year effort. The committee working on the 5-year update to City Plan regarding the Growth Management Area east of 1-25 delayed the effort in part so that there could be a recommendation. As Ken has referenced, that recommendation is to keep that area where it is and City Council has decided to Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 7 do that. He encouraged the Planning and Zoning Board to adopt the Plan tonight. There has been an enormous amount of work that has been done. He has been to over 40 meetings and well over $200,000 has been spent and hundreds of hours. This has been about the longest planning effort of anything that he could possibly remember despite the fact that this is consistent with the Regional Plan the city has already adopted. Harold Einarsen owns two parcels along 1-25, between Mountain Vista and Vine Drive. It is the piece of Industrial Land that goes clear back to the Urban Growth Area Boundary. He has owned those parcels for over 23 years with the idea of eventually doing something with it. If the setback is put in force, what could be put closer to the highway than a quarter mile? A quarter of a mile takes up '/z of one parcel and takes the entire other parcel. It makes it tough with an investment going down the drain. He asked again what it could be used for. Mr. Einarsen asked about the setback of 1,320 feet, which he felt was a lot of ground. If people can't use it maybe the city would like to buy it as open space. He asked if the setback would affect Anheuser Busch or the parcel at Prospect and 1-25 that the city owns, because if it does, then they can't use it for anything that is commercial. He just wanted to make sure that everyone is treated on an equal basis. Norm Korasa, owner of part of the property at the northeast corner of 1-25 and Vine stated that he had lived in various communities over his short and fun filled years. He has found in the long run that an aerial plan like this expedites decisions and helps everybody to coordinate in a judicious manner. He sees this as a comprehensive plan that has a cohesiveness that has a transportation concentration so you don't have cars driving all over the place. It has neighborhoods next to each other and next to the transportation and employment districts. He would like to see this Plan adopted by the city to keep from having unnecessary conflicts when petitions come before the Board and City Council. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Torgerson addressed some of the questions raised during public input. There was a question about annexation and when annexation is required. Planner Waido replied that Mrs. Willis' property is currently outside of the current Growth Management Area boundary. Therefore is not required to annex upon development. Whatever the zoning in the County is and whatever County review processes would be required for that property would apply upon development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 8 Chairperson Torgerson asked about the question raised about the quarter mile setback. Planner Waido responded that there must be some confusion between when we are talking about a land use setback and a design setback. Planner Waido reiterated that most of the Employment Districts are located within '% mile of the Interstate. The land use restriction that we are talking about is secondary uses or other uses that are permitted in Industrial or Employment District are going to be prohibited within % mile. Any of the primary uses listed in the Land Use Code will all be permitted within the '/, mile area. That is the land use setback. The other setback we are talking about is a design setback of 80 feet. Any primary use could locate within the Employment or Industrial Districts but would be required to have an 80-foot setback and consume no more than 50% of the frontage. In the setback area is where the city would expect these properties to do the engineering wise with their floodplain issues. It could be retention ponds, detention ponds, channelization, landscaping and buffers to parking lots. A lot of things can happen in that 80 feet. Member Craig wanted to talk about Activity Centers. She looked through the Plan and could not really find a definition of Activity Centers. Since we really did not adopt the Design Standards, she wondered why we don't have a definition. She also noticed in the Design Standards, that they had two definitions. There was one for Activity Center and one for Mixed -Use Activity Center. She would like some clarification of what was being put in this Plan. Member Craig also asked if Activity Centers could locate in an Industrial or Employment corridor as long as they follow the "nebulous" definition of Activity Center. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner responded to Member Craig's question. He stated that there was not a specific definition in the Plan itself. Staff would probably supplement this by borrowing from the Harmony Corridor definition, which is what we had in mind when we came up with the concept of the Mixed Use Activity Centers. The terms for Activity Center and Mixed Use Activity Center are interchangeable. Member Craig was getting confused because there were two definitions in the Design Standards which were never adopted. Supposedly, part of this Plan was directly or indirectly adopting the Design Standards. She really did not get a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 9 clear definition of Activity Centers and whether we are trying to compact them more than anywhere else in the city, whether we want them to specifically address multi -model transit off of 1-25, can they be incorporated through out the Subarea Plan, and can they only be the two that have been mentioned in the Plan. Member Craig noticed in the Plan that in one place it mentions "two," another place it says "several". She felt it needed to be clearer if we want development to come in the way we want it to come in. Planner Shepard replied that staff would like it to be clear as well. Staff will add a definition and it is staffs understanding that we would refer to the map and there are only "two" Activity Centers. If there is a narrative in the Plan that refers to "several" it is an oversight and it will be corrected. He does like the word "Mixed Use" in front of Activity Center because he thinks that is more descriptive. Member Craig agreed and felt that would bring in residential, business, etc., it gets us away from just commercial. Member Craig asked about another component of the Design Standards that was not incorporated into the Subarea Plan and that was the area between the Activity Centers. She asked staff to address how they feel like they addressed that in this Plan. Planner Waido replied that staff is somewhat limited between theory in the Regional Corridor Plan and reality in the Subarea Plan; in that between the two Activity Centers in the Regional Plan it was intended to be less density, less intensity development. In our particular case we have areas that are already planned and in most cases zoned for higher intensity uses. Director Frank added that the vision of the 1-25 Regional Plan was to have the concentration of activity at the interchanges and lesser concentration between those spaces in addition open space. The idea was in between was office, parks, business parks and then some open space. When you look at the Subarea Plan he felt like it comes pretty close to meeting that vision. The concern was that we did not have a continuous commercial development along I- 25. This Plan having Industrial, Employment and Open Space between really fits nicely into that vision. Member Craig's impression was that the point of the Activity Centers was to "cluster" so we did not have a strip of something from one end to the other. But what Planner Waido was saying is that from Prospect up we are going to have high density and we are going to end up with a lot of development and we are not going to see any spaces in between. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 10 Director Frank responded that that part of 1-25 is going through an urban area and it is going to be urban. What we were trying to prevent in the 1-25 Regional Plan was strip commercial along both sides of the frontage road and concentrate them. Lower intensity uses were discussed as being office and business parks. Member Craig asked about the height of the buildings in between and is that discussed in the Plan. Planner Shepard replied that there is no specific height except what is already in Article Three of the Land Use Code. There are also height specific standards in the Industrial and Employment Zone District. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council adoption of the I- 25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan the City's Comprehensive Plan. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Schmidt asked what the difference in commercial acreage was at the Mulberry and Prospect interchanges. Director Frank explained that the vacant commercial areas are going to probably develop in some sort of community, regional or highway oriented type uses versus oriented toward the adjacent neighborhoods. The size is not based upon a neighborhood being a neighborhood center. He would not doubt that within the mix of uses he described, there could be a grocery store or video serving the needs of the neighborhood, but the size is not neighborhood oriented. Planner Waido showed a zoning map and explained that the quarter section south and east of the Prospect Interchange is basically all commercial, there are a couple of properties that are zoned FA1 Farming. We are just carrying forth those designations as part of the Plan. Member Schmidt asked about the list of recommended street improvements that are not currently in the city's Master Street Plan. She wondered that if the Plan is adopted, do they become part of the Master Street Plan. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning responded that this is being done differently than Subarea Plans in the past. It is not uncommon that with Subarea Plans that a more focused transportation analysis is done in that area and then staff makes recommendations of any amendments to the city's Master Street Plan if necessary. That is usually done concurrently with the adoption process. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 11 Staff has opted not to do that this time for timing purposes. We are in the middle of updating the Transportation Master Plan. The analysis and modeling work that was done for both the 1-25 Regional Plan and the Subarea Plan was done using an older version of data and an older version of the model. What he has opted to do is rerun the analysis and check the recommendations again because we have new demographic data we have incorporated from the census, and the model has been updated. Mr. Jackson explained that the Master Street Plan alignments are not engineered alignments, they are conceptual in nature. They do change and they can vary a little bit as long as it stays within the spirit and the context of what the Master Street Plan is showing. Certainly, the neighborhoods that are impacted will have a chance to comment when specific development applications come in and as they go through the process. Member Colton wanted to follow up on the southeast corner of Prospect and 1-25 and asked if something was zoned commercial in the County does that not mean that as part of this Plan it could be zoned something else. Planner Waido replied that was true. Member Colton found that to be very large compared to the other corners. The Prospect interchange is not funded and requires a lot of improvements. He feels that something should be done with the south half of that southeast corner. Member Colton also referenced the proposed rezoning of Mr. Kaplan's property and he felt that when we are trying to get a feathering into the County and allowing 5 to 8 up to 12 units per acre in that location, he believes, is inappropriate. The fact that there is no Mixed Use Activity Centers there, no neighborhood commercial, parks or schools in the area to service that housing. We are going to make the problem worse by putting all this LMN out there. Planner Waido stated that staffs thinking is obviously different than his perspective because when we look at the Mulberry Corridor east of 1-25, between 1-25 and County Road 5, the characteristic is clearly urban to staff. The current housing projects out there range from 3 units per acre to 7 units per acre. The edge is Urban Estate with no more than 2 units per acre. The context of this is more in line with what is surrounding it and it will be adjacent to an Industrial area with a connection to the Activity Center. Staff agrees with the transitioning and that is why we show the properties along the eastern edge of the Growth Management Boundary as Urban Estate where Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 12 the transitions will come from. Staff did not see Mr. Kaplan's property fitting into that transition and more good planning sense to have than as an Urban Estate area. Staff has not had any discussions with the property owner for affordable housing purposes because when you look up and down the corridor, affordable housing is going to happen in the LMN areas or it will not happen at all. That means that it is either the little piece of property that is 25 acres or this piece of property. That is why we are recommending the zoning change to LMN for Mr. Kaplan's property. Member Colton asked if there would be a park or a place for a grocery store to locate for all the people that would be moving out there. Planner Waido explained where a current proposal for a neighborhood shopping area that is being processed through the County would locate. There is also the Mountain Vista Activity Center and it is hoped that a grocery store type facility would locate there. It also does not preclude a facility like that locating in the commercial areas within the Activity Centers. Director Frank added that there are so few residential units being generated by this Plan that it would never generate the money to purchase any public park. In the residential portion of the Land Use Code, there is a requirement as part of the LMN to have some small neighborhood park. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning added that in the LMN zone there are requirements for small neighborhood parks to be included within the development. Similarly, there is also a requirement for neighborhood centers after you hit a certain threshold of the development size. Within a certain proximity of the development you have to have a neighborhood center and there are certain elements of those centers for trying to have some of the essential services that have been mentioned. When we say LMN zone, it is truly a mixed - use zone, not just a residential district. Member Craig asked Doug Moore of Natural Resources about Page 10 in the Plan and where it says 2.6 Environmental Conditions. Her concern was that when this was originally put together as a draft, it stopped at "other resources along the Poudre and Boxelder Corridor will need to be protected as development occurs in the future". What has been added is that "these areas will primarily be protected by the standards contained in the city's Land Use Code, specifically Division 3.4 that contains Environmental Natural Area, etc." She appreciates that staff put that in so there would be a point of reference. On the other hand, if we look at some of the new City Plan Update Characteristics and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 13 we are behind in getting them into the Code, was it smart to "pigeon hole" them and not just leave it as "need to be protected". Mr. Moore replied that he always likes to reference the Code. He is used to dealing with the Code and the language in the Code. It is very strong to work with and when it is pointed out, that brings a little more emphasis to it. He understands that she would like it to be more of a "broad view" and maybe more could be applied. He thought that the way it has been written and bringing attention to just this section of the Code works better the way this is written where we can go back and implement it and hold them right to the Code. Member Craig asked about Goal Environment 1. Originally it said "significant natural areas including wetlands, drainage, floodplains, flood fringes and waterways will be preserved and development will be successfully integrated with natural features in the Subarea". It has been changed to direct people specifically to the city's Natural Areas Inventory Map. Mr. Moore replied that it should be the city's Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map. Those are what he says is a "broad brush" map where different features have been identified in there that would be protected by our standards. They have recently updated that so it clearly communicates. Member Craig wondered if that was limiting them so if it is not on the city's Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map; and if staff was to go out and a hawk has taken over a nest or a wetland has developed and it is not on the map would it be protected or buffered because of that. Mr. Moore replied that how that is picked up is a more detailed environmental characterization study that is required at PDP. It is not just limited to what is on the map. Member Craig asked about Page 15 and the city's area of influence, what was the definition of "area of influence". Planner Waido replied that there was a map of the "area of influence" in City Plan. Basically it extends about 2 miles past the Growth Management Area Boundary. Director Frank added that it is just a description of a community influence area that would be established. We never have established a community influence area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 14 Planner Waido explained that by County policy they refer anything within 3 miles of the GMA boundary to the city, which is a mile further than the requirement and State law. Director Frank said that the wording is a little misleading and makes it sound like we have one, we do not have an area of influence. He thought that it would be more accurate to say, "areas outside the Growth Management Area will remain under the control of the Larimer County Land Use Planning". Member Craig stated that made more sense to her also. A friendly amendment was added to the motion to change the wording of that statement. Member Colton commented that he would not be supporting the motion. He believed that the commercial at the southeast corner of Prospect is way too large. There is no reason why we would have to carry the County designation of zoning forward. There are many other areas where we have changed the zoning to something, which is more appropriate. He believes it should be made smaller by making the bottom half Urban Estate or Employment in lieu of the County Road 50, northeast comer having any Employment. He thought we should not do the big upzoning from O, Open in the County to Employment. He thought that whole area within the Urban Growth Area at the northeast corner of County Road 50 and 1-25 should be all Urban Estate. He also has concerns about putting more LMN in an area where people obviously are going to have to get in their cars to drive to the two Neighborhood Centers. Member Craig stated that she would also not be supporting the Subarea Plan. She concurred with Member Colton and also was worried about the funding and financial realities that is one of the goals that we have in this Plan, especially when we are putting that much commercial in the southeast quadrant of Prospect where there is no funding. She felt we are not being fiscally responsible to put that much commercial in an area where it would be a long time before the infrastructure could bear the kind of zoning that is being put in that area. She could not support the way the transportation — the 1-25 Corridor improvements have been incorporated into the Plan. If staff brought to her the Subarea Plan like other Plans that she has been involved in where the road system is the road system that is within that Plan then she could agree. But when you are putting a whole region in front of her and telling her that is what she has to approve, she is not going to do it. If she understands correctly, the Council has not approved the 1-25 Regional Master Plan and this is telling her that she needs to approve it, and she is not comfortable with that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 15 Member Carpenter would be supporting the Plan. She thinks that there has been a lot of good work done. She felt there has been a lot of input from numerous citizens. She thinks that it has been compromised to death and if we keep going we will end up with no Plan at all. She thought to have no Plan at all for the 1-25 Corridor would be a grievous mistake and we should move forward. There are things in the Plan that she does not agree with as well, but she felt that we need to move forward. Member Gavaldon would be supporting the Plan. He agreed with Member Carpenter and other comments. Member Craig and Colton brought up good points, but he felt that we should not have a government that paralyzes everything. This Board was not going to paralyze this Plan. You have to have something in place to make it systematically work. He thought that we should recommend the Plan to Council and move on. Member Schmidt stated that she would be supporting the Plan so it moves along to Council. She has some serious reservations and she hoped that staff has answered honestly from the standpoint of what is written in the Plan that the city is not responsible and will not commit financially to any of the roads that are outside the GMA even though they are drawn on the map. Her feeling on the commercial is that although she is concerned that it is a very large area, on the other hand it will take commercial to pay for the improvements at that intersection. If it was Urban Estate, there will never be enough money coming together in a pot to pay for those improvements and people will come to the city and ask. She felt that comments have been made and some things are not changing so the best thing to do would be to vote on this, move it forward to Council and they would have the final decision to make any changes. Member Torgerson would be supporting the motion. He thought all we have to do is look south of us and see what poor planning and inaction results in. He thought this is a logical step forward for good planning. Two other friendly amendments were made. Goal ENV1 on page 17, the wording changed to read "significant natural features will be preserved". Also, add a definition for Mixed Use Activity Center. Member's Gavaldon and Meyer accepted the amendments. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Colton voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 16 Project: Staff is requesting a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of an amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan, as an element of City Plan. The amendment would designate an additional location for a mixed -use Activity Center, providing a location for a fourth type of shopping center, called a Lifestyle Shopping Center. Staff is also requesting a recommendation to City Council for adoption of Amendments to the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines. The amendments would add a definition of Lifestyle Shopping Centers, along with corresponding standards for development of such a Center. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence. Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services gave the staff presentation. He stated that this amendment would "permit' but not "require" development on land at the northwest corner of Harmony and Ziegler Roads. He stated that staff has known for sometime that the city has a shortage of market ready commercial zoning to meet projected demand. It was a key issue that was identified by staff as the City Plan update process began months ago. Director Byrne stated that while preparing for the City Plan update we began to get contacts by Real Estate Brokers and from National Developers looking for a site. In response, availability of land was reviewed and about a dozen sites were looked at that could potentially serve and would be large enough and have good access. None were zoned and market ready. Of the dozen, about six have moderate to strong possibilities to overcome the obstacles. Director Byrne highlighted those sites for the Board. Three of the six potential sites are along Harmony Road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 17 Staff decided not to initiate any changes to the zoning to meet this demand because the City Plan update was in process. At the same time it was made available to the developers and brokers the list of properties and said if the market is ready, then bring that forward to staff and we will respond in advance of the City Plan update. A development company that says they would like this to be done prior to the City Plan update process running its course has now approached us. The City Plan update has been guided by the characteristics that the City Council adopted recently to guide the completion of the Plan. We have included one of those that talks about "Fort Collins strengthening its economic base while finding ways to expand and diversify employment options, including but not limited to a center for retail trade." When talking about a center for retail trade, it is referring to the City of Fort Collins in the regional context. Director Byrne stated that tonight the focus would be on the key issues that staff has heard in the public process to date, and they are the same ones that were presented to the City Council at their study session. Clark Mapes, City Planner reviewed the Harmony Corridor and the history of the Harmony Corridor Plan. Planner Mapes reviewed an aerial photo of the Harmony Corridor and the proposed site as it exists today. He stated that the existing Harmony Corridor Plan that is being amended has just a few main aspects. First it calls for a landscaped corridor from 1-25 to College Avenue and it designates two main types of land uses. Both allow a mix. The first type is basic industrial and non -retail employment designation. The second is a designation that also allows shopping centers, in addition to the basic employment and non -retail uses. In both designations, there is an allowance for supporting and secondary uses. That is where you see the hotels, childcare, limited commercial service, convenience commercial and houses as secondary uses under both the main designations. The designation would work at Harmony and Ziegler, the addition of another designation similar to the others of a new type of shopping center called a Lifestyle Shopping Center at this one location. Two properties are involved, one a 100-acre undeveloped portion of the LSI property and there is another 50-acre parcel involved called the Johnson Property. The southern portion of the two properties is the portion that is proposed to be designated. The LSI property does have an approved Overall Development Plan and there is a general bubble diagram with a list of uses that includes all of the uses allowed in the Harmony Corridor Plan in addition to possible future street connections. The proposed Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 18 land use designation would not represent an increase in intensity over the existing land use designation. The building square footage would be similar whether this additional designation is approved or not. Issues like building height, lighting, deliveries and so forth would all be subject to the same standards. Traffic generation would be significant either way, slightly higher with the shopping center designation than in the employment mix, but with the a.m. peak slightly lower, trips spread out more thinly and evenly in general. The actual plan amendments as the Board sees in their packets are simple, adding the one designation at this one location with a definition of the Lifestyle Shopping Center. Planner Mapes showed slides of existing Lifestyle Centers illustrating upscale retail and restaurants in an open air setting with very distinctive high quality architecture and a generous pedestrian environment. Mark Jackson of Transportation Services spoke to the Board about transportation and the context of how this would set in with the rest of the Harmony Corridor and the region. He stated that Harmony is currently a four lane arterial roadway and also shows the designation as a Colorado Department of Transportation Highway. Ultimately, the Harmony Road Corridor is designed to be a six lane major arterial roadway. Ziegler, just east of the proposed site is currently four lanes to a certain point and then tapers off up to Horsetooth. Ziegler is shown on the Master Street Plan as a four -lane arterial ultimately in the future. Mr. Jackson also showed on the Master Street Plan a conceptual collector level connection. Mr. Jackson spoke about the interchange at Harmony and Interstate 25. If you think in terms of different sites that have been looked at or mentioned in the press or in discussions about potential retail or Lifestyle Centers — the interchanges, with the exception of Harmony all have a lot of issues to them. The Harmony interchange has recently been rebuilt, it has adequate capacity and could certainly handle what is being proposed here. He believes that the problems at Prospect Road, Interchange 392 and US 34 all have their own set of issues and come with a large price tag to fix. That is why this site is so attractive to a potential developer. The anticipated access and circulation for this site, primary access would be taken off of Harmony Road at Corbett. That is consistent with the Colorado Department of Transportation's Harmony Access Control Plan. A second primary access would be located on Ziegler and that would be a future signalized intersection. That is right at the western entrance to Hewlett Packard. Secondary access points are shown to the north of this primary site on Ziegler and the north south connection that he mentioned earlier, the proposed collector connection. Mr. Jackson reviewed circulation and stated that anticipated Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 19 impacts and issues regardless of what develops on this site, that there be the need for improvements to the intersection at Corbett and the intersection at Ziegler. It would be likely that improvements would also be needed at Horsetooth and Ziegler as well. We won't know the exact level of those impacts until a full-blown Transportation Impact Study is submitted with any development application. There is one issue that is on the table that is a really big issue for the folks that live in the English Ranch neighborhood. That is the potential for cut through traffic if a connection is made. They are very concerned and have already been in conversation with the City's Traffic Engineer about what they perceive to be a very high level of cut through traffic right now. The developer is aware of it as an issue and staff is aware it is an issue. Everybody is committed to make this work and the last thing that they want to do is make a bad situation worse. Staff will work closely with the developer and the neighborhoods to exhaust every design possibility that we can to see what we can do to mitigate any impacts and not encourage cut through traffic. There is a whole laundry list of potential traffic calming and traffic diversion types of strategies to be used. That will be more appropriate when an actual development proposal comes in. The preliminary trip generation analysis that was done showed that the retail center looked like it would generate more average daily trips than the office, employment or industrial. The patterns of the trips are markedly different. Office, employment and industrial are peak hour driven in their traffic generation. If you think in terms of a retail center, that is not necessarily the case. The shops don't generally open that early in the morning, so you would see quite a marked decrease in the percentage of impact on the morning peak hour. The trips also tend to be spread out more throughout the day and they do also move into the weekend as well. The p.m. peak hour, the retail center does generate slightly more trips, if you account for new trips generated, the preliminary analysis estimated a 5% increase. Pete Wray, City Planner and Project Manager for this project stated that a consultant was retained to help with the market analysis. Planner Wray highlighted some key points that were brought up in the report. • Of the four proposed locations for the Lifestyle Center from Loveland to Windsor and two in Fort Collins, it was estimated that only one Lifestyle Center would materialize in this region. • It would serve Fort Collins catching trips and sales that would otherwise leave the city. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 20 • It is estimated that we would have an increase in sales tax revenues depending on the size of the Lifestyle Center anywhere from 1.3 to 2.4 million. • It also pointed out that if the Lifestyle Center is not located in Fort Collins, there is a potential loss of sales between 1.1 and two million. • It would also increase of the city's captured sales tax in the region. In looking at potential impacts, this would bring new competition into the region and it will have some impact on the Foothills Mall and particularly with the existing specialty retailers located in the Mall or within the vicinity. Some of the same tenants that are targeted for Lifestyle Centers have also been shown to locate in these. It is identified in the report that there could be some potential impacts on those retailers. Planner Wray thinks that the owners of the Mall are aware of this regional competition and have plans for expansion to stay competitive. The impacts on Downtown were also looked at. The Downtown is very unique in its composure and mix of locally owned tenants, primarily the historic value of the downtown and its location. Because of the distance and the qualities he has mentioned, it was determined that there would not be significant impacts in the Downtown area. In fact, with the potential for regional draw, they could also potentially shop Downtown or at the Foothills Mall as well. Staff also looked at our Employment land inventory. There are approximately 550 acres in the Harmony Corridor and if you exclude the 140 acres that would leave 450 acres of vacant land. If you look at the approximate size of the LSI property, approximately 35 companies of equivalent size could locate within the corridor in the future. Looking citywide there is about 2500 acres with approximately 52 sites greater than 10 acres that exist within our Growth Management Area. He thinks the key points in this discussion are why we are looking at a preferred location for this Lifestyle Center, we also have determined that there is sufficient inventory for future primary employment within the Growth Management Area. PUBLIC INPUT Charles Sturgill, lives on Sunstone Drive in English Ranch. They have a neighborhood that has a very large amount of small children of which many ride bicycles. There is also a school and park near by. The main road in the area is Kingsley Road. He and his neighbors are all in agreement with the shopping center, the only thing they don't want to see is a major exit coming onto Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 21 Paddington. That would automatically create a lot of traffic coming in their direction. John Cloudna, lives on Delaney and also works in the Harmony Corridor. He was at a public meeting about the center and he heard someone say "that if you can't buy it in Fort Collins you don't need it." He wanted to counter point that and say that he does no shopping in Fort Collins because there is no high -end retail. A Lifestyle Center like this would be great. He strongly encouraged the Board to accept the amendment because this would be a great economic benefit to our city. He feels that it is coming to Northern Colorado anyway, and it might as well be in Fort Collins. John Davis, lives in English Ranch and echoed the previous speakers comments. He lives off of Kingsley Road on Newgate Court. He attended some of the meetings and seeing the proposed exit onto Paddington and the abatements that have been talked about, he felt would not be a concern to himself as a homeowner. He has grandchildren who live in the area that rides bikes, play in the park and cross the streets. He did not feel that it would be a major exit. He thinks that people would use the most convenient way and that would be out to Ziegler Road and out to Horsetooth. He and his wife strongly support this. From a personal standpoint, it will save him a lot of miles on his car because his wife goes to Denver all the time to do her shopping and that would help him out financially as well. Ann Corbly lives on Spring Harvest Lane in Harvest Park Subdivision and is a recent transplant from Littleton Colorado. She stated that in Littleton they just constructed a Lifestyle Center named Aspen Grove and they were thrilled in their area to have that development. Not only did it increase their property values significantly, but also there was a minimal increase in traffic. Her experience is that the peak hours are not significantly increased and it is not a real problem on the main roads. She also concurred with some of the other speakers and that she does very little shopping in Fort Collins and she would rather not send her tax dollars and the jobs we could have here down to Broomfield or Denver. Robert Schutzius, 3208 Mesa Verde Street, which is in the Woodland Park Estates Subdivision, which is just north of the HP/Agilent Campus. He wanted to express his support for the proposed development and encourage the City Council to amend the Harmony Road Corridor to allow such a development to occur. He thought that it would be a tremendous source of badly needed jobs in Fort Collins. The newspaper article in the Coloradoan inaccurately portrayed this as a choice between 1,400 living wage jobs and 1,200 retail jobs. He thought the reality of the matter is that this is an opportunity to harness 1,200 real jobs in Fort Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 22 Collins. There is no proposal on the table for any corporation to build a plant to bring in any living wage jobs for this parcel or any other parcel along Harmony Road that he is aware of. If any corporation wanted to do that, there is nothing to stop them from building on any of the other parcels that are available. The city could really use the sales tax revenue and property taxes that this project would generate. He thinks that it is a foregone conclusion that there will be a Lifestyle Center built somewhere in Northern Colorado and Larimer County. He would prefer that it would be in Fort Collins and he prefers that it would be at the Harmony Road site. He thinks that there is pent up demand here in Fort Collins for the kind of retail stores that the developer would want to bring and he would encourage the Board and Council to move boldly to secure that development opportunity here. He also asked that the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council respect the wishes of those that live in neighboring English Ranch and design the traffic flow so that it will not diversely impact those that live in that neighborhood. Marie Kilia, lives in the Harvest Subdivision and is also a transplant from Texas. Her understanding is that this property will be developed anyway, this will just upgrade the plan. Why shouldn't we upscale and get the best development that we can. Even if they do decide not to develop here, if we approve this plan it will already be market ready so if someone else would decide to develop here it will be ready to go and we won't have to go through this process again. She agreed that she is used to a little different shopping coming from a large city than what Fort Collins offers. Fort Collins is a wonderful city and they love it here, but they do have to go to Denver if they want to go to upscale shops. She would just as soon spend her tax dollars here and support this beautiful city, than to have to drive to Denver, or worse yet see the tax dollars go to Windsor or Loveland. If the City Council decides not to approve this upgrade, it will send the message to other developers who are interested in this city and it may discourage them from any future plans that they have here. Finally, she thinks that Fort Collins needs well planned growth, not no growth, not overgrowth but well planned growth. In her opinion we have world class manufacturing so why don't we have world class shopping. Les Kaplan, stated he was on the Advisory Task Force for the Harmony Corridor Plan update from about six years ago and is also a property owner on Harmony Road. This is obviously a very unusual process, what we are looking at this evening is not an application by a developer or an applicant and it is not a scheduled update to the Harmony Corridor Plan. But none the less, he thinks that it is important to take note that the staff has responded to an opportunity and is trying to put the City of Fort Collins in the race for a Lifestyle Center. He thought that for a Lifestyle Center to be built out of Fort Collins would be a sales Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 23 tax drain and would be detrimental to the city. He has two suggestions as the Board considers this this evening. The first has to do with the definition of a Lifestyle Center. They Lifestyle Center has seemed to become a "buzz" word for something that is a desirable regional shopping center. We don't really know what kind of entity it is. The staff is struggling with the definition. We all agree that it is something that is pedestrian oriented and is something that is a higher quality of retail and it is something that has a higher level of amenities in it. For those reasons he thinks that the definition should limit the number of big box stores. Currently the definition indicates that you cannot have a store that is larger than 110,000 s.f. and he doesn't know if that is too big. That is approximately the size of Builders Square. He thinks the size needs to be looked at, but certainly the number needs to be looked at. If this center was dominated by large users, it could lose out on this vision that we seem to all be sharing at this moment as to what a Lifestyle Center is. The second thing is that this is a proposal by staff that is coming forward at this particular time in history because there is interest in Northern Colorado on the part of a multitude of developers to do something here for the Lifestyle Center. This site might lose and if this site loses, he thinks the playing field on Harmony Road needs to leveled again. There are sites that might not be "market ready" as "market ready' as this site is considered to be; but five or six years from now, if there is another round for additional retail in Northern Colorado with another shopping center, some of the other sites might prove to be better sites than this. What he is suggesting is that if a final development plan is not submitted for this property within a certain time period, he was suggesting two years, that the zoning revert back to what it is and the opportunity be equalized for other sites to come in and to try and justify their properties for a Lifestyle Center or what ever the term du jour is at that time. X Koppel, was on the original Harmony Corridor Update Committee in 1995 and participated again a couple of days ago with the same group that was active in 1995. He was not there to underscore what has been said because he basically agrees with most of what has been said so far. He has been associated with retailing for close to 40 years. That has four decades that has shown many changes each decade. He wanted to make sure that people understand that this is a change that will probably go out and if we don't' jump on this opportunity, we may lose out in other areas beyond just this particular site we are talking about. He cautioned the Board that all the deliberations and discussions that have went on so far for this site and project, and will have in the future, will be purely academic as this project goes forth on a fast track basis. If we don't move fast on this project, we will likely lose out to Loveland anyway even if we try to move Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 24 forward on this project. He asked the Board and City Council to move expeditiously on this project. David Silverstein, principal with Bayer Properties from Birmingham Alabama introduced himself to the Board. He thought it was fair to say that they were there tonight because of the energy and effort that his company has been putting into this process along with City staff for almost a year and a half, close to two years. As a professional courtesy, he thought he should introduce himself to the Board and talk about who he is, where he is from, and why is he here before the Board trying to change the character of Harmony Road. He has had the pleasure of touching various segments of the community for the last year and a half to introduce himself and inform about what it is that they are trying to bring to Fort Collins. He has met with neighborhoods, had an open house, had ongoing dialogue and shared information with City staff. He has met with the Chamber of Commerce and Business Journal as well as the newspaper only in an effort to educate so that informed decisions can be made. He has not had the chance to meet any of the Board, not privately or publicly. He has been doing this for a number of years and has not ever quite had this distance between either Planning Commission or Council Members in that they have been working within the city for so long, but never had introduced himself. He stated that they were very privileged to be here. A lot of reasons lead them to want to come to Fort Collins. In many ways, even though they are 2,000 miles apart, Birmingham and Fort Collins have a lot of similarities. Before The Summit project was built in Birmingham, their city was under -served in the retail market. Shoppers were going to Atlanta. There was a tremendous leakage of retail dollars going to Atlanta. They felt that if they could bring to their community a project that was really new to the retail world in the sense of what we are talking about today which is wonderful architecture, terrific landscaping, quality mix of retailers, that the consumer in Birmingham would respond favorably. Little do they know that The Summit project in Birmingham would have achieved to the level it has. Their project has become part of the fabric of their community. He submitted to the Board that they certainly value their responsibility and acknowledge their responsibility as a developer coming to Fort Collins. If in fact the Council ultimately chooses to allow for the amendment to occur, they still must go through the process of submitting a development plan to Planning in keeping with the definition of a Lifestyle Center. They have just begun and look forward to the opportunity to invest in this community. They take investment to mean more than just bringing dollars here, they invest culturally and also philanthropically. They take their role as a corporate citizen beyond just the economic investment. He invited the Board to ask any questions they would like. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 25 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Colton asked about the issue Mr. Kaplan has with this becoming a big box center with 100,000 s.f. stores dominating the center. He was concerned with the wording on the permitted uses because it talks about retail stores, apparel, home furnishings, bath and body, books and music, especially food, sit down restaurants, coffee shops, ice cream parlors, grocery stores, theatres, uses of similar character. It says that a Lifestyle Shopping Center shall contain at least 20 different business establishments with separate public entrances. In reading that, that could almost be the shopping center that Mr. Kaplan has, so he was concerned that we need to have this definition be tight enough so we do get these upscale retail establishments. He thought that it might mean adding "of these 20, at least half have to be retail, not restaurant, or the secondary uses," or something that will make sure that we are truly getting what we are envisioning. Director Byrne thought the question was perfectly valid and it is one that has also worried staff through the process. One of the things we have done is to try and create a new definition that is distinct and different. Some zoning ordinances are nested so you can do up to something and anything that is lesser. We have not done that, we have not said that you can do a Lifestyle Center or any smaller center that is allowed in the Harmony Corridor. It would be this or nothing. So the question is have we defined the Lifestyle Center adequately. We have spent considerable time at this at the staff level and with our economic consultants and now just recently we have put on contract Clarion and Associates to help us with the legal side to work with the City Attorney's office to make sure that our Code language is tight. He regrets he does not have that for the Board tonight, but it will be generated in the next few days. In addition to the 20 separate establishments that was mentioned, he thought there was a couple of different things that are different about this that are important to take a look at. One would be that the Lifestyle Center is intended to serve the region and not just the community, so there is an issue of scale here. The types of stores are regional in scope, not just neighborhood in scope. Secondly, some language has been included in the design section that talks about an impression of a place that is built over time. Some of the slides the Board has seen emphasizes individual architecture for stores, rather than architecture which tends to tie together a center to make a single statement of unified architectural view like all awnings all the same color or roof or base treatment that ties a bunch of stores together. This would be the opposite of that of trying to give that impression of high scale architecture and individuality in the storefronts. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 26 Director Byrne offered Board Members the opportunity to make suggestions for how to improve or tighten the definition that has been presented tonight, to please share those with staff. Deputy City Attorney Eckman also shared the difficult time they had with some of the words like "upscale' which was debated as to who's scale. How up is upscale. All these words are very subjective and mean different things to different people. Staff has explored those and if the Board has other suggestions they would like to hear them. Member Colton thought that the language now designates this as an Activity Center. He wanted to clarify that this site would be an Activity Center for a Lifestyle Center only and would not allow any other types of Activity Centers. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director replied that it would be basic non -retail employment uses and then on top of that has it as optional Lifestyle Center. The Lifestyle Shopping Center would be the only type of shopping center allowed on that site. Member Craig cited Page 2, LU4, "locate a broader range of land uses in the area of the Harmony Corridor known as mixed use Activity Centers as shown on map 10." "Mixed -use Activity Centers are areas where a broader range of land uses may locate. The mixed use Activity Center permits, in addition to the uses listed in the basic industrial and non -retail Activity Centers, a range of retail and commercial uses to occur in shopping centers. If single family housing is provided, at least a general equivalent number of multi family dwelling units must also be provided. Neighborhood Service Centers, Community Shopping Centers, Regional Shopping Centers and a Lifestyle Shopping Center shall be limited to those locations." If she reads that correctly and we open this up to a mixed -use Activity Center, everything in that paragraph can be put on this piece of property and if the Lifestyle Center goes away, then anything else can go in here. Director Frank replied that what would be permitted is what he described. It would be the basic employment uses or as an overlay the Lifestyle Shopping Center. That will be the zoning on this piece of property. That was more of just a generalized policy statement, not mixed use Activity Centers. The Design Standards and the map that shows this as a Lifestyle Center, is in the Design Standards to become the zoning in addition the definition of a Lifestyle Center. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 27 That is what the Plan will be designated as, a Lifestyle Center, not Neighborhood Shopping Center or Community Regional Shopping Center. If we are going to zone it a Lifestyle Center, then we can't have the basic and non -retail on it if someone were to show up tomorrow. Director Frank replied that was not true. There will be permitted uses on it in the zoning. One of the permitted uses in the zoning in the Harmony Corridor is basic employment uses. In addition, the HC Corridor zoning states that Lifestyle Centers, Neighborhood Shopping Centers or Community Regional Shopping Centers are located, but as specified on the map. That map in the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines and in the plan will say that this spot will be for Lifestyle Centers. As is the other centers across the street in the Preston Center that had the basic employment land uses, and on top of that it said also possible, potential neighborhood shopping centers. That developer chose not to develop that site for a neighborhood shopping center, they decided to develop under the non -retail basic employment land uses. Member Schmidt asked about the transportation portion and that there really wasn't any numbers. She stated that there would be an increase of 5%, what is that a 5% increase of? How many trips are we talking about?. Mr. Jackson replied they do have some numbers and basically they come with a caveat. That is that this is really back of the envelope stuff and it is not anywhere near approaching the level of specificity that you will find in the required Transportation Impact Analysis that look at much more specificity. Basically the numbers we are talking about, the retail trip generation averages about 20,000 trips a day. Similar trip generation for office/business park type of thing is approximately 14,000 trips a day. Member Schmidt asked about the map that had the green line across and that was not what was in their packets, so will the Lifestyle Center only go to that green line and if so, what is going above it? Director Byrne replied yes, it would only go up to that green line. What would go above it is what is there now. It would continue to be the Harmony Corridor designation for the basic non -retail employment. Member Schmidt asked if when the Lifestyle Center goes in, would the roads go in, or would they have to wait until that other piece would develop into something. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 28 Director Byrne responded that the decision would be made based upon the more detailed traffic study. In speculation, if this plan amendment goes through, it is very likely that the retail component would be built first and that the major access points, one on Harmony Road and one on Ziegler Road would serve the center. People would learn to use those major access points and over time, the balance of the site would be developed and a more complete road network would be developed. Member Carpenter asked about the traffic calming for English Ranch and was it also being looked at blocking traffic so it can't go through that area. Mr. Jackson replied that it will be an option that will be on the table. At this point everything is on the table. What they are committed to doing is looking at design alternatives, both within the site, but also the "halo" area around it. That would include traffic calming strategy, diverter strategy, signage, neighborhood design, working with the neighborhoods and potential enforcement. Is it possible that no connection would be made, it is going to be on the table but used only as a last resort. Member Carpenter said that although she does believe in connectivity, and she does think that is important, we also have a value in our city of neighborhoods. She thought that if you are going to sacrifice one or the other, it needs to be the connectivity rather than the neighborhood. She realized that there are a lot of other things that you can do, but there is also a lot of other ways that you can provide pedestrian and bicycle and that kind of connectivity without allowing cut through traffic. Member Gavaldon asked about other neighborhoods that have complained about cut -through traffic and was there any comparison analysis to see if all the fears were validated or were they just moot. Mr. Jackson replied that he has not. The information he has is anecdotal. Eric Bracke, Transportation Operations replied that they actually did a number of before and after studies for the Safeway and the Ticonderoga area. There was absolutely no increase in traffic. There has also been no increase in traffic at the First National Bank facility and Drake and Taft. The two developments and Drake and Timberline have not developed, so there is no data on that. Mr. Bracke stated that they intend to work with this neighborhood. He agrees with Member Carpenter 100% in that connectivity standards and neighborhood value standards, he thinks those priorities are correct. He thinks that this Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 29 neighborhood has the potential to get cut through traffic as part of this. He also thinks that there are some very creative ways to prevent it and make it very inconvenient. Member Gavaldon asked in terms of fairness, have we been consistent with connectivity being a lower priority over neighborhood integrity in keeping the neighborhood, or have we reversed it and used it differently. Mr. Bracke replied that yes we have and gave examples. He stated that we are as consistent as we can be and there is not a cookie cutter approach. Every development is different and every development has its own set of issues. Staff looks and them and evaluates them and we are as consistent as we possibly can be. Chairperson Torgerson asked about the issue Mr. Kaplan brought up about timing. It seems apparent that based on the research that has been done that this is probably the best site. If this were not to develop as a Lifestyle Center, would we down the road look at the other six sites that looked promising and do a similar process here, or would this just stand and assume that there is only one Lifestyle Center in town? Director Frank replied that this is the only site that we are currently looking at. If a property owner came forward with a request to amend the plan, we would give it consideration and they could bring there proposal forward. Staff has not studied other sites, there have been no neighborhood meetings held on other sites along Harmony Road. The opportunity is certainly there. Director Byrne added that some of the property that he had said had potential that was not market ready, is correctly zoned. The property on the Interstate around Prospect Road and around Mulberry, the commercial zoning would completely support a Lifestyle Center with no change. A developer could come in and build one today, the problem, of course, is the infrastructure. It is simply not ready to handle that amount of traffic. The different sites that he suggested to the Board that they gave to a variety of different people as potentials, had an array of different kinds of problems. Member Craig asked about the two Lifestyle Centers that have been or are being built in Colorado and was there any pictures that were included of those developments. Planner Wray replied that no they did not include the Aspen Grove and the Briarwood is still in the planning stages. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 30 Director Byrne added that they did not want to have people have images of something that they may not get on this site. What they tried to show was pictures from projects that this developer has proposed without tying this proposal too close to that, because we think that it is a reasonable and feasible thing to expect. Some of the pictures that are in the library are clearly not reasonable on this site. Member Craig's concern is that it is great to put pictures up there, but she just does not feel like we have grasped the criteria to get those pictures. She has the feeling that she can't take that picture at PDP and say "hey it does not look like this, " what are you going to do about it? She wants to make sure we are not fantasizing a Lifestyle Center and not making one materialize in our Land Use Code. Director Byrne stated that staff has tried their best to give the Board a definition that differentiates this center from others. If the Board has suggestions that they would like to add or areas to strengthen it, staff would certainly entertain that. Planner Mapes added that the same issue came up at the Harmony Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting. No matter what we do, there is always going to be a risk. The pictures we show and the vision we have and the words we use to describe it are going to lead to a push and pull tug-of-war when a developer submits an actual plan. Rarely does someone come in and absorb the spirit of what is behind everything we say as well as the letter. You can't legislate good design so there is always going to be a risk that a development is not going to end up like the pictures. Most of the pictures are from another center that this developer built. Member Craig stated that she could only work off of what has been written to get what it is we want. She thinks we have been through enough shopping centers etc, that we do know what we want out of this. She wants to make sure that it is here so when it does come before her as a PDP, she can say that is what she envisioned as a Lifestyle Center. Member Schmidt asked what the minimum number of stores you would need to have to start. Mr. Silverstein responded that they are not speculators, for them to acquire the land, put the infrastructure in place and only open 5 stores, they would be out of business. Certainly there is a minimum square footage that would make sense before they would turn the first spade of earth and begin the construction process Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 31 of a project of this size. It could be built in phases and it all may not be built at one time, but there is a minimum square footage that they would commit to before they would invest in the land and infrastructure that goes along with that. Mr. Silverstein also addressed Member Craig's concern. He stated that the city should understand exactly what is going to ultimately be built. He has always viewed from his responsibility as potentially the developer of this Lifestyle Center on this piece of property that through the development process, the next phase, that a detailed development plan is part of what they would submit to staff, the Board and the neighborhood so they could see where the landscaping is going, where the buildings are located, points of ingress and egress, down to the light fixtures they plan to use so there would be a clear understanding that when you drive by this shopping center that it is what you envisioned it to be. Member Gavaldon asked the staff not to get too worked up on drawings and photos. What he is hearing from his colleague is that something that we cannot offer and he would not support. He wants to see that at PDP and in the Land Use Code you put examples down, this is what we want, but you put it into the context. He thought that was an appropriate place to put it and tighten it up as best you can, but he did not want to see micro managing and killing any creativity of our applicants. Member Colton asked about the Employment analysis because many of the parcels that were mentioned were up in the Mountain Vista area. He knows that there is some discussion that Anheuser Busch may or may not ever allow development. He wanted to hear from the economic analysis that even if those parcels were taken out that we would still have enough employment for the size of the current GMA we have. Director Byrne replied that one of the specific questions that we asked the economic consultants was to do that. We know that the AB lands are questionable. They have had a long history of saying that they want to maintain their property as buffer rather than put it into the market place. At the same time, other AB plants have surrounded themselves with business parks. We know they have a model that works for them that we would like to see them do in town. On page 21 of the consultant's report it states that "Anheuser Busch lands comprise 47% of employment land and 20% of industrial land". If AB lands are taken out of the inventory, it still leaves 504 acres of employment land and 714 acres of industrial land. Staff is very comfortable with those numbers. Member Schmidt asked that the wording be changed in the Harmony Corridor Amendment to read "the amendment would designate a location for a fourth type Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 32 of shopping center called a Lifestyle Shopping Center" and take out the "mixed - use Activity Center." She felt that would guarantee that it would be a Lifestyle Center. Planner Mapes responded that was really just a technicality. If you look on the map, there are two main designations that we would amend. One is the basic industrial Activity Center; the other is called a mixed -use Activity Center. Some of the mixed -use Activity Centers would allow different types of shopping centers. It would be put on the map and legend that would show where mixed -use Activity Centers could locate. Member Craig had a concern that on page 11 it states "a Lifestyle Center shall contain at least 20 different business establishments." She thought that raises a question of is there a possibility of making sure that there is some kind of a percentage or number that are retail so we don't end up with another Timberline that has no retail. Director Byrne replied that he understands her point, but he does not know what that number would be. He agrees that what we are looking at here is a specific type of center that is retail in its core. He felt that it could be looked at. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council adoption of the amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan as an element of City Plan. The amendment shall designate an additional location for a mixed -use Activity Center, providing a location for a fourth type of shopping center called a Lifestyle Shopping Center. In addition, a request that staff continue to work on the language, examples and steps that they need to totally define a Lifestyle Shopping Center. Also to further investigate the minimum standard that it would take to opening level from 0 to 20 for retail establishments. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Colton felt that we were 99% there, but he felt that the number of retail establishments versus other types needs to be looked at. If this does not go through and another one comes down the road, who knows what we would get if we don't have strict enough criteria to define this. He is supporting this because he was on the Harmony Corridor Plan Committee and recognized the need for employment, but felt that has been looked at and addressed. There is going to be a Lifestyle Center in Northern Colorado and he felt this was a good location with an improved street. He thought that the traffic concerns could be dealt with so he felt it made sense overall. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 33 Member Carpenter concurred with Member Colton and was felt that it was a good thing to change the Harmony Corridor Plan because it has been a long time. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he has struggled with this one all along. He was not used to the City government responding to business concerns and promoting economic growth like this. That encourages him. This is an unusual process, but he thinks that it is in response to some economic realities that we face right now. Member Craig would also be supporting the motion. She still has many concerns but felt that they would be addressed at PDP. She thinks that she has made her point to staff and hopes that at PDP she has something in front of her that she can work with. She appreciates all the work that staff has put into this. She greatly appreciates the market analysis because it was very helpful and developed a comfort level. We don't know in five years whether we would need the employment or industrial land. It seems that we still have plenty of land left. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council adoption of the Amendments to the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines. The amendments would add a definition of Lifestyle Shopping Centers, along with corresponding standards for development of such a Center. Including the additional comments made in the previous motion as well. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Approved by the Board August 7, 2003.