Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/04/2002• 0 Council Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7431 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m Gloss Roll Call: Colton, Torgerson, Craig, and Gavaldon. Members Bernth, Meyer, and Carpenter were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer, McNair, Mapes, Baker, McWilliams, Barnes, and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the September 5, and September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (CONTINUED) 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Discussion Agenda: 3. #31-95E Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final Recommendations to City Council: 4. Fall 2002 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code. 5. Smith Investments Land Use Code Text Amendment Request. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Item 2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final, #31-95E. Project Description: Request for final approval for 56 single family residential lots on 39.31 gross acres. The property is located north of Richards Lake at the southeast corner of Douglas Road and County Road 13. The property is zoned UE, Urban Estate. Staff Recommendation: Approval with a condition Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 2 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairman Gavaldon asked Planner Olt to limit his presentation to the reasons for the item being continued to this meeting and to any new information. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval with a condition. He stated that the final plan is in substantial compliance with the Hearthfire PUD, preliminary approved in September 1996 and does meet the development criteria of the LDGS with the exception of criterion A 1.12 which is residential density. This development would have an overall residential density of 1.42 dwelling units per acre. There were three conditions of preliminary approval dealing with off -site street improvements, storm drainage improvements, and wetland mitigation. This item was continued from September 19, 2002 and was continued for further discussion primarily on off -site street improvement issues. This deals with Douglas Road, County Road 13, County Road 11, and a second collector street which will run through Richard's Lake PUD. Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, gave the applicant's presentation. She gave a history of the project going back to it's inception in 1995. She highlighted differences in the project which resulted in different traffic patterns and road access. The current off -site street costs for this developer total $1.66 million. A traffic study was completed again this year illustrating that each intersection still meets the Level of Service standards for the City of Fort Collins. Since the first filing final approval, there have been no changes to the density or to the total daily trips. The only changes have been a change in the direction of Douglas Road, based on the traffic study. The plans have been approved by the County and City and have been embodied in a signed development agreement between the City and the developer and the developer has paid in full his costs. The developer has also agreed to help fund the Highway 1 intersection improvements and the County Roads 9 and 11 improvements. Public Input Brigitte Schmidt, representing Northeast Neighborhood Coalition, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she would like the Board to give staff clear direction on the connectivity issue. The approval language clearly states that this should be done when necessary. There is no evidence that this connection is needed at this time. There are measures that can be used to determine when it is necessary. For example, a drop in the LOS at Douglas and CR 13, an increase accident report at Douglas and CR 13 or at the Hearthfire connection to Douglas, or when Abbottsford and Inverness get improved. Staff Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 3 has expressed a concern that if it is not done now, future residents of Bateleur Lane (the road that would be connected), will complain when it is time to put the street through. Our neighbors are willing to have the street designed as if it would be there and have it barricaded until necessary. Design of this could be worked out later. The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition would like to see this project be able to carry out its goals of incorporating urban densities in a manner compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The developer has worked diligently with all parties involved. Ms. Schmidt stated that she would like the Board to recognize this as a unique endeavor in a unique spot of Fort Collins and provide the direction that is needed to complete this project successfully. She asked the Board to approve this project with the condition that the connectivity be completed when necessary. Nord Ziedner, 801 Inverness Road, stated that he was a member of the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition but was not speaking for them tonight. He stated that he was very much against this project when it was first proposed; however, after hearing the developer at neighborhood meetings, he was pleased to see that the developer truly wanted to integrate the development into the rural style of the neighborhood. He was pleased to see that the first filing was • developed with only emergency access onto CR 13. The City has asked for general access as part of the second filing and they are now not following their own language in the conditions of this agreement. He would like to see the City abide by the original agreement to not have an access from Hearthfire to CR 13. Mr. Ziedner asked that the City reconsider the notion that the collector street Inverness Road be paved. The traffic officials at the September meeting stated that collector streets should have a traffic "calming effect." According to Larimer County street criteria, traffic calming is the implementation of both physical and perceptual techniques intended to slow or divert traffic on to existing or planned roadways. It is a reactive approach to minimize speeds. Paving Inverness Road would increase speeds and lessen neighborhood safety and would have the opposite effect of calming traffic. Red Hewitt, 1200 East Douglas Road, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated concern about the width of the roads for pedestrians and bicycles. Public Input Closed Ms. Liley stated that there was a separate memorandum of understanding between the developer and the neighborhood as part of determining what this development should look like. The City was not a party to that. She stated that she was unaware of any agreement the City had reneged on. It is true that the 40 CR 13 connection was not required by the City at preliminary and was not Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 4 required with the first filing final and it was not embodied in the development agreement for first filing final, or any amendments. It may not be a case of reneging but of a change in direction that the Board will have to decide on. Chairman Gavaldon asked about agreements between a developer and a neighborhood and if the City was party to those. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman replied that he was unaware of any agreement between the City and the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition. Even the City's development agreements have no third party participants. Chairman Gavaldon stated that the Board would therefore not consider any agreement between the neighborhood and the developer. Member Colton asked why the City was now requiring a connection to CR 13 when it didn't at preliminary. Sheri Wamhoff, Development Review Engineer, replied that the connection was not deemed necessary six years ago and that changes in connectivity standards have affected this requirement. The ability for the connection had been required as part of the preliminary. Since it was a requirement that the connection should be provided at some point in time, it was determined that it seemed like the right time to do it. Member Craig asked why this issue was not brought up when signing the first filing amendment agreement in April of 2002. Engineer Wamhoff replied that the first filing was not any part of this western portion of the project. The legal description of the first filing development agreement covers only the first filing. The second filing is an entirely separate piece of property. Member Craig asked if the first filing did warrant the Douglas Road improvement and that is when the amendment changed it to CR 11. Engineer Wamhoff replied that was correct. It was a condition of approval for the first filing. The Douglas Road plans were not completed at the time the first filing final was completed. Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that the Code requires that they make an improved connection to an improved arterial. Now that they are connecting Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 5 Morning Star Way to CR 11, that meets that section of the Code. Why are they also required to connect Douglas Road to CR 11? Planner Olt replied that the requirement to connect Morning Star Way to CR 11 is dependent on the 91" building permit. The improvements to Douglas Road are predicated on Hearthfire second filing approval, not dependent on the 915t building permit. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked if it was a function of the development agreement and not necessarily a Code requirement. Planner Olt replied that was correct. Engineer Wamhoff replied that the improvement of Morning Star Way to CR 11 would provide the improvement to an arterial. At the time the project was approved, CR 11 was not considered an improved arterial so that connection would not have met that standard. The traffic studies showed that connection would be needed and warranted for diversity in where traffic was going. Now, that connection would technically provide the connection in accordance with the • Code requirement. The connection has not been made yet as Richard's Lake has not completed it. Planner Olt stated that the predominant traffic goes to Douglas Road. The Morning Star connection would not be considered to hold predominant traffic. Member Craig asked what the timeline for the CR 11 and Douglas Road improvements would be, in terms of build out of the project. Matt Baker, City Engineering Department, replied that he had put a coalition of developments together to pay for the connection from CR 9E through Vine to the Mountain Vista area, east on Mountain Vista to CR 11, and up CR 11 to Douglas Road. The CR 11 improvements were scheduled for this year but Richard's Lake did not develop as quickly as thought so those improvements were delayed until 2003. The North side area improvements have all been designed and budgeted for the 2003 construction season. Member Craig asked if this roadway project would move forward regardless of development in the area. Mr. Baker replied that it would. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 6 Member Colton referenced a letter from Mark Peterson, County Engineer, which talked about concerns in the Abbotsford, Inverness, Gregory Road area with regard to safety. More development there would make this area "inadequate" according to County standards. He asked how the Board should take these comments. Attorney Eckman replied that the fundamental thing to remember is that the Board is reviewing the project under the City standards, not the County. The letter states that the County has a more formal definition of adequate public facilities now than it did then. Under the state vested rights, the applicant gets to apply the law in effect at the time of application. The county laws may have changed since then but we are only applying the City laws anyway. Cam McNair, Engineering Department, replied that he spoke with Mark Engomoen, County Public Works Director, about their adequate public facilities standards pre-1999. They had been operating under the assumption that if there was average daily traffic of more than 200 cars per day on a gravel, unimproved road, then the road needs to be paved. The City's adequate public facilities standards are completely different. The original design of the Douglas Road improvements west from Hearthfire Way to State Highway 1 did not include any improvements at the Highway 1 intersection. Had that project gone forward, we would have been no better off at that intersection. The current Land Use Code does require that the improvements to the arterial street system go in the direction where most of the traffic will go, the LDGS did not make that distinction. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the City would participate in barricading a roadway such as was suggested by citizen Brigitte Schmidt. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, replied that Ms. Schmidt was possibly referring to doing a cul-de-sac and/or making the street one-way. This would in essence barricade through movement. The City generally does not do that. Chairman Gavaldon asked Ms. Schmidt to respond as to the reasons for requesting a barricaded street. Ms. Schmidt replied that the street could be designed in such a way as it is obvious that it is a through street but until it becomes necessary, put up some barricades or cement planters like they have on Morning Star Way now. The other issue is that Inverness and Abbotsford are County roads and traffic can be stopped on those roads if dust becomes an issue. That is not necessarily a very desirable thing for our neighborhood either. They are already doing dust Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 7 mitigation measures and if no one is there to help pave the road, these are a couple of possibilities. Chairman Gavaldon asked how the County interacts with the City with regard to that situation. Mr. Stanford replied that his guess would be that the governing jurisdiction would ultimately make the final decision. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked what conditions would make the connection to CR 13 necessary. Mr. Stanford replied that access from Hearthfire onto Douglas or other issues could make that necessary. Vice -Chairman Torgerson replied that those issues are as bad as they will ever get at this point because we have essentially approved as many units as could possibly go in this area which is why we are requiring that now. • Chairman Gavaldon asked what the original developer's costs of off -site road improvements would have been. This is opposed to the current, previously - mentioned $1.66 million. Ms. Liley replied that it was about $1.2 million. The original Doulgas Road heading west to Highway 1 was about $1.5 million and the current costs are about $1.6 million because of the ad-ons. Chairman Gavaldon asked about a gap in the roadway improvements on Douglas Road between CR 13 and Hearthfire Way on the site plan. Ms. Liley replied that the requirement that was identified with the first filing final and in the development agreement, is that to meet the City's arterial access requirement, we had to come out from the project's access and head east to CR 11. CR 13 is a different requirement because of the Code section that states that improvements have to be made to all adjacent public streets. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked what the name of the street in question is Mr. Stanford replied that it is Bateleur Lane. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 8 Vice -Chairman Torgerson moved for approval of Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final, #31-95E with the condition that Bateleur right-of-way be part of the project but that the road only be stubbed out at this time. Engineer Wamhoff stated that Bateleur Lane may need to have an emergency access connection because it is on the very edge of the maximum length. The barricades they want typically do not keep people from driving on them. Vice -Chairman Torgerson changed his motion to have the condition that Bateleur Lane be barricaded to the satisfaction of Poudre Fire Authority. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig asked about the preliminary approval for making the road an access road and not a through road. Ms. Liley replied with the text of the preliminary approval. Member Craig asked if that text meets the PFA requirements. Ms. Liley replied that at the time of preliminary, there was to be an emergency access on CR 13. Engineer Wamhoff replied that with the first filing, there is an emergency access out to CR 13. With the second filing, there would be one from the northern cul- de-sac as designed and there may need to be one with Bateleur Lane as well. That would be up to PFA's discretion. A public turn -around would also be required. Member Craig asked if we made the street the same as the northern cul-de-sac, would it meet the requirements. Engineer Wamhoff replied that she was unsure if people would not drive over the sidewalk. Member Craig stated concern over some of the roadway connections. She asked to amend the motion to require the applicant to put the required funding for the CR 13 improvements into contribution and aid until it is warranted. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson accepted the amendment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 9 Attorney Eckman asked who would decide if it was warranted and under what criteria. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if he could amend the motion to include that staff decides when it is warranted. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson accepted the amendment. Attorney Eckman iterated that the City Engineer would be the likely person to decide when the improvements are warranted. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson added that the barricades would be removed at staffs discretion. Member Colton stated that he agreed with the motion and added that he thought there should be some change in condition that would warrant the street going through. Member Craig thanked Lucia Liley for her presentation and it's detail and • timeline. She also thanked the developer for its amenability to working with the neighbors. Chairman Gavaldon stated that had all the information been presented at the first meeting, the project would not have needed to be continued. He added that the developer has gone above and beyond his responsibilities for street improvements. He stated that he would support the motion but does not necessarily agree with it. Attorney Eckman stated that the motion needs to include the lengthy staff condition that was in the staff report. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson added the amendment to his motion. Member Craig seconded the motion with this amendment. Member Colton stated that he wanted to make sure the developer marketed the lots passing on the knowledge that the street will eventually go through. The motion was approved 4-0. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 10 Project: Recommendation to City Council, Fall 2002 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code.. Project Description: Recommendation to City Council regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications, and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last update in June of 2002. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation, recommending approval of the biannual changes to the Land Use Code. Mr. Shepard pointed out two specific changes that had not been discussed, or had changed, since the prior worksessions. The first is Section 3.5.2(D), Ordinance Code Sections 11 & 13, Code Change 565. This change talks about minimum lot size for single family detached lots where the garages are front loaded to the street. This change is designed to provide adequate separation of underground utilities which is somewhat difficult to do with anything less than 50 feet. The alternative compliance provision will allow the applicant to propose something that would meet the standard but perhaps come in with a lot size less than 50 feet. That could happen with a pie -shaped lot, flag -shaped lot, or in some instances, a double -frontage lot. If the utilities are satisfied with the proper horizontal separation, we should be somewhat flexible in allowing a lot size of less than 50 feet. The second change is the tree underground utility separation standard which the Code presently calls for 10 feet. The change calls for reducing that to 5 feet. The utility installers would like that to go to 6 feet and staff respects that. That section of the Code is 3.2.1(K)(2), Ordinance 7, Code Change 558. Staff is asking that change be made to 6 feet. Attorney Eckman stated that regarding paragraph C on page 4 of the Ordinance, Determination of Landmark Eligibility, Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Department, asked that the language about 2/3 of the way down be deleted. The words "and substantially retains its exterior physical integrity" that had been previously added should be deleted. Those requirements are already described in Section 14-5 to which that language already refers. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 11 Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Vice -Chairman Torgerson moved for approval of the Fall 2002 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the, Land Use Code. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council, Smith Investments Land Use Code Text Amendment Request. Project Description: Recommendation to City Council to add • Supermarkets as a permitted use within the CCN, Community Commercial North College Zone District. Two areas are zoned CCN, one at the northeast corner of the North College AvenueNVillox Lane intersection, and the other south of Conifer Street and east of Redwood Street. Staff Recommendation: Denial Hearinci Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Clark Mapes, Advance Planning Department, gave the staff presentation recommending denial. He stated that the request was to add supermarkets to the Community Commercial North College (CCN) zone district. The CCN does not currently allow large retailers over 25,000 square feet either as big box retail or as supermarkets. The zone implements the 1995 North College Avenue Corridor Plan. It was originally named the BC zone because of the format of the old zoning map. It was one of two new zones created for the North College Avenue area in that planning process. The zone was renamed CCN in 1997 and was incorporated into the format of the new Land Use Code at that time. The idea for the CCN is very similar to the ideas for the CCR and MMN • zones which came later in City Plan. There is a lot of overlap and similar ideas Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 12 about the scale and orientation of development. The zone was applied to two areas. One is bounded by Conifer Street to the north, on the east by Redwood Street, Vine Drive on the south, and it is behind the parcels which front on College Avenue itself. The other piece of the zone is at the northeast corner of the North College Avenue/Willox Lane intersection. Planner Mapes cited some context from the original zoning hearing — The CCN zone was meant to be a transition and a link between all the surrounding residential in the north part of Fort Collins and the main strip of North College Avenue itself. It was meant to accomplish that transition and linkage with transitional uses and moderate -scale, moderate -intensity uses. Also, the zone is a special opportunity for development with mixed uses and pedestrian characteristics like you see in transitional areas in downtown, around the Lincoln Center for example. We had looked at this graphic (Mr. Mapes cited a graphic of the CCN zone site) at the time to discuss how North College isn't actually as remote from the heart of the City as it may seem and that the characteristics of this zone can be found within a similar radius. Planner Mapes stated that the applicant's interest is in the property at North College Avenue and Willox Lane, across the street from the Albertson's shopping center. Mr. Mapes cited a diagram from Standards and Guidelines for the zone district. The key ideas shown here are active street -side uses along Willox Lane and also along internal streets. The diagram also shows clusters of buildings with a positive relationship to wetlands on the site. This also conveys the general idea of medium -scale foot prints. In reviewing the tape of the 1995 adoption hearing on this zoning, we had looked at this as an example of what we mean by active street -side uses with buildings along the sidewalk. We had looked at these pictures as examples of mixed uses in buildings with upstairs space with the appeal and benefits that come from that. We also looked at housing in the context of this zone, in particular in the southern portion of the zone. The idea was transitional scale housing set next to big trees which exist on both pieces of this zone. Back to the property that is the subject of this request, Mr. Mapes pointed out some wetlands on the site. He stated that we looked at this example when we discussed what is meant by a positive relationship of development to the wetlands and also integration with big trees near the canals. This again shows the medium -scale of buildings and spaces. Fundamentally, a large scale building, footprint, and parking lot is not consistent with the basic idea for the CCN zone. Planner Mapes asked the Board to recall that a month or so ago, the CCN zone was applied to the New Beginnings property at Redwood and Conifer. That decision was discussed carefully and was based on the medium transitional scale uses that the zone calls for. The staff report responds to some specific points from the applicant's request; however, none of those points were major Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 13 factors in the recommendation of denial because of the basic approach of the whole zone. Jim Smith, representing the applicant Smith Investments, gave the applicants presentation. He stated that Mark Driscoll is a partner in the property, representing First National Bank. Mr. Smith stated that he too referenced the North College Avenue Plan from 1995. He stated that the Plan states that the North College Avenue Corridor holds unique opportunities, perhaps the most important being the extent of the residents and business owners' support for growth and change. Mr. Smith stated that this is one of the few areas in the City where growth and change are advocated. He added that the Plan states that "the critical mission of this planning effort is to remove the constraints and make incentives for development and redevelopment. Upgrading the overall image of the area is the basic part of the mission. Part of the reason for this role of the corridor is that it is the northern entryway into the City. The visual quality of entry ways is directly related to a community's image, and a positive community image is essential for economic development and the ability to attract quality developments. The North College corridor presents an opportunity to create a positive first impression for the City and demonstrate that Fort Collins is an • attractive environment in which to live, work, and play." Mr. Smith stated that there is also a study that was done on the attitudes of the residents of the north part of Fort Collins. Their very first priority was attracting new businesses to North College. In addition, the study, which had a 63% return rate, said that 81% of the respondents agreed that improving the appearance and the aesthetics of the area was a very important goal. Mr. Smith stated that the proposal for the property is absolutely in line with the North College Corridor Plan and is certainly lined up with the critical mission of the Plan — to redevelop and improve the visual and aesthetics of the area on North College. Mr. Smith stated that one of the issues with North College is the expense of assembling the property for redevelopment due to the development that exists. The unimproved portion isn't particularly expensive to buy but the improved portion that Smith Investments wants to purchase, redevelop, and improve the aesthetics of, is very expensive land. About five years ago, Smith Investments had Bill Neal take a run a redeveloping the area. After $125,000 had been spent on studies, he concluded that there were too many issues on the property, that the assemblage cost was too great, and that the economics don't work with the kind of development that the City wants. Mr. Smith stated that if in fact that area is to be redeveloped, and develop the unimproved portion, we are going to have to have a national name franchise that can. afford to do that. Smith Investments' • goals, as community citizens, are to improve North College and bring new Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 14 business to Fort Collins. Mr. Smith stated that he had lived on the north side of town for 30 years and his biggest complaint is that he has to drive at least to the middle of Fort Collins, or south, for dinner. Little things like hardware stores and different services are not north. That is what Smith Investments wants to provide with this proposed center. It is very expensive. If the City expects a private developer to come in and redevelop North College, it takes some financial horsepower to do that. The economics just do not support that. Mr. Smith stated that the previous zoning of the property allowed a grocery store. The current zoning allows a grocery store. He stated that he was not asking to change the allowed use of the property but would like to put a 100,000 or 120,000 square foot shopping center on the site, of which a supermarket (i.e., King Soopers) is the major player. The grocery store may occupy 60,000 square feet of that which is not a material change to the use of that property. Going from 25,000 to 60 or 65,000 is not a material change and large grocery stores do not produce small stores any longer. The size of grocery stores has increased in size over the years. We just need to bring the wording of this into compliance to meet the reality of what grocery stores are doing today. Mr. Smith stated that City staff could do more to help change the image of north Fort Collins and the City by supporting this than any other single project. We want to change the visual impact of Fort Collins when you come in from the north side. Mr. Smith stated that this project is totally in line with the North College Corridor Plan. He stated that there is strong support for this project from people who live on the north side of town and asked the Board for their consideration. Mark Driscoll, president of First National Bank, gave a presentation. He stated that more than 20 years ago, First National Bank foreclosed on a piece of the subject property and that they are now partners with Smith Investments. He stated that the North College Corridor Plan is a good document and that over the last 20 years, there have been some improvements in the area with the Albertson's shopping center and other developments. He added that he didn't think anyone could say that the North College area is "where we want it to be." Mr. Driscoll stated that this is a chance to do something with North College on a grander scale. He stated that the amount of land available, not including the wetlands, is about the same size as the Safeway shopping center on East Harmony. No one is building grocery stores under 25,000 square feet, according to our studies so even though grocery stores are allowed there, no one will build one that small. There are some unique opportunities not only to improve the gateway of the community but there is another possibility with an Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Driscoll stated that the City, at one point, had an Urban Renewal Authority and no longer does. We have had conversations with the Board of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 15 Directors of the North College Business Association about an Urban Renewal Authority. Essentially what would happen is, that particular property has a certain tax base, and with the improvements with the Authority, we would be able to capture the tax increment and use it for public improvements. The vote tomorrow includes a transportation tax. Included in the priorities of that transportation tax are some improvements to North College curb and gutter and other things. It will take a great deal of money to make improvements to the area, money that the City does not have. Mr. Driscoll stated that with an Urban Renewal Authority, there is at least the potential with this type of large development, to capture that tax increment, should we have an Urban Renewal Authority. Some improvements could then be made and accelerate the development of North College. The particular property Jim mentioned at Willox is going to be very expensive to develop. The only way it will work economically is with a very large user, such as a larger supermarket. There has been significant interest expressed by these stores on this site which proves that market research shows that a need exists. Mr. Driscoll asked for the Board's favorable consideration in allowing supermarkets in the zone district. • Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked if under the previous zoning, grocery stores of this size were allowed. Planner Mapes replied that he was unsure what zone was on the property prior to the North College Plan. He stated that there were 8 zones along this stretch of North College when they did the Plan. The area was put into two created specifically. Mr. Smith replied that the piece was zoned Highway Business. The back part of it was Light Industrial. The College Avenue piece was Highway Business. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked if that allowed a shopping center Mr. Smith replied that it did. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 16 Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that the objection to a large box retail is that it is a large box. He asked if there were a scenario in which that could be appropriate on this site. Director Gloss replied that there is certainly a policy issue as well as a design issue. The two need to be separated. From a design standpoint, there is probably a way to handle minimizing the impact of the big box, which we have seen through the other big box standards we have. Minimizing the size, the mass of the building through architectural details and things we do with the Big Box Design Standards such as building orientation, placement on the lot, separation of fields of parking, and other things are ways to enhance the building to a level that is much more akin to the kind of retail you associate with smaller, in -line shops. From a design standpoint, it is infinitely doable. It is probably the larger policy issue that staff has struggled with. There is an issue with separating the large grocers on North College with the Albertson's across the street from the property. If you look back at the LDGS, we actually gave preference to grocers that were further apart. Another area with conflict is that we are on a major arterial street. With the LDGS, preference was given to grocers not at an arterial intersection. Grocers were situated to be accessed off a collector system so if you were in a neighborhood, you had a straight shot to the center. Director Gloss stated that those were some of the objections staff had when it considered the request. It is important to separate out the land use policy question from the design question. Planner Mapes stated that when this zone was put in place on the North College Plan, these two places were seen as places where there is an opportunity to do something else besides another shopping center like the Safeway on Harmony. The main strip of College can be shopping centers or that kind of typical, "parking lot focused" commercial. This was seen as an opportunity for something that is more attractive, pedestrian oriented, and more transitional. Planner Mapes stated that he believed it would be possible for almost any land use to be designed to fit something like what we are showing here. However, even though it is believed possible, it is not likely it would happen. It probably would not happen unless we took this further and figured out how a big footprint could accomplish the desired outcome. Planner Mapes stated that a King Soopers was being examined for Rigden Farm that is to be more of a village center and walkable. There is a City Market in Vail that is a two-story structure, right up to the sidewalk with dormers on the roof and affordable apartments on the second level. Something like that could fit in here. That only happened because of extremely thorough and difficult negotiations with the city and participation with the city. Now, City Market/King Soopers has stated that the structure in Vail really does not work due to technical Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 17 issues. Planner Mapes stated that though it may be possible, he wouldn't put supermarkets into the zone district. Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that it seemed like it would come down to the details and how they are codified. He asked how Vail codified it. He asked if it would be appropriate to approve the project with a certain set of conditions. Planner Mapes stated that could probably not be done tonight. Vice -Chairman Torgerson replied that he was not thinking about tonight but about continuing the item. Planner Mapes stated that design can overcome a lot of land use and policy issues; however, it is the hardest thing to do to overcome corporate formulas and so forth. Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that this may not be one of the best sites on which to create a walkable neighborhood as it is bounded on the north by a major canal that is not crossable. To the east, there are no sidewalks and the • neighborhood is quite a distance away. To the west, there is more commercial. It is not conducive to a walkable neighborhood. He added that he could see Rigden Farm working as walkable. The only way it would work is if you made it a destination to the extent that someone could ride the bus there and then start walking. Planner Mapes replied that a pedestrian is usually someone who has found a place to park. It could be a park once environment. It is true that the area is a hodge-podge of missed connections and such. He added that there is a great deal of housing pretty close by to the east. Chairman Gavaldon stated that there are a few single-family homes on the southeast, that there are some existing mobile homes to the northeast, and some to the northwest and west as well as on the Willox Lane area. Regardless of whether or not Albertson's is serving all these, we have users in the area. He added that the approved Hearthfire development could use a choice of shopping there as well. He asked why staff was not supporting it beyond the reasons stated. Planner Mapes replied that there are no reasons beyond what was stated. Staff looked at the zone standards, policies, and guidelines that are a part of the zone. He stated he was unable to find anything that says that this large footprint would • have the correct relationship to the wetlands and create the sort of little district Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 18 that was shown there. He stated that they did not get into whether it would be nice to have a choice of stores versus whether one would slowly drive the other into decline. Chairman Gavaldon asked if supermarkets would be allowed on the other area zoned CCN at Conifer. Planner Mapes replied that technically the zone applies there. The part of that southern piece of this zone which is big enough has no College Avenue frontage and has an approved PDP on the site so it is really probably moot to consider the southern piece though it would technically apply down there. Chairman Gavaldon asked if there were only two places in this zone district. Planner Mapes replied that there were. The zone came specifically out of the North College Corridor Plan and was very deliberately looked at and discussed at the time. Chairman Gavaldon asked if there was anything other than the staff report on which the Board should be basing their decision. Attorney Eckman replied that it is not a zone change, it is a text change to add a use in an existing zone so the Board really does not have the criteria similar to that for a rezoning. It is just a legislative change. Chairman Gavaldon asked what to use to base their recommendation to City Council on. Member Craig stated that what needed to be looked at is the purpose of the CCN zone. This property is not on College, it is not big commercial, it is on the fringe. We are looking at a transition area between the hardcore commercial and the residential. She added that a big supermarket does not fit that criteria or the purpose that was written in the Land Use Code. Obviously, a lot of time went into the North College Plan. The fact that they picked these two areas so specifically shows that they wanted them as transition and that was what was written into the purpose statement for the zone in the Land Use Code, adopted in 1997. Member Craig added that if we allow supermarkets, we have lost the purpose of the CCN. If that was such an issue, it should have been brought up in 1997 when things were switched. As it did not, the purpose of this district really needs to be considered. That purpose is to keep it as a transition and not hard core commercial. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 19 Attorney Eckman stated that the Land Use Code stated that "as to text amendments and large area rezonings (one square mile or more), these are legislative matters and are committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council. Decisions regarding the same are not controlled by any one factor." He added that the Board has a great deal of discretion when making this decision. Member Colton stated that the southern CCN piece does not front on College but this northern one does. He asked, if this is intended to be a separation of commercial along College and residential, why was the northern one along College. Planner Mapes replied that it was just seen as a transitional area, even though there is some College frontage. The frontage that is on College has houses on it. As you go across Willox to the south, there are no more houses. This site was looked at more as an opportunity because of the wetlands being an amenity and because the parcel was undeveloped. It was an opportunity to get more attractive and inviting development than just another shopping center and parking lot. Member Colton asked about what is actually on and around the site • Planner Mapes replied that there are only a few properties with buildings on them. The corner of College and Willox has an auto dealership which actually has cars sticking out in to the right-of-way on Willox and probably on College too. Pobre Poncho's Mexican restaurant is there and there are three non-descript rental houses, one of which is a four-plex. The other development that falls within this area is a little section of street that is at the northwest part of the property. It has a little mobile home subdivision on it with a gravel street leading into it. Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that across to the north from there is Trammel's Auto Repair and to the west is eventually some other mobile homes. He stated that he was trying to think of buffers, transitions, and links, especially when it is bisected by such a major canal. He stated that the South Taft Hill property, bisected by Spring Creek, was decided to be a clear delineation. One use was appropriate on one side and one was appropriate on the other. There was not as much thought given to that transitional aspect. Planner Mapes replied that the development that is portrayed on this site is similar to the MMN though this zone allows retail stores, just not big box retail. As far as the transition, residents of the mobile homes that are directly across the canal have come to the City in the past with concerns about development on this property impacting the wetlands and wildlife and so forth. Being across the canal 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 20 does not completely separate it from the homes across the canal. The people that live there do not feel that way about it. Member Colton stated that he had never considered that we needed another grocery store there and that obviously the applicant has. He asked where other possible locations for grocery stores were in this area and to the east. He stated that the Structure Plan does not show any other neighborhood centers in the area. Planner Mapes replied that it could go in the CN zone across the street, further south on College. Mountain Vista, Mulberry, and Greenfields are the other north locations designated right now. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked for an estimate on how many acres of wetlands are on the site. Planner Mapes replied that the property is 27 or 29 acres and the wetlands occupy about 6 acres, not including buffers. Chairman Gavaldon asked if, with 300 foot buffers, the project could be accommodated. Planner Mapes replied that there are up to 15 acres that are readily available Mr. Smith replied that the gross acreage of the property is about 25.8 acres. The property line goes to the center of the ditch so when that is netted out when you take out the wetlands and buffers, there are about 11 or 12 developable acres. About 12 or 13 acres are lost with the canal, wetlands, and buffers. Member Colton asked if the applicants could envision a use similar to what Planner Mapes had mentioned. Would it even be possible? Mr. Smith replied that King Soopers has spent the last three years looking at grocery store sites on the north part of town. They said this is the only site they would build on in the north part of town. Mr. Smith stated that he spent about $125,000 doing the studies on the site to determine what the conceptual plan could be that would meet City criteria. There were no large users willing to give us the economic stimulus to make the thing work. Mr. Smith stated that they worked on the project for almost two years to come up with something that was economically viable. He added that they have offered to move or redevelop the site of Pobre Poncho's restaurant but the problem is that no small user is going to develop next to these houses that are in poor repair. It is going to take a larger Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 21 development to really foot the bill. In all the research, we could not figure out a way to make a plan work that meets City requirements. Vice -Chairman Torgerson asked what the minimum anchor store size for the center would be and could it be accommodated in the current regulations. Planner Mapes replied that he was unsure about the anchor size but that Mr. Smith was talking about creating a retail shopping district. This site could be offices or housing. We were looking at the area around the Lincoln Center as examples of two or three story buildings with uses that seem to be viable. All uses are acceptable up to 25,000 square feet,, including grocery stores. He added that there probably is an issue with buying out the other properties to assemble the whole site. It probably does take a deep pocket to pay them what they want but that cannot really be considered. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council denial of the Smith Investments Land Use Code Text Amendment Request. Member Craig stated that this district was put together for a reason and that we • do not want it to look like just another piece of commercial property, it should have some character. She added that City staff is usually not completely against helping a development if they feel it goes along with what the zone district is asking for. Member Colton seconded the motion. Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that he was "on the fence" on the decision but would not be supporting the motion. He stated that he could envision a design that could be compatible and achieve the things that this district was trying to achieve. He added that the Albertson's across the street is an example of what we do not want to see there. It is facing, across the street, a pretty unattractive center. In planning, we look at the concept of like faces like. To develop a street front on Willox facing an unattractive center does not make a lot of sense. For those reasons, Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that he would not be supporting the motion. Member Colton stated that as there was a lot of time and effort in the North College Avenue Plan, coming in and changing the use may not be the right way to do it. Perhaps a subcommittee of people who did the Plan should be formed and the topic could be revisited. If it was done right, that may be a proper use but he felt uncomfortable making the change without more input. He added that the 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 22 City Plan idea was to spread out supermarkets so they are closer to neighborhoods and so forth. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would not support the motion because there is something that we need to do in working with the applicant on this one. He stated that the site is probably too close to Albertson's but that is not one of the Board's privy items to look into. The design standards and process are strong enough to avoid creating an Albertson's look -alike. If the applicant wants to work around the wetlands and buffers, they have some good constraints to work with. He stated that Planner Mapes needs to do some more work with the applicant because there may not have been any thought put into the proximity of it. The constraints on the site decreasing the usable acreage have resulted in a huge sacrifice for the applicants already. The vote was tied 2-2 with Members Torgerson and Gavaldon voting against the motion for denial. Attorney Eckman stated that if the Board thinks another motion might pass, they can work on other motions. Other than that, the Board may just report to City Council that it was a tie vote. Member Colton stated that there would likely not be another motion that would work. Chairman Gavaldon stated concern over the Board not being able to give a firm recommendation to City Council. Member Colton stated that good comments were made both ways but that there may not be another way. Vice -Chairman Torgerson stated that in an ideal world he could see this use being added in this zone with some very stringent design guidelines. If the applicant were open to continuing the item for more work, we could do something like that. Attorney Eckman stated that it would be totally the applicant's option at this point to either move ahead to City Council or wait for a continuance. Mr. Smith stated that he would prefer to go ahead to Council with a 2-2 vote. He stated that the opportunities to redevelop an area like this do not come about very often. Money is available and North College has lacked the redevelopment of other areas in the City. The window of opportunity will close in the next few Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • November 4, 2002 Page 23 years and the City may be losing a great opportunity to make something happen with the site. Member Colton stated that he would like to look at some design guidelines for the site. Chairman Gavaldon asked that the meeting notes be sent to Council, with the approval of the Board. Director Gloss reminded the Board that the November 21`t hearing was cancelled but that there would be a worksession November 15th and another November 22nd. A discussion item will be added to the November 15th meeting regarding next year's work program. By the end of November, that should be completed. Director Gloss thanked the Board for their new focus on more policy issues rather than details. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. • �J