Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/19/1994C] C� MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1994 CONTINUATION OF THE DECEMBER 12, 1994 HEARING COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Vice Chairman Jan Cottier. Staff Present: Blanchard, Frank, Shepard, Eckman, Byrne, Vosburg, Schlueter, Baker, Mapes, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the discussion agenda for the items continued from the December 12, 1994 meeting. 11. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Design Guidelines for Large Scale Retail Developments, #54-94. 12. Woodland Station PUD - Preliminary, #18-94B, (continued until January at the request of the applicant). 13. Willow Springs PUD, First Filing - Final, 33-94B. DISCUSSION AGENDA: #54-94 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LARGE SCALE RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, stated that this was a continuation of last week's meeting. Last week there was a motion on the table, the motion was seconded; but, it was decided not to vote on the motion, and to continue t tonight. Planner Shepard stated that an action needed to be made to reopen this to citizen input. There were some people here to further address the board on this issue. Planner Shepard would be referring to the memo in the Board's packets dated December 16, 1994, regarding refinements and clarifications, based on the December 12, 1994 meeting. Planner Shepard stated that the information from last week was taken back to the Task Force. They revisited some issues; and, on the issue of the three month extension, the Task Force felt that this project was ready to be forwarded on to City Council with a recommendation. The three months would not add any more significant or new value to the project. Integrating the results of the Harmony Corridor, the Task Force looked at that as 'the concern of folding it into this project, or adding to the LDGS, the new category of "Retail Center" that came out of the Harmony Corridor work. It was referred to as "Community Center" as opposed Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 2 to the "Community/Regional Center". This is the new tear that fits slightly below the Regional and above the Neighborhood Center. The Task Force felt it was good work for the Harmony Corridor, but not necessarily applicable City wide in terms what was trying to be accomplished here which is a mitigation/design guideline and standard plan for large box retailers. The consensus of the Task Force was to not come up with a new category or come up with a new point chart. The Task Force talked about the ratio of the size of the big box retailer to the size of the anchor with the size of the center. The motion on the table was that we look at the large box retailer not to exceed 400 of the total gross leasable area within the entire center. The Task Force felt that it might be overly prescriptive. It might not allow for flexibility on certain sites, and it could be circumvented by some manipulation on land purchases or platting lines. on large sites it may not matter that much. The Task Force felt that it was going beyond the balance that they were trying to strike in balancing guidelines versus prescriptive standards. They were comfortable in not adopting that as a recommendation. The standard for enhancing community and public spaces has been rewritten. That was something that has been tightened up. It's been made more prescriptive. It does not include the word "where" so it was not optional, it was something that you will have to do, and do two of them; yet, somewhat open in that if someone comes up with something they did not think of, it could be reviewed accordingly. The Task force was comfortable with that language. other clarifications were that there was a consensus not to put a maximum size on gross leasable or square footage of a large box retailer. The Task Force talked about preserving the grocery store neighborhood based center as the lynch pin of our Land Use Policies, trying not to dilute that. That was still a key in our mixed use philosophy. Put the grocery store neighborhood center out in the neighborhoods, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and have access to the neighborhood. That was still of extreme importance in terms of the big picture. The Task Force thought that prohibiting a grocery store in a Community/Regional Shopping Center would be the way to go. There may be a Community/Regional Shopping Center out there that would serve the neighborhood function. Not knowing the Task Force was comfortable with not coming up with that prohibition. The Task Force thought it was important to preserve the existing inventory of future neighborhood sites, so as to encourage those land uses in the neighborhoods. The map and the legend would be more clarified with the multiple entries. To still be a function of the building and not a function of the individual store. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 3 The Task Force thought that this was a design supplement to the LDGS. It augments the All Development Criteria already in place. All projects will still have to meet the All Development Criteria. Member Carnes asked Mr. Shepard to discuss how many people have been on the Task Force from day one, and how may participated in the most recent meeting. He understood only half of the people originally on the Task Force attended the meeting Wednesday night. He did not get a clear consensus, and yet he got some sense of closure. Could Mr. Shepard reflect the history of the Task Force and how the six people at the last meeting might represent how every many started the process. Planner Shepard replied that there were 12 members on the Task Force. There was some attrition over time. Some members attended every single meeting. Some members did not. At the last Task Force meeting, there were six members who have been continually in attendance. Of the members at the meeting, it was felt that represented 100% of the view points of this project. CITIZEN INPUT Larry Stroud, member of Task Force. He wanted to address the motion on the floor. He recommended that the board see their way to making a decision now and not extending the moratorium. He did not think the Task Force would add much value in extending the moratorium. The Task Force has debated the issues and still came up with similar conclusions. They asked that the board not extend the moratorium and act on it tonight. They thought it was in the best interest of the community. Mr. Stroud thought that in one sense the political perspective has been met, in that certain large retailers have more less been preempted from going into locations that the community felt was not appropriate. These guidelines, and the work of the committee have taken it a step further. The Harmony Corridor Plan has addressed some issues that needed to be addressed in the community. He thought that what they were seeing now was good work. They have added to the LDGS, which he believes is an excellent tool, and if lived by the letter could address any development issue that comes into this city. They have been able to take large, ugly boxes, and established guidelines and standards for them. He thought the standards reflect the spirit of what was trying to be achieved. He cautioned the board to be aware of meeting standards rather than saying to the community that "this is what we want out of a large retailer". The Task Force went back and revisited community and public spaces. They now have two criteria that they absolutely have to hit. They thought that was good for the larger retailers to address. They Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 4 were pleased with the work and knew there were questions about maximum size. There were questions regarding ratios and whether big box should be here or not. For everyone of those issues, it has been hit on both sides very diligently. The staff feels that we have done good work here, and urged the board to leave the moratorium with the guidelines recommended to be put in place. Mr. Stroud stated that it occurred to him over the past several months that from a practical standpoint, there will be a number of retailers who would choose not to do business in Fort Collins. We are also finding that in residential subdivisions and other types of developments. The thing that alarmed him was that we will have a gem inside of some boundaries, and we could end up with some real problems on the outside. He encouraged the board to look for more cooperative planning with those outside the city. He did not want Fort Collins headed for another Boulder. Bill Strickfadden, has been a resident of Fort Collins since 1988, and is also active in commercial properties. He served on the Harmony Corridor Committee twice, and has also served on the Superstore Task Force. His comments were directed about the Superstore Task Force and some of the deliberations. Providing space for retail activities has been one of his primary focuses since acquiring his first shopping center back in 1962. Retail has always required forward thinking and some imaginative solutions to otherwise existing problems. what will be the next retail wave? Retail is a very trendy business. Who will participate in the next retail promotion or the next retail development. Mr. Strickfadden quoted a recent survey, "it is estimated that 6,700 new retail locations will open nation wide in 1994." This is approximately a 12% increase over 1993. There will be 8,100 new stores open nationwide in the next year. These are stores in the nations malls, power centers, strip centers, factory outlet centers, central business district and many of them in rural or outlying communities. By 1995, that number was forecast to reach 8,900 new stores. Significant also, are plans within the retail community to remodel, refixture and enlarge and sometimes even close 9,500 existing locations in the next four years. These new construction trends and the redevelopment and updating of inventory, can make some significant changes in the retail market place as we see it. The nations retail developers, if we want to participate in the retailers plans, must plan for what the projects and buildings and improvements will look like. If we are to be effective, and if Fort Collins is to be effective, we must be in a position to compete. The City of Fort Collins should be congratulated for early recognition of some of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 5 upcoming trends. To reevaluate the Harmony Corridor Plan when a three year old plan was already in existence, required some foresight in somebody's behalf. To attack a new area of superstores and to consider their guidelines and standards is also a very imaginative and creative approach to some of Fort Collins' future problems. The Committee in the Harmony Corridor Plan positively reaffirmed that that important corridor should be a future employment center. Even in that plan, the committee recognized that nursing homes, hospitals, retirement homes, hotels, restaurants, offices, and even limited and highly specified retail projects, were necessary to make the Harmony Corridor a neighborhood. Having served on the Harmony Corridor Committee in 1991, and again in 1994, it was interesting to note that many of the original concerns in the Harmony Corridor Plan have been resolved and others have been expanded and need further mitigation. He thought the Harmony Corridor Plan dealt a lot of those areas. The first several meetings of the Superstore Committee dealt with the parameters of the committee's assignment. They had to look at the areas and each member become familiar to properly deliberate. Mr. Shepard has given the board the committees final report. He was present at all but two of the meetings. He thought the subject had been deliberated. He did not believe any point would be gained by an extension of time. He thought that the committee report is complete, at least within the ability of the committee to analyze the material with which they had to work. He recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board consider the report as submitted, and that they pass it on to City Council for further deliberations. Jack Gillium, General Manager at Foothills Fashion Mall. His purpose was to ask questions about the new design guidelines. The developers of Foothills Fashion Mall were concerned how the new guidelines would impact existing properties like Foothills or University Mall. They have a situation they have been working on for a couple of years, where a couple of their in -line department stores would like to expand. They were uncertain how the new guidelines would impact their property. They feel that it was a good time to do this, there is a lot of demand for a full -line department store. They would like to keep the money here in Fort Collins and not give it to Denver, or Loveland. Mike Donaldson, Developer involved with some property on Harmony Road. He has some comments regarding the December 12th meeting and wanted to make note of it. Mr. Donaldson felt that the design standards for the big box concept need to be applied as guidelines only. These approaches Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 6 cannot be standardized in a vacuum. Many good designs have been constructed at the specific direction of Real Estate Developers and the merchants themselves. The statement in the report implies that this can only occur due to community pressure and was categorically untrue. The "sea of asphalt" parking lot concept can be solved with creative and abundant landscape, together with appropriate site master plan concepts that break large areas into a smaller and a more personal scale. The majority of customer parking needs to be placed directly in front of the store entrances, for public safety in a high visibility configuration. Single entrances on the big box stores are a direct function of centralized cash register locations. These stores are completely different than Department Stores attached to a Mall. Mall Department Stores have multiple cash register locations, therefore, dictating numerous points of entry. This is entirely inappropriate in a big box concept. Multi -use stores, with examples being Department Stores such as Nordstroms and Macy's have often included restaurants, tea rooms, espresso bars, gourmet food departments, and cooking class areas, without additional separate exterior entrances or windows to these areas. Provision for pedestrian amenities, transit access, and bicycle paths can be easily integrated into a comprehensive and well - conceived P.U.D. Plan. The requirement for the application of cornice designs on all parapet walls is ill-conceived. While some buildings would look fine with this treatment, others will look quite inappropriate. Further, the inclusion of "clock towers" in most projects would create a cliche and the repetitive use of this concept in too many areas of Fort Collins would be a mistake. In both cases, these design approaches should be applied, if at all, as guidelines, rather than standards. The proposed facade window percentage requirement, to impact 60% of the street exposure surface from 3 feet to 8 feet above the ground, is ill-conceived. This approach does not take into account solar orientation, intrusive sun penetration, the specific product being merchandised, and the design image of the individual merchant. Each facade should be designed on a site -specific and design review basis, and be approved where appropriate. The implication that any individual project shall be considered on a "precedent -setting basis, is highly inappropriate. Each project should be evaluated on its' specific application to a specific Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 7 site, and its, approach to a rather precise set of environmental conditions. No two sites contain precisely the same conditions, therefore, the appropriate solution in each case will be different. Thus, none should establish a precedent for other projects at other locations. A provision needs to be incorporated into the design guideline format to provide a basis for the approval of projects based upon their merits. Where a superior design approach is brought forward, and properly presented, it should be able to be approved. Jim Heaton, citizen of Fort Collins for 15 years. He also is a member of the Task Force. He felt very strongly about the future representation of the standards and guidelines being arrived at. One thing is we do not know what the future of superstores is at this point. It was easy to conceive with the current growth of them into the future; but, he thought that it was equally likely that superstores may not be a long lasting phenomenum. We may see an evolution into such things as the electronic stores which are constituting some 80 billion dollars in business this year. Where one orders merchandise through one's computer and that the big box might evolve into a warehouse sort of thing. His other interest is in alternative transportation and what has been put into these standards and guidelines. It does concern itself with the environment of the buildings in question. He thought that this, in the ongoing evolution of our plans needs to be ensured. A large part of failing of previous buildings in the superstore category has been in their inadequate treatment of pedestrian facilities, biking and alternative transportation access. The Task Force did try to provide this in the standards and guidelines. This is of exceedingly great importance. In regard to the architectural requirements, there was some misunderstanding as to what we put into these guidelines as to their "limiting" future facilities. There was not an intention to limit what future architectural perspectives would be. They considered these to be a floor and site requirement that dictate and that other more glorious visions would be employed. He also represented the concerns of the Choice City Cycling Coalition. C-4 has done a great deal in helping the city with design of bikelanes and bike facilities around Fort Collins. They have provided an education component in training bicyclists for safety. The concerns were for very stringent requirements as to the future of designs in regards to trying to ameliorate traffic density. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 8 He would recommend the proposal exceedingly, and recommends the ongoing strength of the standards and guidelines. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Vice Chairman Cott.ier asked Mr. Shepard to respond to Mr. Gilliums issue of how these design guidelines will be applied to existing Community/Regional Centers. Planner Shepard replied that they would apply. It was written into the new definitions, that "and no addition to a retail establishment, which results in the retail establishment or aggregated combination, if applicable, exceeding 25,000 s.f. of gross floor area shall be approved for construction." It covers the additions. They have talked to the Everitt Company about the implication the new Superstore Guidelines and Standards would have on the Foothills Fashion Mall and there was a few areas that they might need a variance. He thought that 80 to 90% of what was in the Guidelines and Standards is already happening at the Mall. The Foothills Fashion Mall is often used as a good example of what we would like to see. The Foothills Fashion Mall is also a P.U.D. that is in a Community/Regional Shopping Center, and so that would also be a trigger mechanism that would have these guidelines and standards apply. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that the Foothill Fashion Mall was processed as a P.U.D. and would be brought through the Community/Regional Shopping Center Point Chart. That would bring these guidelines into play. He wanted to explore the language of the amendment to Section 29-477, that is in the Ordinance. First addressed is the issue of retail establishments exceeding 25,000 s.f. If you are going to build a building as big as that, bring it through these standards and guidelines. The next issue was several smaller and when packaged together in one building, the whole building gets to be that big. That was the second requirement, that if it is an aggregation of smaller retail establishments and the aggregation exceeds 25,000 s.f., those needed to also be brought through the design guidelines as well. Then additions, if you have a 10,000 s.f. building and you want to add 30,000 s.f. to it, then you would exceed the 25,000 s.f. limit. They wanted to make sure that additions, that resulted in the establishment exceeding 25,000 s.f. would have to come through the guidelines and standards. As Mr. Gillum made his remarks, he thought that the Mall already exceeded 25,000 s.f., so the addition would not result in it. He thought an amendment should be made to say "no addition to a retail establishment, which exceeds or which results in the retail establishment or aggregation exceeding." So if the addition is 25,000 s.f., then it would have to come through. Or, if the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 9 addition, when aggregated together with what was already there, exceeds 25,000 s.f. would have to come through. He thought there was a gap in the way it is presently written, and he would recommend adding the words "exceeds or" in that one clause. That would still leave one question about small additions to big buildings of about 5,000 s.f., or so, needing to go through design guidelines. He thought that we needed to get the boards advise on that before we go to Council. Vice Chairman Cottier asked Mr. Shepard to give some staff insight on that, and she also asked about whether or not an addition conforming to these design guidelines would fit with the existing architecture of buildings and how the board would look at that. Planner Shepard replied that it was staffs feeling that they would like the last category that Mr. Eckman described to be applicable. That way they could start to improve some old strip centers and maybe start a process. When we are dealing with existing buildings, it would be as we do now with a P.U.D. When we have a use that was a use -by -right, to expand it, it now has to go through a P.U.D. Vice Chairman Cottier asked for some insight in terms of whether or not the design recommendations should be guidelines or standards and how did the committee addressed that issue. Planner Shepard replied that one of the first reports that they got back from the consultants, Clarion and Associates, was that in today's era, because of the retail phenomenum, you have to go with standards. You cannot go with just a guideline approach. They were dealing with the definition of the problem as such, that the Task Force felt standards were very important. Balanced with aesthetics, design, creativity, individual sites, and how you can not stifle creativity as to not just get what your standards imply. what they tried to do was only have standards where they were necessary, when they weren't necessary, they relied on the guidelines. Vice Chairman Cottier thought that the different elements of the design guidelines, where you have a menu of things to pick from, and you have to do two out of four, does allow for considerably more flexibility and creativity. Member Walker asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman, in the Ordinance it states, if we have a large retail establishment, it has to be in compliance with the design standards and guidelines. Does that suggest that it could be a free-standing unit as long as it meets the design standards and guidelines? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 10 Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that was the purpose of the Ordinance, not the Community/Regional definition, but this other Ordinance drafted dealing with Section 29-477. It was to bring within it's regulation, the standard subdivisions and free-standing stores that are not part of a P.U.D. Member Walker thought that what the Task Force has done was good. He was satisfied, he thought the fact that we were developing design standards is an important aspect of this project. He also thought that the standards reflect some of the community needs in terms of pedestrian friendly opportunities, ways of linking it with transit, and happy that the public space question enhanced. He thought that the design standards were important for our community in getting these large retail stores into centers. Vice Chairman Cottier asked that the motion before them be reviewed. She asked Member Carnes to restate his motion. Member Carnes recalled the motion as he remembered it. To address the issues of public and community spaces in centers that involve superstores, Community/Regional Centers. To look at the separation of Community Shopping Centers from Regional. The size of any one store in relation to the overall center size. Any one store would not exceed 40% of the total in the center. Any anchor of a Neighborhood Service Center not to exceed 1/2 the total of that center. The question of food stores and putting them in Neighborhood Service Centers and not in Regional Centers, due to accessibility. The social economic impacts of the new phenomenum in retail, supercenters. The direction to the Task Force did not included looking at that, but it has come up repeatedly. His motion was to have Council redirect staff to what they would like, if anything, in the way of further study. He asked for the motion, as it appeared in the record to be read. Planner Shepard read the record from December 12th. The motion was made to extend the temporary suspension of large retail establishments by three months so more work could be done in the following areas. (1), integrate the results of the Harmony Corridor Amended Plan so as to include a new category of retail center, Community Retail Center; (2), enhance the guidelines and standards that address community and public spaces; (3), address the ratio of size of the superstore in relationship to the size of the overall center, in terms of gross leasable area, and that the desirable ratio be that the superstore not exceed 40% of the total; (4), Council should consider to further study the socio-economic impacts to analyze superstores and their impact on the community. This recommendation goes beyond the scope of the superstore project and is offered as a suggestion to Council to consider as part of a future work program. • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 11 Member Carnes asked to modify his motion. Member Carnes moved not to extend the moratorium. He moved to recommend to Council to adopt the design guidelines and standards, as proposed by the committee. Including the new public and community space revised guideline. On any proposed new, expanded, redeveloped retail establishment, or aggregated establishment that would occupy in excess of 100,000 s.f., and any proposed new addition to food stores occupying in excess of 49,000 s.f.; and, that a study would be done, funded by whoever proposes that, preformed by a consultant selected by the City. That this study assess the traffic, land use, air quality and the social economic impacts of the proposed development. Vice Chairman Cottier asked if this was acceptable with the second of December 12th. Planner Shepard replied that the original seconder of the motion was Member walker. Member Walker stated that he would accept the change. Vice Chairman Cottier asked Member Carnes to briefly summarize his motion. Member Carnes replied, that the Board recommend to council that the conclusions of the Task Force regarding guidelines and standards for design, include the revised revision on public and community spaces. To give any new, expanded, or redeveloped retail establishment or aggregation that would exceed 100,000 s.f. fund a study of those impacts. The only exception would be a food store that would occupy in excess of 49,000 s.f. Any superstore smaller than 25,000 s.f. would not trigger this. Vice Chairman Cottier asked if the required study would cover traffic, air quality, and what else? Member Carnes replied, traffic, land use, air quality, and social and economic impacts. Member Strom asked how this was to differ from what staff and consultants do now. Planner Shepard replied that the inclusion of studying the socio- economic variables. Staff presently looks at traffic, land use and air quality. Member Strom asked Member Carnes what he intended to include in the socio-economic study and why? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 12 Member Carnes replied that the study would include the impacts on existing retail business. Also looking at the impacts on the economy in terms of income and employment. It was a way of maintaining the flexibility that we presently have with the LDGS and the proposed modifications to it, and also looking as realistically as possible at what the impacts may be on a major project by major project basis. Member Strom had some real problems with the second part of his motion. Three quarters of what he was talking about is already being done. If he was saying that it was not being done adequately, we need to do something about that. But to say that we have to fund an independent study by every developer that comes in with a large project, separate from what was being done by City Staff, and according to our new fee structure is already mostly paid for by the developer causes him concern. Getting into the socio-economic area, by his explanation, could happen with stores as small as 10,000 s.f. He imagined that every development that occurs within the community has some socio-economic impact. It is part of the whole competitive process. His concern was that we were leaping into something that without having a serious debate about what we want to get out of it, and how best to go about doing it, if that is what the community wants. His sense is that the board did not want to get into trying to managing the market. what they want to try to do through the LDGS process is manage land development from the standpoint of dictating quality. If we were going to get into the arena of evaluating the effects on the market place, that was a new ball game and he was not ready to do that without more discussion and debate than they have had so far. Member Fontane recommended that the motion be modified to not include the suggestion of the traffic, land use, air quality, and socio-economic impact study. She also thought that traffic, land use, and air quality were already being looked at. Maybe in his comments make a suggestion that staff take a look at them, if it is a suggestion and not part of the motion, it could still get looked at. It was asking a lot, and that it was not part of what this Task Force was set up to work on. Vice Chairman Cottier asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if this board would have any authority to make development approvals based on socio-economic issues; and, in terms of the motion did the board need to make some specific .language changes to the ordinance to cover the size issue he raised earlier. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied yes, and he did have some language if the board does want to address the questions of additions to large buildings. • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 13 Regarding the first question of socio-economic impacts, and could the board regulate that. He thought the answer was perhaps, yes. Although the studies have not been done to determine if there are any impacts from superstores that don't exist from smaller stores, that would have to be analyzed. There is an equal protection question, if we are regulating just businesses, in this case large businesses; and, saying they have to meet affordable housing goals, that a small fast food restaurant does not have to meet; and, they are all in the retail business, can we distinguish one class of retailer from another if the impacts are the same. He thought the answer to that was no, there must be a rational basis for our regulation. If we can find a rational basis to say that the large retailer has an impact upon affordable housing, or some other socio-economic goal or desire of the City, that is not presented by the small retailer, then we could distinguish between the two classes of business. Up to now, he could not say whether there is a difference, because it has not been studied. Another question with regard to the motion and the suggestion that the developers of the large buildings fund a study is that he was assuming, not only must they fund and produce a study, but, that it must be established by the city criteria, then upon to judge the study to determine if the study shows that there are deleterious impacts created by the development and, if there are, how they must be mitigated. We need criteria to measure those impacts. That would need to be part of Mr. Carnes' motion to just have a study in a vacuum or a study with criteria to measure. Member Carnes modified his motion. That the recommendation to Council to direct the staff to look at the socio-economic impacts, minimally look at retail establishments over 100,000 s.f. with the exception of food stores, which in excess of 49,000 s.f. would apply. Member Fontane asked if the recommendation was that Council look at doing a study. Member Carnes replied that they consider whether they would like the staff to look at having this be a requirement. Member Carnes' recommendation was that Council consider whether they would want to have this as a requirement for major superstore developments. Vice Chairman Cottier asked about the necessary language about the size. Member Fontane asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to include the language that Mr. Eckman was recommending to address the changes or additions to the existing buildings. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 14 Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if they wanted to bring through these guidelines, small additions to large buildings. Member Fontane thought that the small additions needed to use the guidelines. Deputy City Attorney suggested the language for Section 29-477 be "and no addition to a retail establishment, which (a) exceeds or (b) results in, the retail establishment exceeding or (c) is made to a retail establishment which exceeds 25,000 square feet." Member Walker accepted the amendment as the second. Member Walker asked if the implication would be if we were adding a small segment to a large shopping center, would it be practical to have them go through the guidelines. Planner Shepard replied that if it was an existing shopping center that was done originally as a P.U.D.; and, they are coming in for some changes, the Planning Staff has the ability to either do it as an administrative change or bring it to the board as an amended P.U.D. If it is a P.U.D., we are covered. If it is a stand-alone that is not covered by a P.U.D. but has been brought into this by the definition. He thought we should be flexible. He thought that they should be incorporated into the guidelines and work with the commercial re -developers and see what we could do. If it turns out that we are creating a lot of work for ourselves, then the definition could be amended so that we have the flexibility to do it administratively. Vice Chairman Cottier restated the motion proposed. That the Board recommend the endorsement of the Advisory Committee's report and their design standards and guidelines for large retail establishments, which would include the definition of public spaces being required. That the Board recommend to Council that they have staff study whether or not a requirement of the developer would be to provide a socio-economic study for superstores or food stores exceeding a certain size. And, to change the language as Mr. Eckman had read regarding additions. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if part of the motion was accepting the Ordinance that changes the code, and the change to the Land Development Guidance System. Member Carnes included that in his motion. Vice Chairman Cottier thought that the Task Force did a very good job. What they came up with was really significant in terms of addressing how we want superstores to fit into our community. The major accomplishments of the Task Force was defining that the • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 15 superstore must exist in a Community or Regional Center, the design guidelines, and the public spaces being required with a superstore. She had no problem with the design guidelines being defined in terms of standards rather that guidelines because of the options that are given, and the Boards ability to grant variances if they are looking at anything that they think is better. She thought it was important to put developers on notice, that they are looking for significant design. with respect to the issue of socio-economics. She did not support that and would not be supporting the motion. She did not support that in being a requirement of the developer. She did not have a problem with Council deciding to look at that issue, but thought that the starting point should be clearly defining what is wanted. What would be the criteria looked at. She thought that it was a different approach than looking at a study to decide whether or not developers would be required to do a socio-economic study. Member Strom thought it was a valiant effort on the part of the Task Force to go as far as they have. He would be supporting the motion. By no means is he committing to supporting the idea of a socio-economic component in the application, by so doing, he thought it was worth looking at from the staff's standpoint. Member Fontane thought that this was a supplement to the LDGS, it was not expected to stand alone. There are things in the LDGS and Land Use Policies Plan people have to be aware of that address issues. She would support the motion. on the socio-economic issue, if we are suggesting that Council direct staff to look at it was something she could support, but that the board is not requiring staff do it. Member Carnes stated that he was satisfied with where this process has ended up. Vice Chairman Cottier stated she re -thought her position, and would be supporting the motion because she wants to show her support for the design guidelines and that process. She assumed that she would have her shot at what ever might come out of the socio-economic guidelines. Her statement is in the record. She thought that Council should address defining some policies with respect to socio-economic goals for the community before such a study would be effective. The motion was approved 5-0, with Member Bell and Chairman Clements absent. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 16 WILLOW SPRINGS, FIRST FILING, FINAL P.U.D. - #3-94C Planner Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval of the P.U.D. Planner Shepard stated that an interim roadway design of Timberline Road is being proposed to save the trees along the west side of the road. Matt Baker from the Engineering Department was here to explain the cross-section design of Timberline Road. Matt Baker, Engineering Department, stated they have evaluated the conceptual arterial street design for Willow Springs. Mr. Baker gave an explanation of Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 and their related costs. These designs were shown to the effected property owners on November 14th, and another public meeting on December 1st. Staff's recommendation is to build a partial street in the existing right-of-way based on the modified alignment of Option 2. Option 2A moves the southbound bikelane off the street as well as reducing the lane widths to reduce the impacts to east property lines. The long-range traffic study indicated that a 3-lane configuration would be adequate for the traffic volumes until 2010. Staff's recommendation would be build the three lanes now based on Option 2A alignment. Other design issues can be finalized upon the ultimate widening, however, staff is recommending only the interim roadway be built with this development at this time. Member Carnes asked how much of the easement would be granted by the proposed developer for this? Mr. Baker replied the developer would be dedicating his full arterial right-of-way. Member Carnes asked if there would be any additional easements needed to go to five lanes? Mr. Baker replied they would have to purchase right-of-way from each of the property owners along the east side of Timberline Road. In addition, if any damage is done to the properties during the widening, then the city would also pay for additional damages. Member Carnes asked about the west side. Mr. Baker replied they would be making their full arterial dedication. There would be no additional property needed. Member Carnes asked if the bike lane would be moved to the other side of the trees? Mr. Baker replied yes, the ultimate design shows a bike lane and sidewalks on the other side of the trees. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 17 Member Carnes asked how much right-of-way would be needed on the east side of the street. Mr. Baker replied an additional 31 feet. At final design, when the design issues are revisited, there may some impacts that would cut it down, for instance if a sidewalk would not be needed on the County side, it will reduce it another 15 feet. Member Carnes asked how much cost between this plan and plan 1 would the developer be picking up? Mr. Baker replied no additional costs, the developer's cost will be the same no matter which option is chosen. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, representing the applicant Byron Collins, gave the applicant's presentation reviewing the location of the site, Keenland Road, other developments in the area, the main access points to Willow Springs, the daycare facility being dropped from the first filing, the pond that will serve as detention and retention and would utilize raw water for irrigating the greenway's, that the site was substantially regraded which created walk -outs on virtually all the homes on the ends of the cul-de-sacs, the layout of the site showing where each type of housing would be located and the recreation facilities, that there would be a 90 degree turn off of the Keenland extension before you would go into Oakridge and that connection would not be build until some future date and would be a City project, the topography with the existing terrain, the floorplans of the multi -family units, the rerouting of McClelland ditch, elevations, and slides of Timberline Road and the trees being saved. Mr. Sell stated that the City Forester had been out and evaluated the trees and that some of them will have to come out. Most of them are in great shape. Mr. Sell showed slides of the setbacks on the east side of Timberline. CITIZEN INPUT Bobbie Douglas, lives on East County Road 36 adjacent to this property. She has spoken against this development at prior meetings of the board. Ms. Douglas questioned the density level being proposed. She felt that their area in the county did not represent a "subdivision", but was a neighborhood with many varieties of acreages in the area, and most of the residents have lived there for 20 years. Ms. Douglas has attended the meetings on Timberline Road and felt that no matter which option was chosen, it would affect the residents along east Timberline Road. One concern was a dip in the new paving and she was worried about runoff going across the road. Another concern was bikelanes along major Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 18 thorough fares, and not believing that this was a safe situation for bikers as well as automobile traffic. Ivan Whitstruck, owns a property immediately adjacent to Timberline. He preferred Option 3, because it preserved the trees, yet does not infringe on their front yards. He felt that the developer was not giving up any additional land and also gets the additional value of the trees remaining there, and he will have to give up another 15 feet in addition to the platted easements. Mr. Whitstruck felt that the developers rights are more important than his at this stage and you don't stand a chance if you are one of the small people. He felt the trees were beautiful, but does not want to sacrifice his property to save them and that this whole thing boils down to money. Gary Putnam, resident on the east side of Timberline, expressed his views as a very good proposal to leave the trees, maintaining a median, putting 2 lanes on the west side of the trees. Apparently, that is very costly, and it is also costly to the developer. Mr. Putnam was against an additional 31 feet being taken from his yard, and that the additional space needed should be taken from the west side, which is currently undeveloped land. He felt this would affect their property values considerably. He thought they were being appeased by talking 20 years down the road. Mr. Putnam stated that if saving the trees would take 31 feet off his front yard, then he would like to see the trees cut down. Lorene Putnam, resident of the east side of Timberline, felt that a four lane highway that would take 31 feet from their front yard would of kept them from moving there knowing that. How would they expect to sell their property to someone else with them knowing that. Mrs. Putnam felt that if this happens, they all have white elephants. Mrs. Putnam felt that it was not logical taking 31 feet of their front yard when there is bare land across the road. She felt that a median down the road would blend the two densities together better than what was proposed. Mrs. Putnam would give up the trees rather than give up her yard, and she also felt there was bare ground to build the roadway to the west and their yards should not be affected. Jerry Dusbabek, owns 37 acres north of Willow Springs and is very much in favor of the development. Mr. Dusbabek was concerned about this project putting their property in a hole and the amount of fill they will need for their property, and felt this was a very serious matter. Mr. Dusbabek stated that it would be several hundred thousand dollars worth of fill because of their development. Mr. Dusbabek stated that he had engineers there that the board could call on if needed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 19 CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Vice Chairman Cottier asked Mr. Shepard to review Option 2 again and asked how much right-of-way would be taken now and what the timing is and what that was based on. Planner Shepard replied Option 2A interim was the continuous center turn lane, with two travel lanes in each direction. That was the solution that would affect the property owners to the east in the least for the interim time frame. No additional right-of-way is needed on the east, except for perhaps some slope easements to implement that interim option. The option will allow for traffic volumes up to 10,000 vehicle trips per day, and with the center left turn lane, staff feels that those volumes could be handled. It is only when volumes get beyond that, that staff feels that the arterial improvement should be constructed, which is Option 2 Ultimate. That would be a Capital Project funded by a mechanism by which we do Capital Projects. Option 2A will provide access to all the properties to the east, where a median would not, and also protects the root zone of the cottonwood trees, which is on the west side of the trees. Vice Chairman Cottier asked for data of vehicle trips per day and when we might expect to exceed the 10,000. Planner Shepard replied that the prediction is that County Road 32 becomes Highway 392 at I-25. It may be that in the future Harmony Road would loose it's State Highway designation and come under local jurisdiction and County Road 32 then from I-25 to Highway 287 would become that part of the Highway network. That would be the trigger that would cause the traffic to increase to where the arterial would be needed. It would be a State project and the State would have to find the funding to do it and it looks to be 7 to 10 years out, if at all. Vice Chairman Cottier asked if cutting the trees was ever considered? Planner Shepard replied that it was considered the null alternative. Alternative 1 was put on the table with a committee of staff, citizens called the Tree Council, the City Forester, and Fort Collins Releaf. They tried to balance the saving of the trees with how to minimize the impacts on the property owners the least. Vice Chairman Cottier asked for comment on the viability of the trees in the median situation. Planner Shepard replied that the trees would still be viable in the median, although from the root zone perspective, it is not the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 20 preferred alternative. The median would have to be 20 feet wide and there would have to be an irrigation system there. Member Fontane asked about the impact on the east side property line. Mr. Baker responded that on Option 3, there would be an additional 10 feet, which is sidewalk and landscaping on the median side. Member Strom asked Mr. Baker if there is more median east of the trees before the pavement starts than there is under Option 2A? Mr. Baker replied yes there is, in order to try an optimize the viability of the trees in the median, some of the trees have a 90 foot canopy so there is a 90 foot root zone. They tried to use a 20 foot median as a minimum so there is 10 feet on either side of the tree. with the 2A Option, the Forester's recommendation is 5 feet from the face of the tree on one side and leave the other side completely clear. The curb and gutter has changed some from the 2A option. Member Strom asked why they could not move the whole thing over and stay within the existing property line? Mr. Baker replied he did not go into a final design detail on any of the options. These are preliminary designs. The first answer would be traffic safety. Highway design standards give them guidelines on median obstructions. One of the options would be to keep the trees back from the curb, the other option would be to put a guard rail across it. He did not explore that. Member Strom asked why it was different under the median option than Option 2A, why did they need more space than in Option 2A for safety purposes? Mr. Baker replied that it was to get the tree in the middle of the median, would give traffic safe on both sides. If they shifted the median over to put 5 foot over, there would be a guard rail all along the one side. Member Strom asked if they need a guard rail under Option 2A? Mr. Baker replied no, because it is on an outside lane. Member Strom asked if the setback standard was different on the inside lane? Mr. Baker replied that was correct. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 21 Vice Chairman Cottier asked how this was presented at preliminary? Mr. Sell replied that Option 1, where the trees would all be removed was what was presented at preliminary. Mr. Sell also added that Shields Street is a good example of the road being close to houses, and in the process the City has mitigated the issues with the property owners. The point being that there is a difference between having 30 feet distance from the front door and the edge of the street where there is no landscaping at all, and 20 feet where there is significant landscaping or other kinds of screening, where it may be more mitigated in the latter case. That has not been discussed at all. Member Carnes asked what was the estimate on the remaining life of the trees? Planner Shepard replied 19 were healthy and viable with a life span of 20 to 50 years. Member Carnes asked if 2A happens, then it would not be feasible to go to a median situation at any time in the future? Mr. Baker replied that he did not think they were foreclosing any option. It would be extremely difficult to redo a roadway in a different configuration, and it would be a lot more expensive. Member Carnes asked why this was the next step in road development, why did they need the third lane? Mr. Baker replied the third lane would be a center left turn lane for traffic movements. Member Carnes asked what traffic level would trigger a change to the three lane configuration. Mr. Baker replied he would recommend that this interim option be built with the development at this time. Member Carnes asked if it was not done at this time, would the developer put money into street oversizing for future use? Mr. Baker responded that the obligation to construct is normally with the development at the time of developing. Member Carnes asked if Mr. Baker thought there was an immediate need for a three lane configuration at this time. Mr. Baker replied yes, because of this development, other developments in the area, and current traffic volumes on Timberline Road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 22 Member Walker asked if the two way keeps things in the existing right-of-way? Mr. Baker replied yes. Member Walker asked if the only other option that keeps everything within the existing right-of-way is Option 1. Mr. Baker replied Option 1 gives more flexibility, by cutting the trees down and not having that design constraint, the road could be shifted and not impact the properties on the east at all. Mr. Baker added that Option 2 was the only option that gives the flexibility to save the trees and build an interim road at this point. With the option with the medians, we would have to build the total roadway now in order to get traffic movements, and he thought that was too much road for what was needed right now. Member Walker asked about the drainage issue brought up by Mr. Duesbabek. With all the fill going in on the north end, how was it being mitigated with regards to having adverse impacts on the Dusbabek property. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility responded that the issue Mr. Dusbabek brought up was more to do with the fill that is being required. The drainage is accommodated. He suggested listening to both sides engineers and their opinion about the fill. The plan they have now does accommodate the drainage. Member Walker asked to hear something about the fill. Steve Human, TST Consulting Engineers, engineers for the applicant stated the developer was proposing some massive earth moving operations for the purpose of lowering some areas, realigning the ditch from a straight line to something with some natural characteristics They are raising some ends of some cul-de-sacs and creating some walk -outs. The area is inundated in a major storm so some filling activity is required to get out of the 100-year flood plain. The culvert is being upsized. They will be filling a foot or two higher than they have to. They also have design constraints with what was known as Keenland Drive and is now known as Battlecreek Drive because there is an elevation they have to hold. There are also certain points where they cannot go any lower and still get the water to drain into the new McClelland ditch. He did not see any of the filling activity having any effect on the property, and felt they had done what they could with Battlecreek to tie into Timberline and to keep the low points in the street to physically drain into the creek. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 23 Member walker asked if the realignment of Battlecreek Drive was what was creating the fill requirement? Mr. Human replied he believed so, he had not looked at Mr. Dusbabek's property in great detail. Battlecreek would be raised a couple of feet above the existing ground on the north side. Paul Clopper, Resource Consultants, Mr. Dusbabek's engineer stated that the parcel of land the Dusbabek's own is not being developed at this time and has no current plans in the pipeline. His firm was retained to look at the surrounding parcels developing and keep them advised as to issues that concern them with respect to drainage. What Mr. Human from TST said was correct with regards to the fill that is being proposed in the lower area. They are also in agreement with the amount of water they will have to convey from the various properties and where it needs to go. Mr. Clopper stated that the obligations of the McClelland/Mail Creek Master Drainage Plan needed to be observed as part of the conditions of development and routing stormwater. The second thing is that the various drainage improvements being installed with the developments needed to be shared. He felt that the Dusbabek's property was topographically challenged. It is very flat and low lying and to convey stormwater in the 100-year event, would have to be down along Timberline in a swale being proposed along Timberline Road; and, would require more fill on the front half of their parcel in order to meet stormwater drainage criteria and minimum slopes. The back half of the property is planned to share a detention pond as proposed with the Willow Springs development. He thought that there was a couple of details that were still at issue. Member Strom asked what details were still at issue? Mr. Clopper replied that underneath Battlecreek and all the way down to the new McClelland drainage way, the Willow Springs proposal is calling for twin pipes to convey the water through instead of an open Swale. The other detail is a two party agreement between the Dusbabek's and the developer of Willow Springs concerning the agreed upon size of the detention pond referred to as "Pond 330" in their drainage plan. Mr. Clopper felt that it was outside the scope and discussion of tonights meeting because it is strictly a "two-party" agreement and there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of some of the terms. Mr. Clopper stated that in order to fill the Dusbabek's property to meet the drainage requirements of the City of Fort Collins, the amount of fill required to raise the land surface of over 12 to 13 acres is on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 24 Mr. Clopper closed by saying he thought there would be a resolution to this, but it has not occurred yet. Member Walker asked if the pipe proposed carried enough water, then would this issue be resolved? Mr. Clopper responded yes. Vice Chairman Cottier asked if this was an issue that had to be resolved before signing a development agreement, and was not an issue that the board needed to resolve? Planner Shepard replied that was correct, that was the direction given by Stormwater Utility. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that Stormwater staff would be watching to see if there is any change in the drainage from this property to the adjacent property, in the historic flow that would be injurious to the downstream property. The common law rule is that an upstream property owner cannot change the flow off of the property onto the downstream property from what was the historic flow, if the change causes an injury. That could be a change in volume, rate of flow, quantity or quality of water, or the manner in which it flows to the downstream property. Member Strom asked if there was any similar common law guidance in terms of downstream properties affecting an upstream property, which seems to be what they were looking at here. Deputy City Attorney answered there would not be any drainage flowing from the downstream property to the upstream property. Member Storm added there might be some impedance of flow off of the upstream property. Deputy City Attorney replied he thought there was Vice Chairman Cottier thought the bottom line was that the City's Stormwater Utility review of this does take into account how this development impacts the Dusbabek's property, correct? Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility replied it takes into account the drainage. What has happened here is that the Dusbabek's and Byron Collins have entered into an agreement, which also included the properties to the north for this ditch. What they are claiming now is that from the ditch to the pipe it has changed, and this is not out of the historic arena. Staff looks at the drainage water itself and if it causes fill for his development for his future streets, which Mr. Dusbabek is claiming right now, this would fall under the LDGS offsite impacts. Drainage wise, the systems they Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 25 have looked at work and meet the City's criteria. You can't say that the Stormwater Utility is going to address the grading problem and the dispute they are having about the amount of fill. vice Chairman asked if their assessment of the impacts to them correct in his opinion? Mr. Schlueter replied yes. Member Fontane asked if Mr. Schlueter felt this was mitigatible? Mr. Schlueter replied in talking with Mr. Dusbabek, he could work it out with Mr. Collins. Member Strom asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if the City has the authority to reserve right-of-way or draw a line on a map? Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that there is a statutory provision that allows the City to reserve rights -of -way. Member Strom was concerned with keeping options open down the road and it was not clear to him that we would ever need the capacity talked about with the ultimate build out. On the other hand, he would like to keep the option open to do that if someday it would be needed. Member Strom asked why an interim road could not be built in the existing right-of-way and at the same time reserve the property within this development, which is currently vacant; so, 20 years down the road if the trees are still healthy, then they could build the street that was needed. Mr. Shepard replied that that was reasonable and could be considered. He would like some advice from the Attorney's office on how long we could do that. Member Strom was concerned with the third lane and would only like to see that at intersections. Mr. Baker replied that the third lane was also for the properties on the east that have their separate drive -way and he wanted to get them out of the lane to make a left turn without having to stop traffic. Member Strom asked about moving one of the bike lanes to the west side of the trees along the sidewalk and thought that might be the better design for the interim. Mr. Baker thought that might save a couple of feet taking out a six foot bike lane. It would also put the traffic lane closer to the curb and the traffic lane would have to be widened to the curb. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 26 Member Strom thought there was a broad range of options for this and thought that the street design should be creative in dealing with this because of the neighbors who have been there for twenty - something years and deserve a reasonable amount of protection. Member Carnes thought the things clear to him were to stay within the existing right-of-way as long as possible on the east side, to save the trees as long as possible, and being creative as possible including a trade off between taking right-of-way from property owner's front yards versus eliminating a third lane. Member Carnes felt uncomfortable endorsing any plan except for the issues discussed that he felt they had closure on. Member Strom concurred except for considering the possibility of reserving the right-of-way west of the trees for ultimate development using trees in the median strip. He thought that they should protect their options. Vice Chairman Cottier asked for a clarification from the applicant as to how that would impact the plan. was that possible with the layout presently shown? Mr. Sell replied the board might as well turn the proposal down, because they would be starting over. Vice Chairman Cottier asked if there would be enough room there? Mr. Sell replied that it would effect everything on the site. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reported to Member Strom the provision that City Council can take action to reserve for future acquisition as street right-of-way. Upon that action being taken, there should be a board of appraisers established to determine the value of the land that has been reserved. It's like having to pay for the option. The amount of compensation needs to paid to the affected property owners once the established board of appraisers makes a determination of the value of the land. Vice Chairman Cottier asked Mr. Sell if Option 3 was totally unworkable?, a median? Mr. Sell replied, yes the median was unworkable. It would wipe out the detention areas and shorten up some lots up. It could be done, but everything done to this point would be scrapped. Member Strom stated it would not wipe out the detention areas if they drew a line and did not build within that area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 27 Mr. Sell responded that you cannot reserve an area of right-of-way and then develop it the way it is with the possibility of eventually putting a road in there. Mr. Sell asked if the issue of changing the street configuration, layout and density at final was appropriate? Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that layout and density according the Land Development Guidance System as we have noted before is set at preliminary. Member Strom felt what they were dealing with was an issue of detailed design, which the board did not have at preliminary. If they can't deal with the issue of layout and density, then it is a moot point. He felt that it was more important than that, and if they have new information that would make minor adjustments to layout it was incumbent for them to do that. Mr. Sell felt that it was not minor, it would require redoing 50% of the effort that got them to this point. Member Strom thought that not only did they have the right to look at this information, but felt it was required of the board to do it as part of their job. If that forces them into layout that was committed prior, so be it. Otherwise they would have to ask for this sort of detail at preliminary. Mr. Sell stated that the road design of Timberline Road was not incumbent upon them to do. That was a City issue, and was something that was not done in a timely fashion for whatever reason. They went ahead with what they had done based on what had been provided for them by the City, that the board ruled on. Now, if there is new information, it was not a result of negligence on their part. Member Strom replied that he was not saying it was negligence on their part. what he was saying is that it is new information before them, and they would be negligent if they ignored it at this point in time. Steve Human, TST Engineers, added that they were almost done with a set of construction plans that number almost 60 sheets for just Phase I. Mr. Human reviewed the detention areas affected and how a change in layout would effect the project. Member Fontane asked how that would affect the pond in the middle of the greenbelt. Mr. Human replied that Mr. Sell would have to look at that more than him. The pond was also detention, they had to squeeze Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 28 detention into every nook and cranny of the project just to get enough detention. Member Strom asked to see cross section 3 and asked how much additional right-of-way they were talking about? Mr. Human replied 35 feet additional from the 50 feet. Member Strom asked where the current proposed right-of-way line was and where did the 35 feet start. Mr. Human replied that the map the board has should show the 50 foot right-of-way, and the line right behind the trees, and the 35 feet would go from that point west.. Member Fontane moved to table this discussion until the January, 1995 hearing. Member Carnes seconded the motion, asking for an amendment to focus on what would be feasible as far as options in the future that would meet the concerns expressed tonight. The concerns being existing right-of-way on the east side, saving the trees as long as possible, and not making it as easy as possible for local residents to make left turns, and looking at options that might not include that. Member Fontane refused the amendment, stating that she felt that was part of motion and did not feel it had to be specifically stated. There needed to be the flexibility for them to work it out themselves. Member Fontane restated the motion to table the discussion until the January, 1995 hearing to let staff, the developer, and the citizens have a chance to get together and try to hammer out some more options on the street design. Also, that the Dusbabek's and his engineers get together and work out their issues. Member Carnes seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN, POLICY LU2 Joe Frank, Interim Planning Director stated that the board has seen information on the specific issue of the wording of recommended Policy LU2 that dealt with the kinds of uses that could occur in the Basic Industrial/Non-Retail Employment Activity Center. The specific issue tonight had to do with the terminology used in describing the amount of secondary and supporting issues that would be allowed in that activity center. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 29 During the hearing a week ago, the board recommended to City Council that the term, "substantially" be used to describe the amount of area that would be devoted to secondary uses in comparison to the basic industrial uses, meaning that there would be "substantially" less area for the secondary uses. At that time the report recommended that there not be the term "substantially" because of the ambiguity in interpreting that term when it would come down to the actual implementation of that plan in looking at specific development proposals. The recommendation of the board was to put the word "substantially" back into the language. Staff would like to bring to the board's attention that there was an issue with the Attorney's office in being uncomfortable with the word "substantially" because of it's ambiguity in the interpretation. In the ordinance that is going to City Council tomorrow night, the word "substantially" will not be included in the ordinance. Staff wanted to bring it back to the board tonight to see if there was any interest to more specifically define the term "substantially" potentially with a percentage. Mr. Frank stated there would have to be a motion for reconsideration by someone on the prevailing side. Member Fontane had a problem with that stating she did not feel qualified pulling a percentage out of the air. She thought that staff and the committee that worked on it would be better to make that kind of a judgement call. Member Carnes asked what the consensus of the Task Force was regarding "how much less". Mr. Frank replied that they discussed a lot of different options, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40. They talked about distances from the road being reserved. He did not believe there was any consensus. They were comfortable with the word "substantially" and comfortable that the Planning and Zoning Board could interpret that during deliberations. Their recommendation was that the issue be brought up during the Comprehensive Plan update. Member Carnes thought what they needed was something that works well for base employment and the secondary supporting uses fit well with that which is usually addressed by an Overall Development Plan. Member Walker thought that by the change being proposed by the City Attorney, it does quantify the issue. It becomes 49% or less. He did not want to lose the spirit of "substantially", and putting "less" in there looses the spirit of what the Task Force wanted to say. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 30 Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the change was made after the committee looked at it and was made in the Attorney's Office. On the point Member walker was making, it would be better from a legal perspective to argue that even though a percentage the board may select is arbitrary, that it is acceptable because it is within the board's legislative discretion to analyze such information as the board has received, and to select a percentage; and, that the board and the City Council has the legislative discretion to select a percentage. It would be more difficult to litigate the issue to be able to show what we mean by the term "substantially less". Vice Chairman Cottier thought that the committee had discussed this issue in terms of 10% for secondary uses. Mr. Frank recalled a lot of different percentages being discussed. Member Carnes would like to see the percentage linked to the Overall Development Plan. Member Walker felt the number before them was 49% and if the board did not like that, then they need to come up with another number. Member Fontane asked Mr. Frank if he would be prepared to come up with bonus points to support increasing the number. Mr. Frank replied that it would be helpful to have some guidance. Mr. Frank offered some suggestions, like 80/25 with a 10% more bonus for elderly, low and moderate dwelling units, and handicapped units. Vice Chairman Cottier asked if the concept was to define the portion that is allowed to be secondary and supporting uses, they are not only housing. She felt that this was a more complex issue than what could be resolved tonight and felt uncomfortable without committee input. She recalled discussion of ranges and how to guard against everything turning into single family residential. The point is that secondary supporting uses are o.k. and what is the limit on that, that the board wants to place, such that we reserve enough space to get basic industrial in. She did not think talking about density bonuses deals with that at all. Mr. Frank replied that residential was probably the land use which is most likely to want to develop in the corridor and consume large percentages of land. The other secondary uses he did not feel would consume vasts amounts of the corridor. It will be the residential that will be the biggest consumer of land. Mr. Frank felt that the residential portion had been somewhat mitigated to a certain extent by the criterion that says "if secondary uses are single family, then the equivalent amount of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 19, 1994 Page 31 multi -family has to be provided certain amount of single family. He thought that would reduce a Member Walker felt the discussion should be focused on interpreting what the board wants in terms of a percentage. Member Walker moved for a motion for reconsideration of the Harmony Corridor Plan. Member Carnes seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Member Walker moved to amend policy LU2 and change the language to read, "but shall occupy not more than 25% area in comparison to basic industrial/non-retail uses". Member Fontane seconded the motion. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if that was 25% of the total area of the activity center? Mr. Frank replied it was 25% of what ever project comes in. The criterion would be applied on a project by project basis. It is not a total of acres. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked 25% of what? Mr. Frank replied, the project. Member Carnes asked for an amendment that it state "that it shall occupy no more than 25% of the total area of the overall Development Plan or P.U.D. Plan, (as applicable) in comparison to the basic industrial/non-retail uses. Member Walker accepted the amendment. The motion was approved 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. THE PAUL PARTNERSHIP 11718 Barrington Court Suite 210 Brentwood, California 90049 (310) 281-8588 624 Pearl Street Suite 305 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303)595-5715 December 16, 1994 Mr. Ted Shepard Senior City Planner Community Planning and Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 No. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 RE: SUPERSTORE PROJECT, AND HARMONY ROAD CORRIDOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Dear Ted: I am writing to express my concern with numerous areas of the Superstore Project as discussed at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing of December 12,1994. Byway of introduction, I am an Architect involved in the Preliminary Design of some retail projects in the Harmony Corridor area. I have been actively involved in the design of Major Retail Complexes in many areas of the country, most of which contain large Retail Structures. I have included photographs of successful Retail Complexes in Walnut Creek, California, featuring Civic plaza amenities, and Crate and Barrel, and Nordstrom as tenants, Northridge Mall, Salinas, California, with Major large tenants; Toys R Us and Bed Bath Beyond in San Francisco; together with an additional project, Harden Ranch Plaza, (which we did not design) in Salinas, California, a town of 106,000 population. This excellent example of Big Box Stores contains Home Depot, Montgomery Ward, Target, and Safeway, along with many other retail tenants. All of these designs are the result of 1990's thinking by responsible developers and merchants who understand the future direction of successful retailing. These projects have been produced, by working closely with City Officials and Planning Staffs, with excellent results. Page 2 of 3 Re: Mr. Ted Shepard The discussions which took place at the December 12,1994 meeting, raise the following concerns: A) Design standards for the Big Box concept need to be applied as guidelines only. These approaches cannot be 'standardized" in a vacuum. Many good designs have been constructed at the specific direction of both Real Estate Developers and the Merchants themselves. The statement in the report that implies that this can only occur due to community pressure is categorically untrue. B) The 'sea of asphalt" parking lot concept can be easily solved with creative and abundant site landscape, together with appropriate site master plan concepts that break large areas into a smaller and more personal scale. The majority of customer parking needs to be placed directly in front of the store entrances, for public safety in a high visibilty configuration. C) Single entrances on the Big Box stores are a direct function of centralized cash register locations. These stores are completely different than Department Stores attached to a Mall. Mall Department Stores have multiple cash register locations, therefore dictating numerous points of entry. This is entirely inappropriate in a Big Box concept. D) Multi -use stores, with examples being Department Stores such as Nordstrom and Macy's, have often included restaurants, tea rooms, espresso bars, gourmet food departments, and cooking class areas, without additional separate exterior entrances or windows to these areas. E) Provision for pedestrian amenities, transit access, and bicycle paths can be easily integrated into a comprehensive and well -conceived P.U.D. Plan. F) The requirement for the application of cornice designs on all parapet walls is ill- conceived. While some buildings would look fine with this treatment, others will look quite inappropriate. Further, the inclusion of "clock towers" in most projects would create a cliche and the repetitive use of this concept in too many areas of Fort Collins would be a mistake. In both cases, these design approaches should be applied, if at all, as guidelines, rather than standards. G) The proposed facade window percentage requirement, to impact 60% of the street exposure surface from 3 feet to 8 feet above the ground, is ill-conceived. This approach does not take into account solar orientation, intrusive sun penetration, the specific product being merchandised, and the design image of the individual merchant. Each facade should be designed on a site -specific and design review basis, and be approved where appropriate. Page 3 of 3 Re: Ted Shepard H) The implication that any individual project shall be considered on a "precedent - setting basis, is highly inappropriate. Each project should be evaluated on its, specific application to a specific site problem, and its' approach to a rather precise set of environmental conditions. No two sites contain precisely the same conditions, therefore the appropriate solution in each case will be different. Thus, none should establish a precedent for other projects at other locations. I) A provision needs to be incorporated into the design guideline format to provide a basis for the approval of projects based upon their merits. Where a superior design approach is brought forward, and properly presented, it should be able to be approved. This is an extremely important concept to allow well -conceived and creative approaches to proceed to a successful completion. I would appreciate your review of these comments at your earliest possible convenience. I have every confidence that each can be carefully addressed in a successful Superstore Project that will adequately provide the design flexibility necessary to produce the results that the City of Fort Collins will be justly proud of. Yours very truly, 4 THE PAUL PARTNERSHIP Ira Paul, Principal IP:ks w/enclosures cc: file W 1 i � r+�1 y 1�'�• :� ' �? �� _ _ •�] =�. ; �� �8 ���� �� �;' 1 t 1'1 . "si w ��.. � ( '' `a i ti � ��, k ' ,� ' ' ��' N i .e + �y .; ,: y rJ 0 rI 0 l Arw Ir an r A �7 r 1 A tt OL l r� 4rL_ n r$` yr-4N A _ y.... IN � I � Ii ;x1 .-PennF - aq 555 NINTH STREET San Francisco, California � 7' No Text i r, �lr ol� i �4 K -9a