HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/12/1994PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING
DECEMBER 12, 1994
STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD
COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT
The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Chairman Rene
Clements.
Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottier, Walker.
Member Strom absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Frank, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Ludwig,
Byrne, Vosburg, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Deines.
Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the consent and
discussion agendas, which includes the following items:
1. Minutes of the October 24, November 140 and November 21,
1994 Planning and Zoning Board Meetings. (Continued)
2. Oakridge Retail Center PUD, (Oakridge Block 1, Filing 4) -
Final, #13-82BM.
3. Ridgewood Hills PUD, lot Filing - Final, #55-84D.
4. Wuerker Residential Addition - NCM Site Plan Review, #48-94,
(pulled for discussion by Member Walker).
5. Rocky Mountain Battery and Recycling P.U.D., Two -Year
Extension Request, #51-89A.
6. Dakota Ridge PUD, Third Filing - Final, #60-91L.
7. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval.
8. Johnson Annexation and Zoning, #55-94,A
9. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Advertising on City
Bus Shelters.
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
10. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amendments to the
Harmony Corridor Plan and Design Guidelines, #29-90.
11. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Design Guidelines
for Large Scale Retail Developments, #54-94.
12. Woodland Station PUD - Preliminary, #18-94B.
13. Willow Springs PUD, First Filing - Final, #3-94B.
Chief Planner Blanchard announced that Agenda Items 12 and 13
would be continued until the December 19, 1994 Hearing.
Member Walker Pulled the Wuerker Residential Addition for
discussion.
Chairman Clements pulled item #2, due to a conflict of interest.
Member Fontane moved for approval of Consent Items 3, 5, 61 7, 8,
and 9.
1
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 2
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Chairman Clements turned over the meeting to Vice Chairman
Cottier for a vote on Consent item #2.
Member Fontana moved for approval of Consent item #2.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Chairman Clements returned to the meeting.
#48-94 WUERKER RESIDENTIAL ADDITION - NCK SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Member Walker concern was the redevelopment of property within
the older neighborhoods. Member Walker wanted to address some
criteria in the LDGS, A-2.2 and the concern about the north
elevation of this project; and, A-2.7 the issue being size,
height, bulk and scale. Member Walker also had concerns with
A-2.12, and the setbacks being consistent with he surrounding
neighborhood.
Mike Ludwig, Project Planner responded that the property to the
south was a two-story building that was also 5 feet off the
property line. There was 10 feet of separation between the
Wuerker house and the house to the south. To the north, the
Wuerkers are proposing to reduce the setback from 19 feet from
the property line to 5 feet, however there is still 15 feet from
the property line to the neighbors house. There were not many
houses on the block that have more than 20 feet between them.
Planner Ludwig responded to Criteria A-2.2 and that staff felt
that the two-story was compatible with the other homes in the
area. They have met with an architect to come up with a design
that was compatible with the existing neighbors and the existing
architecture of the house. Staff felt that the proposed addition
would enhance the property.
Member Walker asked Planner Ludwig to point out on the slide the
outline of the proposed addition to the north, to get a feel for
the space it would occupy.
Planner Ludwig outlined the proposed addition and stated that the
proposed addition to the north would match the existing roof.
2
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 3
Member Walker stated he was happy to see that this sort of
improvement is going on to older neighborhoods. He was happy
with the design.
Chairman Clements asked for public input.
There was no response.
Member Fontane moved for approval of Duerker Residential
Addition.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, gave the staff
presentation. He stated that this item was presented to the
Planning and Zoning Board November 21st. At that time the plan
• was not finished and not ready for adoption. At that meeting it
was recommended that the Board not make a decision, rather that
the Board take public testimony and continue the item until
tonights meeting for a decision.
The delay gave the public a few more weeks to review the report,
and one more opportunity to speak directly to the Planning and
Zoning Board. Second, it gave the citizens advisory committee
the opportunity to meet for the ninth time. Also, for the
Planning and Zoning Board to meet for the fourth time on the
changes. The delay gave both groups the opportunity to review,
discuss and respond to the letters and public comments that they
have received over the last three weeks. The three week delay,
gave staff the time it needed to finalize the details of the
recommendations.
Tonight, the work of the Advisory Committee and City Staff is
done. It is up to the Planning and Zoning Board to make their
recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Frank reviewed some important points in the report. First,
that the plan is about capturing opportunities for the entire
community. Its about improving our chance that the vision for
the corridor is a major employment center becomes a reality. The
plan is about providing flexibility for property owners to
develop their properties in a reasonable manner. Its about
0. 3
Planning and zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 4
giving existing and future residents of the corridor more
predictability about what they can expect to be developed in
their neighborhood.
It is also about protecting opportunities for long-term economic
growth of our community. It's about preserving land for jobs.
Over 10,000 new basic jobs could potentially be created in the
corridor. The plan is also about preserving space for future
retail uses, satisfying both neighborhood, community, and
regional markets. Five new shopping centers are planned and
shown on the land use map, which represent the potential for
approximately 550,000 to 1.25 million square feet of new
retail/commercial space in the community. The plan is also about
providing space for a mix of housing types for future employees
in the corridor. The plan is about establishing a land use
pattern that supports walking, bicycling and transit use. The
plan is also about protecting existing and future residential
neighborhoods from incompatible development. The plan is about
building upon the high quality development established by the
Harmony Market Shopping Center, Hewlett Packard, Mountain Crest
Hospital, and the many residential neighborhoods and schools that
have been built in the neighborhood.
It is also about designing shopping centers and retail uses, so
they contribute in a significant way to the identity and the
character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The plan is about
opportunities for preserving and adapting historic remnants of
the old Harmony Corridor into future urban development.
Staff feels that the plan has been thoroughly discussed, the
appropriate compromises have been made and are ready for the
Board to make it's decision.
Member Walker asked about the superstore report in regard to size
limits on individual major tenants in the Harmony Corridor.
Mr. Frank responded that he believed the recommendation of the
Superstore Advisory Committee is that from an overall standpoint,
that they did not want to restrict development. That it could be
done through individual neighborhood plans. He thought that the
Harmony Corridor Advisory Committee felt that size was an issue,
it was critical to the character of the corridor.
Member Carnes asked that he had previously asked for an
accounting of the 1800 acres that have been identified as
potential major employment areas. Since that time he understood
that there was an acquisition underway of the gateway area, which
4
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 5
had been designated blue. Could he have an update on the status
of the 1800 acres.
Mr. Frank responded that the 1800 acres was an estimate of how
much was in the "employment" activity center (blue on the map)
area. Approximately half of that is already developed. It is
probably around 900 acres or so that are potentially developable.
Part of the 900 acres in the blue area, could be developed in a
mix of industrial, non -retail uses, as well as what is being
proposed. About 49% could potentially be developed in secondary
uses, being a mix of residential types and also some free-
standing retail. The parcel, Mr. Carnes is referring to is about
290 acres and City Council will be looking at it on the 20th for
purchase for open space.
Member Carnes asked how much of that would be coded blue.
Mr. Frank replied that when they factored in the 900 acres, they
did consider some of that undevelopable. You could probably take
about 100 acres out of the 900 as developable due to wetlands and
natural areas.
Member Carnes asked how we got to substantially less to 49% of
development being on base employment.
Mr. Frank replied that he was trying to propose language without
the need for a lot of interpretation or different interpretation.
The concern of the City Attorney's office was "substantially
less", and what does substantially meant. He thought that
substantially would mean at least 49%. They played with a lot of
words and felt uncomfortable with any of those terms and how
they would be implemented and interpretated. They decided to
drop off the substantially and just make it "less" area which
would be interpretated at least 51%, potentially could develop as
industrial and 49% could potentially develop as a mix of
residential and other secondary uses.
Member Carnes asked for verification of what the nominal size of
a good base employment site, at about 100 acres, how many of
those sites would there be in the corridor.
Mr. Frank responded that a minimum of 100 acres is desired by
large employers. Poudre Valley Hospital site is about 80 or 90
acres. NCR is about 150 acres. The Moore property is about a
quarter section in size. It is difficult to say around the
lakes, there is about 100 acres in there, but the lakes break up
the property into smaller parcels.
u
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 6
CITIZEN INPUT
Tim Dolan, 4212 New Hampton Court, Golden Meadows, commented that
there was a lot negotiation and a lot of compromising on this
plan. They started out at some very far corners and he thought
everyone on this advisory committee should be commended for
coming closer to the 50-yard line.
Al Koppel, Member of the Harmony Corridor Update Committee,
addressing the Board as an individual rather than a spokesman for
the committee.
The 1991 Corridor Plan was a well developed plan that really
needed only some clarification and more predictability in some
areas. The basic direction and philosophy of that plan is still
valid namely, to make Harmony Road the most attractive entryway
into Fort Collins and a major employment center. The all
encompassing vision of the original Harmony Corridor Plan is
still in place.
The committee consisted of dedicated citizens, land owners,
realtors, residents of the area and developers. There were
numerous meetings & worksessions. They studied tons of materials
and developed, what he felt, was a good and viable update.
Needles to say, this diverse group of people, with their varied
interests and viewpoints, did not always agree on everything.
However, we generally worked out a "give and take" and reached
some sort of compromise.
One of the most important points to evolve was the segregation of
the community size shopping center from the combined
Community/Regional shopping center category. In doing this, we
came up with four (4) distinct categories, in size as well as
type, which makes eminent sense for the Harmony Corridor. It
would also make eminent sense for the rest of the City and should
be addressed quickly.
Mr. Koppel talked about types of centers, size, square footage
and what kind of tenant should occupy each center. He talked
about superstores, size of existing grocery stores in Fort
Collins. The average size of grocery store in Fort Collins is
45,085 s.f. Many on the committee wanted the Neighborhood
Service Centers to contain that size grocery store but, in
deference to a landowner, compromised by adding 4,000 s.f. more
to make the principal tenant, a grocery store 49,000 s.f. At
49,000 s.f. such a store would be the biggest of all grocery
ri
• 0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 7
stores in Fort Collins at this time. This was one of the
compromises made.
Another compromise made was raising the largest store size
allowed in a Community shopping center. From 60,000 s.f. desired
by many of the committee to a much larger 80,000 s.f. A
superstore grocery could very well locate in such a Community
shopping center. The rationale for segregating the Community
size shopping center from the Community/Regional shopping Center
in the Harmony Corridor update plan should be part of an overall
plan for the entire City.
Although, not a member of the "big box" committee, he did attend
a number of their meetings and worksessions. He addressed the
uncoupling of the Community size shopping center from the
Community/Regional shopping center category as they did in their
Harmony Corridor update. This then could develop into locational
policies for allowing the giant superstore retailers, as Super K-
Mart's to locate in such Regional size shopping centers.
Clearly, those type of stores are definitely "Regional" in scope,
in terms of demographics.
. He felt that this was a rewarding experience to work with such a
dedicated group and City Staff. He urged the Board to give
approval of the updated Harmony Corridor Plan and recommended to
City Council for such an approval.
Jennifer Carpenter, Member of the Harmony Corridor Committee,
Chairman of the Landmark Preservation Committee, was here
tonight to speak for the recommendation of the Heritage Area in
the report. It is in with keeping with the goals of the Landmark
Preservation Commission. It is an important piece of our
heritage, the community of Harmony, our agricultural heritage,
and that they appreciated the recognition of value of the pieces
of property.
As far as the plan, as a whole goes, she thought the citizens
committee and staff worked very hard. There were some very good
things in the report. However, this is a political compromise,
she thought that should be recognized. She did not think that
produced the best planning environment, but it is a reality.
Maybe if nobody is happy with everything in the plan, maybe they
succeeded. She is pleased that they were able to preserve large
tracts of land for basic employers and employment. She has
reservations about the size of both the anchor stores that are
allowed in the Community shopping centers, and the amount of
retail that they have allowed.
0 7
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 8
Tom Moore,, representing his family. They own a quarter section
on Harmony Road. At the last meeting he spoke, expressing his
concerns about the new partial revisions to the Harmony Corridor
Plan. They are given to understand that the changes are pretty
much mandated to City Council before the plan was started.
His family's property is being down zoned so much as to become
unmarketable in a reasonable amount of time to a reasonably sized
market. According to page 2 of the Corridor Plan,
Community/Regional shopping centers should be located at major
intersections, including County Road 9, where they are located.
why then is their whole property relegated to the much more
inactive basic industrial and non -retail category? Doesn't it
seem a bit odd that to relocate his family owned lumber company
they would have to go across the street and buy land rather than
use a site that has been in their family for over 40 years? They
are being placed into a land bank, which gives them very limited
options. One member of this board stated that the type of
company suited to the corridor would need 150 acres. He would
like to point out that only one company (HP), in the history of
Fort Collins, has ever developed that size site. He gets the
distinct feeling that they would like us to preserve our property
until a politically correct company comes along at a politically
correct time. This would be comparable to him telling them that
their house could only be sold to a family with two and a half
kids and they would have to have AB negative blood type. It
simply did not leave very many options for the property.
They came into the Urban Growth Area and the City limits knowing
what they could do with their land and what was expected of them
as City land owners. They participated extensively with the
Harmony Corridor Plan and they consider that to be a contract
that they are now breaking. It is neither fair nor right to
change the rules during the game's first quarter. They believe
that there should be more options as was the original intent of
the plan.
He pointed out that the whole process has been changed. There is
nothing wrong with the present Harmony Corridor Plan. The
Planning and Zoning Board has more than enough tools to stop
incompatible or shoddy projects. The implementations of a
moratorium and formation of a committee is nothing more than a
short sighted political move. The City of Fort Collins has been
proud of its' "Land Development Guidance System." This plan,
however, moves totally away from a performance based development
system. This plan is a giant leap backward to the good old days
8
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 9
of when those who yelled the loudest or had the most political
clout got the most, to the distress of the rest of the community.
He urged the Planning and Zoning Board to send this plan back to
the drawing board for a more comprehensive review or better
still, stick to the current 1991 Harmony Corridor Plan that has
worked so well in the past couple of years. The last few months
have demonstrated nothing more than a slipshod process, which
focused exclusively on one issue (limited commercial) and ignored
the influences of all the others, like residential and absorption
of industrial land. Worse than that it appears to us that the
City Council pre -ordained the Harmony Corridor revisions before
the public process began. They find this action to be quite
disturbing. They do not believe that the changes they are making
to be comprehensive in nature, as was the original Harmony
Corridor Plan. To be reactive to a small group who are concerned
about a grocery store in Golden Meadows, is in their opinion,
wrong.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Chairman Clements asked about whether the advisory committee had
looked at recommending some percentages of retail designation in
the corridor.
Mr. Frank responded that the challenge for the committee, was to
look at the location, size, scale, and amount of future
retail/commercial land uses in the corridor. One of the big
issues wrestled with over the last four months, is how much
retail should be permitted. He did not think a percentage was
ever talked about. There were different opinions as to how much
retail, there were different options and land use scenarios
offered.
Member Clements asked about the down zoning of the Moore
property, and the committees rationale.
Mr. Frank replied that the blue areas, the basic industrial and
non -retail employment areas, permit a broad variety of land uses.
The basic intent of the blue area is providing areas for basic
jobs. The kind of land uses that can occur under the definition
"non -retail and basic", are research facilities, testing
laboratories, other facilities for research and development,
industrial uses, hospitals, clinics, nursing and personal care
facilities, headquarters of services producing schools,
professional offices, banks, insurance, real-estate, and other
0 9
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 10
uses of similar character. It also allows secondary uses,
hotels, motels, sit-down restaurants, neighborhood convenience
shopping centers, child care centers, and athletic clubs as part
of those office parks. It also allows single and multi -family
housing. There are a lot of uses allowed in the activity center
and the committee felt that the description met the intent of
trying to create an employment center in the Harmony Corridor.
The committee wrestled with other potential land uses, including
the lumber yard Mr. Moore mentioned. They could not see any
reason or justification to include that retail use. That would
also open the opportunity, if you call it a retail lumber yard,
to Builders Square, Hugh M. Woods types of development. There
was no justification, especially in the context of what they were
trying to achieve in the blue areas, for a free-standing retail
use for a lumber yard. It was a very difficult question, they
spent a lot of time on it, they tried to see a way to do it, but
they could not find a reason to justify that one retail use and
not other retail uses and still achieve their overall goal,
trying to create an employment center.
Member Bell asked the rationale about placing the
Community/Regional shopping designation at the corner of Harmony
and College when it seems there might be a better location for
that. She was thinking about traffic concerns, about bringing
that amount of traffic into what already is a heavy travelled
area.
Mr. Frank replied, that College Avenue is already a location for
a Community/Regional shopping centers. It makes sense to put
those kinds of land uses near one another, because of shoppers
characteristics. Harmony Road is a State Highway, it does have
capacity. College Avenue is a State Highway, with less capacity.
The reason for locating it closer into urban development, is to
reduce the vehicle miles traveled.
Member Bell stated that when she thinks of Regional, she is
thinking about people from Cheyenne and other places outside of
this community.
Mr. Frank referred the question to Mr. Vosburg of the
Transportation Department.
Mr. Vosburg responded yes, Community/Regional shopping centers,
like Harmony Market do draw from an area larger than Fort
Collins. The majority of the people who shop at these centers
HU
i
•
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page it
and still from within Fort Collins. The relative share that
comes from outside the urban area is significantly smaller. If
we were to shift the concentration of retail out to the
interstate in order to shorten their trips, we would be
increasing many other peoples trips by the same couple of miles.
Member Bell asked about the percentage of people that come from
out of town.
Mr. Vosburg responded that they did a survey of the Harmony
Market parking lot, unfortunately, the State is not very quick in
turning around the data. He was one of the people who walked
through the parking lot and wrote down peoples license plate
numbers. He counted about 5 or 6 Wyoming plates in front of
Builders Square on a 1:00 on a Saturday afternoon, and there were
a couple of hundred cars in the lot.
Regarding traffic congestion. College Avenue is congested, he
thought that part of any actual proposal to put a
Community/Regional Shopping Center at the corner of College and
Harmony would involve the completion of JFK Parkway as well as
. the completion of other streets in that area. In order for that
kind of development to work, there would have to be improvements
to the street system and an impact analysis done and tested
against their level of service standards to see if it was
appropriate.
•
Member Bell asked for an example of the concept of "generally
equivalent" as it related to single and multi -family homes.
Mr. Frank replied that equivalent would be 50/50, generally
equivalent gives them room to maneuver within the 50/50.
Member Carnes asked about air quality impacts and how that
determined where they placed the retail.
Mr. Frank responded that the second meeting of the Advisory
Committee, they brought in a representative of the Congestion
Management Plan to talk about the activity center concept. That
was based upon reducing VMT's and meeting air quality standards.
Trying to achieve that was part of recommending this land use
pattern.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Frank to respond to the issue of trying
to get away from performanced based development and being more
restrictive in what is allowed. Also, how and when will P.U.D.'s
be able to be used with this revision to the Harmony Plan.
11
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 12
Mr. Frank replied that what they are proposing is a move to more
prescription. He thought it was a long way from traditional
zoning. If we are to be serious about these special areas of the
community and we want to achieve certain goals, we are going to
have to be more prescriptive. With the Harmony Corridor if we
want to achieve the objectives of creating an employment center,
we are going to need more prescriptive regulations in the
ordinance to achieve that. He thought there was still a
considerable amount of flexibility.
Regarding using the Planned Unit Development, they would still
have the flexibility to use a P.U.D., although they will not have
the flexibility in the blue areas to do a Shopping Centers, for
example, they will have to go according the land uses listed in
the plan and submit through the Planned Unit Development
procedure.
Member Cottier asked about the land use map being a mandatory
standard. If someone was to come in with a P.U.D., could they
not request a variance to that land use map.
Mr. Frank replied, there is some flexibility in the list of land
uses, that in most cases other uses would be allowed but would
have to be "similar character". It does give the flexibility of
the Board to expand the list as long as they are of similar
character. The other way would be to allow a broader range of
users under the variance procedure, but depending on the extent
that it would vary, a plan amendment might have to be done.
The committee was very committed, on having in the plan, that
this plan be looked at again, no later that 5 years. The purpose
would be to back and look at the amount of land devoted toward
industrial and other uses and evaluate if we are moving toward
meeting our goals.
Member Walker asked if any of the work of the superstore project
was incorporated into the Harmony Corridor.
Mr. Frank responded that the linkage would be in the application
of the design guidelines for superstores. They will also apply
to superstores in the Harmony Corridor. That was the major link.
Member Cottier stated that after looking at the two documents
side -by -side, she was concerned about leaving Regional centers in
the Harmony Corridor up to the design guidelines developed
through the superstore project because they are very much focused
on simply the "big box" and do not talk about integrating the
0 VA
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 13
center the way the Harmony design guidelines do. She thought
that was a significant strength of the Harmony Corridor Plan is
the work and the definition that went into talking about how a
Neighborhood Shopping Center fits in the neighborhood, how a
Community Center fits. There is nothing comparable for the
Regional scale shopping center. She thought that was a hole in
the superstore guidelines, that were supposed to also cover
Regional Centers.
Mr. Frank responded that in discussions on the Harmony Corridor,
that integration of a Regional Shopping Center with a
neighborhood was not a priority. It was more of a factor of
buffering a Regional Center from its' neighborhood than it is
integrating it. On Neighborhood Service Centers, the philosophy
was "to integrate them". For Community Shopping Centers,
integration was important, but buffering becomes more important.
Member Cottier, agreed, she was using integration in the wrong
sense. How the Regional Center fits and what is needed in terms
of mitigation. The other design guidelines do not address that
really. The design guidelines for the Harmony Corridor are very
strong with regards to site relationships, neighborhoods, and
mitigation of negative impacts. There is not a comparable focus
to the other design guidelines. She did not see any reason why
the same type of design issues that we are talking about applying
to Community Centers, should not apply to Regional Centers in the
Harmony Corridor. The Harmony Corridor Plan is a much better
job.
Member Carnes if there was any discussion or recommendations
regarding placing "food stores" in Regional Shopping Centers.
Was there any discussion or recommendations regarding putting
"food stores" in Community Shopping Centers.
Mr. Frank replied they are allowed in all four shopping centers.
In the Neighborhood Shopping Center they can be as large as
49,000 s.f., in Community Center they can be as large as 80,000
s.f., and also with the interim proposal, 80,000 s.f. in a
Regional Shopping Center.
Member Carnes asked Mr. Vosburg to comment on the amount of
traffic generated by "food stores" compared to other types of
stores.
Mr. Vosburg responded that grocery stores are more traffic
intensive that other types of retail development. The trip
generation rate for grocery stores, roughly double or triple as
much as something like discount retail. Supermarkets generate
0 13
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 14
about 10 trips per 1,000 s.f. and discount stores generate about
3 1/2 trips per 1,000 s.f. of gross leasable area.
Member Carnes asked for comments about placement of a "food
store" in a Regional Shopping Center.
Mr. Vosburg responded, generally it would be better to have a
grocery store closer to the neighborhoods it serves, so that the
trip generation would be short. There is also a higher
probability the trip could be made by alternative modes of
transportation. Regarding the wisdom of locating a grocery store
in a Regional Shopping Center, depending on where the center is,
some Regional Centers are close to neighborhoods and also play a
neighborhood role.
Member Walker stated that we have a policy that tends to favor
the Neighborhood Service Center for a food store location. His
experience with them is they work very well if they are disbursed
throughout the community because it cuts down on trip generation.
The vision he has on this, was how would we feel if there was a
grocery store in the Foothills Fashion Mall, would that work? He
questions the wisdom of that approach to handling food stores.
Member Fontane disagreed, she would see it as an opportunity to
combine trips. The idea was that if she was shopping at the mall
for other reasons, she could pick up some bananas there instead
of getting in her car and driving to Albertson's and make that
additional trip. She also commented that in looking at the land
use map, the most trip generators are closer to the core. That
about 20% or less are work related.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Frank to comment on the grocery store
issue from a planning perspective and what did he think would
happen to our whole concept of Neighborhood Shopping Centers if
we can't get grocery stores to go into them because they are out
marketed by the super grocery stores.
Mr. Frank replied that he thought that both Planning Board
Members made good points. It was something that deserves more
attention. We do have policies in the existing plan which
encourage the location of Neighborhood Service Centers and those
are grocery store anchored. That was a very important policy for
the City to keep vehicle miles traveled shortened and also
combine trips in a shopping center. We have discouraged those
along College Avenue, and points are taken away for that. That
policy has been translated into the Guidance System and has done
14
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
. December 12, 1994
Page 15
a good job of keeping grocery stores off of College and getting
them into a neighborhood center.
A new type of grocery store has come to Fort Collins, the super
food stores. He thought that they present some different issues
where grocery stores are competing on a 3 or 4 mile area radius
versus smaller stores at 1 1/2 mile radius. It presents some
land use issues that need to be discussed. There is a concern
about the impact of having a community or regional size grocery
store. It needs to be discussed as part of the Comprehensive
Plan update along with shopping centers in general. Defining
Community and Regional and separating the definitions is
something that needs to be looked at from a community standpoint.
Member Carnes referred to page 46 of the Land Use Policies Plan,
taking about Neighborhood Service Centers. If we are going to be
allowing super "food stores" in Regional/Community Shopping
Centers, are we undermining the policy that is already in place?
Chairman Clements followed up on that, stating that if this was
how our policies are stated by the Land Use Policies Plan and by
the Goals and Objectives of the City, that we as a Board
recognize that this is an important component in establishing
neighborhoods in the City of Fort Collins. The Board still has
tools available, even thought the Comp Plan will be looking at
those issues like grocery stores, to emphasize the importance.
It's not like the Board is without tools and guidance at this
point to address those concerns.
Member Bell asked about a letter in their packet dated, December
6, 1994, from Robert J. Penny. Addressing some things regarding
language. Changing things from "shall" to "may". Could Mr.
Frank address this issue, and have we gotten away from that and
left it a little more open.
Mr. Frank replied they have.
Member Bell wanted to address "substantially less" formula that
has been suggested where it says, "that conceivably 49% of the
activity center could be in secondary uses and the remaining 51%
could be basic industrial". The whole point has been to try to
get a "substantial" amount.of the area for "employment" uses.
She was wondering if the 51/49% waters that down too much. Was
this the suggestion, or is that the way the wording would be.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 16
Mr. Frank replied the committee talked about the issue several
times, and did not have the information to be able to make an
informed decision. They talked ratios of 80/20, 70/30, 50/50.
They talked about requiring that a certain distance back from the
road be maintained for basic, and the back part being for
secondary uses.
Member Bell stated that it seemed like going from the original
that said "substantially less" to barely any, is a big
difference. She thought that the visions for this corridor was
to make sure that we do have enough basic employment. She wanted
some more "meat" on how they came up with 51/49. It seemed a
little contrary to her to what the basic vision and premise of
the whole plan is.
Mr. Frank replied they started with "substantially less" area,
coming from the view point that the primary function of the area
is jobs. The secondary uses should be allowed but they are
accessory to, or supplemental to the basic intent, which is jobs.
The committee was very comfortable with "substantially less", and
leaving it up to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Board
as projects come in to make the decision of whats "substantially
less". The Attorney's office would prefer that there be some
sort of measure that is clear so that a property owner know up
front what was to be expected. The committee could not agree on
a percentage. Taking out "substantially " part of it was not
discussed by the committee. This has come up since.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that he and Mr. Frank had
several conversations regarding "substantially less". The more
they struggled with it, it occurred to him and City Attorney
Steve Roy that they were dealing with words that would give them
an argument later. Get them into a situation that they were
being "arbitrary" no matter how we interpreted the word
"substantially". Their suggestion is that if "just less" that
could be as little as 49% is not acceptable, that we try to come
up with something that is more objective, such as a percentage
would be.
Member Bell asked if the 51/49 had been run past the committee?
Mr. Frank replied the last time the committee had seen it, it was
"substantially less".
Member Bell asked if this was a staff suggestion for cleaning up
the language.
0V
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 17
Mr. Frank replied yes and that the other accompanying change was
in regard to the mix of residential. That required the "general
equivalent" of multi -family and single family.
Member Carnes asked if the overall Development Plan addressed
this issue, or is there any requirement that any and all Overall
Development Plans address how that would relate to base
employment development.
Mr. Frank replied that the measure for an overall Development
Plan is it's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In
reviewing the land uses, we would go back to the Comprehensive
Plan of which the Harmony Corridor Plan would become an element
of the Comprehensive Plan. This criteria would be used in
approving a distribution of land uses. The amendment was
intended to try to clarify what is meant by "substantially less".
Member Carnes stated that the problem he had with the whole
scheme was that "substantially less" or "less than half" or 49%
of what? He saw pieces of land being peeled off and developed
for this or that. What are we taking a percentage of?
I& Mr. Frank replied that it could be applied against a Master Plan.
The criteria will also be applied against preliminary Planned
Unit Development Plans.
Mr. Carnes stated that he would be more comfortable with
"substantially less".
Chairman Clements asked how prescriptive do we want to get? Part
of the whole premise of performance zoning is that there is some
flexibility.
Member Walker commended the groups that worked on this. These
types of plans, as with all neighborhood plans, we continue to
refine our vision of what we want in an area. He suggested that
what we have seen in the Harmony Corridor Plan, between the
initial document and this, is the process of getting an initial
vision and then making a correction when the community feels
there needs to have something looked at. Just as we have added
the component here, that this can be looked at again within 5
years to determine if we are still on track. It seemed that the
whole reason in getting into this discussion was the vision that
was originally incorporated into the Harmony Corridor Plan was
something that mixed retail and industrial uses. There has
always been a vision of that sort of mix and a vision that
17
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 18
industrial uses will play a significant role. It seemed that one
of the reasons in reviewing this was the context of market driven
issues. The market driven issues here were that we were seeing a
new surge of interest of various kinds and types of new retail
activities such as superstores. He is in complete agreement with
the process and what is contained in this document.
Member Walker moved for recommendation of the work and the report
before them to City Council for adoption as the Harmony Corridor
Plan. He suggested that in the basic industrial/non-retail
employment activity centers, we keep the word O'substantiallyll in
the definition. He thought that even though it is fussy, maybe
down the road, there will be a number that will be more
appropriate. He thought the intent of the committee was
$'substantially less'l and to him that conveys a different meaning
than "less$'.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
Member Bell followed up on what Member Walker said. She saw this
as a refinement of the original vision that was stated in the
Harmony Corridor Plan. She liked the idea, that in this
community, we can set up and take notice when we do have unique
areas such as the foothills, or the corridor or downtown, and
that we pay attention to those things and make the adjustments
needed to make our community the best it can be. She was in
favor of this plan and was very impressed with the way the
committee came together.
Member Carnes also congratulated the task force. It was a major
contribution to the dialogue process that would be starting soon.
His perspective on this was that this is the gateway to Fort
Collins, and something we would like to be proud of, and we are
acquiring some unique property by the gateway that will make it
very attractive. He thought we need a major employment center
and this would be a long, long-term resource for the community.
We do need base employment. He thought this would help with
meeting our air quality goals and perhaps reducing congestion as
well. He was very much in favor with what the task force had
come up with, and it was a good second step from his point of
view.
Member Cottier commented that the there was not consensus on the
committee. Unfortunately, she thought that most of the more
unhappy people did not come to address them tonight. She thought
that in general they represented the people who are in favor of
18
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 19
more retail opportunities. She assumed by them not coming
tonight, they would save their speeches for City Council. It's
by no means a consensus document that has been developed at this
point, but she thought the neighborhood side can accept the
compromises they have made. She was not sure that could be said
of the developer/landowner side. That would be something that
Council will have to wrestle with.
She was still concerned with how they were leaving the Regional
Shopping Centers given the superstore project. She was not
comfortable with just leaving that to the design guidelines that
were developed with the superstore project. Aside from that, she
completely endorsed the Harmony Plan. She did think it was
important to remember the vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan was
to do something to ensure that we did not end up with another
South College. From that perspective, we have to accept and
acknowledge there were to be limitations on retail/commercial
along the Harmony Corridor. That is why we are re-emphasizing,
or making stronger statements about the employment aspect of the
corridor. She completely supports the plan at this point, it did
add more predictability and more definition to the Harmony Plan
• that would serve us all as they review development proposals in
this area.
Member Fontane commented that the update to the Harmony Corridor
Plan paid tremendous respect to the pedestrian and alternative
modes, which is an important part. The flexibility in secondary
uses mitigates the possibility of people, landowners feeling that
they have a taking issue. She was pleased with the concentration
that was paid to transportation and air quality and the reduction
in VMT's. She believed that the citizens and the development
community have, with this plan,.a better idea of knowing what
kind of.land uses are going to be located within certain areas.
She thought that a developer or a citizen could look at the plan
and know and plan ahead. She completely supported this.
Member Walker suggested that "grocery store" was something that
needed more thought. He heard a lot of different opinions and
feelings that they were not sure how it works. That would be
something for future study.
Chairman Clements echoed what her fellow Board Members have said.
She thanked Joe Frank and his efforts, guidance and work with the
committee.
0 19
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 20
Member Cottier thought that the incredible design guidelines that
have been developed are what would make Harmony Corridor
different in terms of how retail, commercial shopping centers fit
better within their neighborhood context.
The motion was approved 6-0.
#S4-94 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR LARGE SCALE RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS.
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, member of the Task Force, filling in
for Claudia Haack -Benedict, staff liaison for the Superstore Task
Force.
Planner Shepard gave the staff report. Went over the problem to
be mitigated, being that superstores are very big, bulky,
buildings having a lot of mass, out of scale and out of character
with our community; and, integrating these buildings into our
community to fit with what the community wants in Fort Collins.
In visiting other communities, they are very large, they do have
a lot of mass and bulk. They do not integrate well into the
existing fabric of the community, they do not offer a lot of
design or detail. The impact of what this can do to an arterial
shopping district or a commercial portion of the City. These are
things that the Task Force had to look at.
The Task Force looked at .a lot of ways to mitigate. In terms of
design, they looked at components of the facade, detail features,
roofs, entry ways, and the rear of the buildings.
In terms of the facade, it was determined that projections and
recesses along the front side that abuts the primary street,
should be a more interesting facade. One of the mandatory
guidelines would be that the projections and recesses shall
comprise at least 20% of the facade length with a minimum depth
of 3% of the facade length. Total length of the facade, that is
erected by recesses and projections exceeds 100 feet.
Another area looked at was what to do with the parapet wall.
There are guidelines as to how to deal with the parapet wall, so
the parapet itself becomes a design feature. It has a corneous,
it is in proportion to the building and does not dominate the
building.
Planner Shepard went through slide examples of what was being
proposed, stating, these were things that would animate the
20
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 21
building to present a more interesting, more detailed structure
in ways that do not directly address square footage or floor area
ratio. The attempt was to look at ways to mitigate and design
and not to over regulate in terms of limiting square footage, per
sea.
The recommendation was for more entrances, better screening, and
that loading and storage areas be recessed and screened. The
guidelines and mandatory standards address very well, sidewalks
and connections from arterial streets to the store entries.
There is even a limitation on the loading and delivery times;
and, to establish maximum noise levels, which is loosely
interpreted in the LDGS at this time. Design guidelines are
trying to encourage points of community interest that would be
focal points such as clock towers, fountains, water features,
plazas, squares, pedestrian friendly areas, and reduction of the
upfront parking. There are some guidelines that address the
ratio of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet,of floor area. As
a supplementary tool to the LDGS, this is just another way of
going a little further to mitigate this new retail phenomenum.
Planner Shepard showed slides of parking that has a negative
impact on the community. The retail stores are getting larger
and the parking spaces larger, so what they are trying to do is
address these issues. The requirement is that no more than 50%
of the parking be located between the principal building and the
primary abutting street.
Community integration, the Task Force would like these things to
tie into the neighborhood to the point where it will not impact
the neighborhood. The transportation scheme means having an
access to a collector street system. The collector street system
needs to tie back together with two arterial streets. This is
done so not any one arterial, arterial intersection is loaded up;
or, so any one arterial collector intersection is loaded up, so
as to not go beyond level service D.
Planner Shepard showed illustrations of how some traditional,
large retail could possibly be broken up. To break them up, you
get more landscaping, more variety, more of the pedestrian
fabric, the human scale, which is what the Task Force thinks is
better for the community.
The sidewalk connections are critical. The Task Force has taken
a look at enhancing sidewalk, bicycle, and pedestrian
connections. The sidewalks would not be interrupted with
21
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 22
continuous curb cuts, they would have landscaping and promote
pedestrian safety. This would also help with connecting future
pad sites back to the anchor.
Planner Shepard went on to other recommendations, stating there
was a lot of little design things that could be done over time.
The Task Force chose not to put those into the standard or
guideline format at this time but, could be used in the future.
It could be supplemented as time goes on, as we learn more about
superstores.
Again, this is something to supplement the LDGS, the LDGS does
not go away. The All Development Criteria would still apply, the
locational attributes of the Community Regional Shopping Center
would still apply; and, what the Task Force is proposing is that
the Standards and Guidelines supplement what we already have in
place.
The Community/Regional Shopping Center point chart has been
modified, it closes the gap between the Auto Related and Roadside
Commercial point Chart and the Business Service Point Chart.
Those two point charts are capped at 25,000, if you are over, you
go into a Community/Regional Shopping Center. The Task Force
wants these to be at arterial/arterial intersections, to promote
access community wide; and, to distribute traffic to a collector
street system, not just a collector street.
The Task Force has looked at some locations. They think the LDGS
and Community/Regional point chart still does a very good job of
directing the location. The Task Force did not want to get into
too much of a micro -management locational situation. There are a
number of sites in Fort Collins that are potential locations for
Community/Regional Shopping Centers.
The Task Force thinks the community has an inventory of sites.
They did not want to limit, or factor that inventory, but wanted
to mitigate what happens on the sites that have been selected.
Planner Shepard showed a graphic that was a model of the
committee. The feeling of the Task Force was that they wanted
the Superstores to be welcome in Fort Collins, but also want them
to contribute to the community, being a more attractive place to
be.
Chairman Clements asked about the philosophy of Superstores, and
do they pay the base wages that we are looking for, or do they
22
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 23
create affordable housing problems. It was her understanding
that the committee and this board are not charged with looking at
that. What was the criteria that the Task Force used to guide
and come up with the document the board has before them tonight?
Planner Shepard replied that the number one philosophy was that
the LDGS was still a very good tool. It still has a lot of good
All Development Criteria that we can use. He thought the other
guiding document was that there was good potential big box
retail, and there is bad potential big box retail. The Task
Force did not want to steer or target these guidelines and
standards that would differentiate those. To treat all large
retailers equally.
Chairman Clements asked how the committee felt about affordable
housing, and the minimum wage retail type of jobs. How would
this be addressed in the future?
Planner Shepard replied that the Task Force felt that we are a
mid -sized city and not really subject to that kind of impact.
There was also a lot of discussion in establishing linkage, and
• how do you rationally connect a legislative action to a
phenomenum of affordable housing, when you already have retailers
out there who pay a certain wage. There are already retailers
out there at 100,000 square feet. How do you say that the next
one in has caused all the problems for the community. The Task
Force was very concerned with overstepping their legal authority
in that area. If a linkage is to be established, the Task Force
thinks that it would be a very involved study, it would take a
lot of time and money.
Member Fontane asked about the map showing the sites and the
sites that were discussed with the committee. Why were the ones
discussed more peripheral versus the ones more interior?
Planner Shepard replied that the Task Force looked at the Urban
Growth Area. They did not just look at the City, on the theory
that the Urban Growth Area is the growth outline at some point.
The Urban Growth Area, for their purpose, was fixed. That
included a lot of the I-25 interchanges. The Task Force did not
want to exclude those locationally, with strict locational
criteria, because they did not want to rewrite the
Community/Regional Shopping Center point chart. They did not
exclude any particular region or area.
0 23
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 24
Member Fontane asked if there was a preference. There seemed to
be a preference to the more peripheral sites.
Planner Shepard replied the map did not indicate preference.
This is just a map that says, here is where, in the hatched areas
that have sites that meet criteria on the Community/Regional
point chart. The circled areas are sites that have potential
sites, maybe not now, but in the future.
Member Walker asked to discuss community spaces. He thought that
it was an important concept, but what was proposed was not strong
enough. Was there a way that the City could enter into a
partnership to encourage that sort of space? He thought that was
something that was lacking on the south side of town, as in Old
Town Square.
Planner Shepard responded that Old Town Square is special. The
Task Force talked about that. They did not want to try to create
something that could possibly compete with that. The intention
was to not replicate that for that very purpose. The criteria
reads, "where shopping center contains community features such as
outdoor playground areas, picnic seating areas, water features,
kiosk areas, clocktowers, or plazas; such areas shall have direct
access to pedestrian walkways". That was the standard. The
guideline is broader than that. If you read the guideline and
the standard you could see that it was not to replicate downtown
for competitive purposes, yet create the human scale and a
certain element of pedestrian friendliness.
Member Walker stated that the standard says "where", as in not to
be required. He was just talking about more public spaces that
he thought we needed in the community. He would like the
standard to go further.
Member Carnes asked to go back to the original charge of the Task
Force, Ordinance 111, temporary suspension of processing
applications of retail superstores. Page 2, Section 1, Paragraph
H. "The City should develop appropriate criteria for regulating
the size, architectural design, and functional aspects of such
superstores to ensure that they are not disruptive to the
surrounding development." He saw the Design Standards and
Guidelines addressing the architectural design and functional
aspects and how they can better be integrated, yet not being
disruptive to surrounding developments. Nowhere has he seen
addressed the regulating of the size of anyone superstore or in
relation to the surrounding development. What did the committee
24
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 25
come up with pertaining to how to regulate the size to not.be
disruptive to the surrounding development?
Planner Shepard replied that the Task Force did not get down to
that level of specificity. They were looking at a community wide
situation. Guidelines and Standards community wide. The Task
force did not want to focus in, like Harmony Corridor did, on a
site by site basis, because in the Harmony Corridor the sites
were known. City wide we are relying on the LDGS, the locational
criteria, and the market to determine where the optimum location
will be. The Task Force's charge was to make sure that the
development on that site met locational criteria and that it
perform and mitigate, and not have any negative impacts. The
Task Force was not able to look at individual neighborhoods or
locations.
Member Carnes asked for clarification. Council charged the Task
Force to develop appropriate criteria for regulating the size,
design, and functional aspects, to ensure that they are not
disruptive to the surrounding development. Being a liaison to
the Task Force for the last two sessions, he did not see them
getting to that. They made no recommendations either way. They
.
did not get that far.
Planner Shepard replied that was correct.
Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department added that he wanted to
respond to Member Carnes' question. There was a lot of
discussion with the Task Force regarding the issue of size and
also about mitigation of negative impacts. Traffic being one of
the negative impacts that need be mitigated. The main point
regarding traffic impacts was that it is site specific and that
the mix of uses for a specific project need to be measured within
the context of the specific site in order to be able to say there
is a problem there. You cannot draw a broad guideline other than
a performance guideline related to traffic impacts. That
reasoning extends to size in general. The Task Force did not
feel that there was anything specific about size alone that
warranted a size limit. If size was a problem because it
generated traffic, then the Traffic Impact Analysis would catch
it. Or, if size was a problem, because it overwhelmed a specific
site, then the tools of the LDGS which look at site specific
compatibility would catch it. That was the feeling of the Task
Force regarding that issue.
0 25
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 26
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Tom McKenna, Task Force Member. Speaking as a member of the
committee, he strongly supported the Design Guidelines. He
believed that was the least they could do. All the committee was
asking was that they "tart" it up a bit. The committee was not
overly restrictive in how they do that. They were not tying
anyones hands as far as artistic design. He thought that it
should be an enforceable regulation.
Speaking personally, not as a Task Force Member, he was concerned
about the talk of second generation and the closing of the
100,000 square foot stores and opening 250,000 square foot store.
This is a new ballgame. Five years ago he would not of expected
this. We do not know where this will end. The staff indicated 5
to 7 more of these in the next 5 years. We may see stores
duplicated in Loveland and Windsor, and the idea that people will
come here and give us their sales tax, may not last very long.
Some of these stores may drive each other out of business. The
future may be shopping by catalog and computer. We could very
well end up in the future with some very large, empty stores.
Something to consider was to go back to traditional zoning, put
these up in the empty northeast quadrant, it is a City policy to
encourage growth in the northeast.
One of the things that should be required is that the superstore
pay for a study, with a consultant selected by the City, to look
into the environmental and the socio-logical impacts, as well as
the economic impacts of the project. The thing we should ask for
on each of these is, would this be an economic benefit to the
City of Fort Collins and how will it effect the environment and
the society.
Ira Paul, Architect, commented that there was nothing wrong with
the concept of a large building if it is well done. A good
building is not based on the nature of size, it is based on the
quality of design. The intention should be to end up with
buildings that are site specific, that work for this community
and work for the specific location they are designed for.
The multiple entrance question goes back to major retailers, that
are not mall located, are going to single entrances due to
security. The control of entry and access to the stores, exiting
of the stores; which causes dispersion of parking predominantly
in front of the store where they can be well lit and people can
feel safe. People do not like to park behind buildings, and
projects having that design have tended to fail.
26
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 27
Secondly, the problem with the "sea of asphalt" is that it is not
a sea of trees. The difficulty could be easily remedied with
extensive and creating landscaping that could break up the
parking lot areas into small galleries of space that are not a
sea of asphalt. There are provisions that attempt to formulate
design. There is not a formula for good design. Picking from a
selected series of parts in a vacuum may sound o.k., but reality
will produce difficult and unsuccessful buildings. He does not
believe that a corneous is the solution to every building in this
town.
Each design should be evaluated solely on it's design. If it is
a good design and makes sense, if it works for the community, it
should be approved. There should be some provision within this
code to allow for the creative spirit and intelligent approaches
to design.
Mr. Paul also raised the question with regard to a facade
treatment. The regulation that is in this particular code
analysis talks about the relative percentages of windows that
would be required in a mixed -use building. Requiring that from 3
is of
above the sidewalk to 8 feet above the sidewalk, a minimum
of 60% of the wall surface would have to be transparent. Design
and good design should govern as the end result. These should be
guidelines and not standards to measure everything.
There is also discussion about "food uses" and other kinds of
uses within a larger retail building. There are examples of this
use that has proven to be successful and have allowed someone to
make one stop shopping in a well displayed, well merchandised
environment, which also will reduce the travel trips. Reduce the
requirement of parking all over town and reduce future congestion
and traffic problems by providing a better and cohesive designed
environment to succeed.
He asked that the "big box" approach be perceived to be one that
good design should be approvable, bad design be rejected.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Chairman Clements asked that Guidelines versus Standards. Could
Mr. Shepard address the discussion regarding those issues.
Planner Shepard replied that they went to the Standards format
because the Task Force felt compelled to add to the tool kit.
That we needed something to take us to the next generation. They
felt that guidelines have been used in the past, and when push
0 27
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 28
comes to shove, guidelines don't help you. That was the reason
for the standards. The guideline section is also in there to
expand upon standards to offer some flexibility and look at what
we are intending. Also, to balance out the standards.
Chairman Clements asked for discussion of how the local
architects are aware of the guidelines and standards and how out-
of-state architects, with a standard pattern, want to do what
their corporation wants them to do.
Planner Shepard replied that the Task Force agreed with that. As
an illustration, not wanting to criticize out-of-state
architects, he thought that the committee felt comfortable with
criticizing out-of-state stock plans. That identical plans are
not good for communities, we want to be distinctive, we want to
control our destiny, we don't want to be anyplace, we want to be
someplace special. Having a store duplicate to others does not
further that goal.
Chairman Clements asked about the issue brought up regarding the
economic benefits of "big boxes," and the sociological impact.
Was there an avenue to address that, was that a potential
recommendation to City Council to address? Did the committee
have any suggestions as to where to go with that?
Planner Shepard replied that the committee shied away from that.
It came down to establishing a rational linkage. Mr. McKennas'
idea that the applicant pay for it has some merit, but perhaps
all of the existing ones should participate. Where do you draw
the line.
Chairman Clements asked if the majority of the committee felt
like that was a bigger issue and needed to be looked at in a
bigger arena.
Planner Shepard agreed. Given the time frame, constraints, and
budget and the moratorium expiration, the Task Force felt that it
was a little much to take on at this time.
Chairman Clements asked about the single entrance issue.
Planner Shepard replied that the way the definition reads, "if
you are a retail establishment over 25,000 square feet, you will
have multiple entries".
Chairman Clements asked if that would be two stores.
28
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 29
Planner Shepard replied, one store.
Chairman Clements asked about security with multiple entries.
Planner Shepard replied the Task Force did not agree with that.
They thought that multiple entries can work internally with a
retailer. They can work externally, with adding security
lighting and work because they work in other cities and other
locations. The Task Force feels it can be done and the design
enhancements far outweigh any inconvenience it may cause an
individual retailer.
Member Fontane stated she had been in stores with multiple
entries and it worked well. She was curious about the guidelines
and standards regarding parking lot orientation; and, why the 50%
as a standard of the parking be off and not in front of the
building.
Planner Shepard replied, to promote real substantial distribution
of parking.
• Member Fontane asked if there was some flexibility as to site
design and was there any variance material.
Planner Shepard replied yes. The Planning and Zoning Board was
well equipped to deal with variances. The LDGS has criteria by
which the board uses to review a variance. If a superior design
comes in, with a 60/40, perhaps it is equal to or better than a
plan that would have 50/50. He thought the balance would have to
be looked at, how the site performed, how it met the guidelines
and standards, and how it mitigated its impacts.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that if the board looked at the
beginning of the Design Guidelines, under a page called
"procedure", there is variance language as to how the board could
grant a variance. There are three tests, the one that says, "the
strict application of the standard would result in a peculiar and
exceptional difficulties, or exceptional and undue hardship upon
the owner of the affected property," or number two, "the
alternative site planning and building design approach which
meets the design objectives as stated in the Guidelines, equally
well or better than would compliancewith the standards," or
number three, "the variance may be granted without potential
detriment to the public good."
Member Bell asked about window requirements and verification of
where that would be.
0 29
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 30
Planner Shepard replied under Section E, Mixed Uses; and, it
would be under where principal buildings contain additional
separate stores which occupy less than 25,000 square feet of
gross floor area, with separate exterior customer entrances. The
street level facade of such stores shall be transparent.
Member Bell commented that could be potentially problematic. It
did not seem to be very environmentally efficient. She
referenced Showtime Video on College. She was concerned about
the glass standard.
Planner Shepard replied that the Showtime Video on College is a
Use -by -right, it is not a PUD. The objective was to humanize the
scale, creative pedestrian experience.
Member Bell asked if these problems would be addressed on a site
specific basis, as to avoid these problems.
Planner Shepard replied that it was a standard.
Member Cottier was concerned about the Design Guidelines that
were developed, and that they basically apply only to
Superstores. She did not think they applied to a
Community/Regional Shopping Center. She asked if the original
charge to the committee was to develop guidelines for a Regional
Center. She did not see these guidelines dealing with a center,
if you contrast these to the design guidelines to the ones
developed for Harmony Corridor. These design guidelines do not
discuss circulation within the center, the placement of
buildings, such that there is appropriate buffering to the
surroundings. The only buffering mentioned is a minimum 35 feet
and a berm. There was no mention of lighting, which is a
significant aspect that should be in design guidelines. She did
not think that these design guidelines applied to
Community/Regional Shopping Centers, as they are labeled. Are
they not supposed to?
Planner Shepard replied that if you look at the design
guidelines, you will also not see how much landscaping to put in
a parking lot, how to do perimeter landscape treatment, lighting,
site orientation. The Task Force felt we have these tools
already, with the All Development Criteria. The All Development
Criteria was recently rewritten to address these in a lot more
specific manner.
30
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 31
Member Cottier felt that the Harmony Plan was more well defined
and dealt with a center better. She agreed that public spaces
should be required in a Community/Regional Shopping Center.
Member Cottier asked, if this superstore project was used to
redefine the Community/Regional point chart in the Guidance
System. She thought there was a real problem with not separating
Community/Regional as was done with the Harmony Plan. If this is
to be a refinement of what we currently have, that we would be
much better off defining the number of retail establishments as
we did in the Harmony Corridor Plan. Retail establishments
besides the major tenant. If you get down to the specific
criteria in the point chart, does the project meet the
requirements of the design standards and guidelines for
Community/Regional Shopping Centers? That was a catch 22, she
did not think there were any guidelines for Community/Regional
Shopping Centers. She thought we were encouraging straight
commercial development. She thought that with this opportunity,
there should be more corrections in that area. She thought we
should separate Community/Regional, and not wait till the
Comprehensive Plan update, and loose the benefit that was done
in the Harmony Plan.
Member Cottier agreed with the position on size limitation that
has been taken with the Advisory Committee, that it was not
necessary to put a size limit. Big is not necessarily bad. The
design guidelines we have, can get quality development.
Member Cottier thought that if this Committee was to determine
locational criteria based on transportation impacts, they have
begged the issue by saying they need to locate in
Community/Regional Shopping Centers. They have not related that
to any information provided by Congestion Management, or given
anything other than the map that says, "areas discussed". There
was no insight as to what areas might be appropriate based on
Congestion Management and what we think the anticipated traffic
impacts are. She was not sure we did very well in answering that
charge.
Member Carnes wanted to address Congestion Management. He has
been a liaison on that Committee. His idea of a superstore was
that it has a citywide draw, or market. That was part of the
rationale for the locational criteria that was put in the point
chart. He wanted to address the charge of Council to look at
"developing criteria for the size of such superstores, to ensure
that they are not disruptive to surrounding development." He
31
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 32
thought decisions have been made due to the deadlines, and the
work was not finished. He agreed with comments of other board
members, and believed that this work needed to be continued.
Another three months might resolve some of this. He wanted to
recommend to Council an additional three month moratorium, for
superstores exceeding 25,000 s.f. He felt that the LDGS has not
worked very well.
Member Walker thought that one of the best aspects of what was
being proposed, was that these stores were being put in
Community/Regional Shopping Centers. He thought that solved a
lot of problems. That avoided the "stand alone" big boxes, they
now have to be integrated into more of an activity center. He
thought the design standards reached more toward the appearance
of the buildings. He thought the Harmony Corridor Plan was more
well defined. We need to have something that shows diversity and
vitality through diversity. He did not have a problem with size
of the superstore if that diversity and vitality of the center is
done. He thought the shopping center idea would mitigate a lot
of the problems. He thought there needed to be more work done on
how do deal with "food stores." He thought that what was done in
the Harmony Corridor with more specificity of the word "cluster"
and getting those centers with more diversity and vitality were
important.
Member Carnes moved that the Board recommend to Council a three-
month extension of the moratorium. To review what to apply to
what the Task Force came up with regarding superstores of
concern, 25,000 s.f. or greater. Specifically for the purpose of
the extension being to integrate better the results to date with
the Superstore Task Force with that of the Harmony Corridor work.
To make sure that public and community spaces are incorporated
into Regional Centers, especially that the size of any one store
in relation to the other development in the center be addressed,
as originally addressed by Council. That the issue of socio-
economic impact be further redirected by Council.
Member Bell asked for the 25,000 s.f. to be clarified.
Member Carnes replied that the definition of superstore of
concern in the point chart is for those that are 25,000 s.f. or
larger.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Member Cottier was not comfortable with the motion. In looking
32
0 •
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 33
at the ordinance, she did not think the committee was charged
with coming up with Community/Regional center guidelines. She
did not fault them with not doing that. She did think they did
come up with design criteria for superstores and how to mitigate
the visual impact of them. They did address the location issue,
in the sense of defining that stores over 25,000 needed to be
placed in a Community or Regional Shopping Center. In that
context, they have met the charge of what the moratorium was
supposed to accomplish. She did not feel comfortable with saying
that the moratorium should be extended. She would be more
comfortable with saying that they have addressed big boxes, and
maybe interim design guidelines. She thought that more work
needed to be done on the Community/Regional design guidelines in
the context that was done on the Harmony Plan.
Chairman Clements also felt uncomfortable with the motion. She
felt that this was a supplement to the LDGS. She agreed that the
design guidelines that the committee came up with regarding
superstores was going to assist this board. She thought that
they were written such that they can. They did need some
• massaging. She thought there were issues brought up that needed
to be addressed. She did not think that City Council needed to
take three months to look at whether there are economic benefits
to this. She thought that was not realistic. She did not want
to extend the moratorium and charging the committee with
addressing more issues. We should take what we have here and
sharpen it up. She did not think the economic issues was
something this committee should be addressing.
Member Bell commented that the board did not think this was done,
but did not want to extend the moratorium.
Chairman Clements concern was with the motion on the table, and
the economic benefits of the big box portion of the motion.
Member Carnes said he recommended to Council that they be aware
of it. He thought that Council might want to consider a study to
be done. He also thought that a definition of Community/Regional
Shopping Center needed to be made, even though that was not the
charge. He agreed with the points made on public spaces. Also,
with the size, related to any one store in relation to the
overall center size, he thought was something that Council
originally directed be done, but time ran out. The committee was
not able to address it effectively. He thought that the issue of
"food stores" was not resolved. He would hate to see momentum
0 33
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 34
lost between the two task forces. It was feasible that the
issues could be resolved quickly with another three months.
Chairman Clements asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman short of
extending the moratorium, was there any other options.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that extending the moratorium
from a legal perspective only, he did not think that was a
problem, but it may with political problems. He knew that the
Council was anxious and that the project move on now. He did not
think, from some Council Members perspective, that was the way to
go with it.
Member Bell thought that maybe an amendment should be done that
we did not extend the moratorium, but to give Council the clear
message that the work is not finished.
Member Cottier thought the boards' task was not to say whether or
not the moratorium should be extended, but rather to respond to
the design guidelines that were prepared for them and what
additional work the board thought needed to be done.
Chairman Clements asked Member Carnes if he wanted to change his
motion.
Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental
Services offered an alternative. The board has a meeting one
week from tonight. With the questions raised, staff could answer
questions in the intervening week, leaving the motion on the
table, and dispose of it at the hearing one week from tonight.
The Board was uncomfortable, and that was not a good environment
to make a decision. He would like to see the Staff give the
Board more information regarding the questions raised tonight.
Member Bell asked what could occur within one week
Mr. Byrne replied that the some of the questions and issues that
may be able to be clarified from a staff perspective. Why the
recommendations were done the way that they were. Why certain
things were excluded from the scope of work. Maybe some options
for the Board of offer Council on how to proceed. In addition to
specific recommendations on the committees work.
Member Carnes offered interim design guidelines with no extension
of the moratorium. He would welcome clarification of the issues.
34
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 12, 1994
Page 35
Chairman Clements felt more comfortable with leaving the motion
on the table and continuing to next week.
Member Bell moved for tabling of the motion until the nest
meeting of December 19, 1994.
Member Fontana seconded the motion.
Member Cottier asked for clarification within the next week of
the design guidelines in the context of superstores. If they
could apply to centers. She would like the distinction of
centers versus superstores. She thought that they now only apply
to superstores. It was a real stretch to say they apply to
centers, and that was not the committees charge.
The motion was approved 6-0.
•
35
No Text