HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/21/1994MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CONTINUATION OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 1994 HEARING
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 (arrived at 6:38 p.m.).
Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Gordon, Olt,
Herzig, Vosburg, Schlueter, Deines.
Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the consent agenda,
which included the following item:
1. MINUTES OF THE
BOARD HEARING.
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
261 1994 PLANNING AND ZONING
17. #45-94 BRIDGEFIELD PUD - PRELIMINARY.
19. #29-90 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS
TO THE HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES.
20. #54-94 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR LARGE SCALE RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS.
Member Walker moved for approval of consent Item 1.
Member Carnes seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 6-0. Member Strom was absent.
BRIDGEFIELD P.U.D. - PRELIMINA_Rv #45 94
Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the staff report on this proposal
for 99 single family and duplex dwelling units on 16.93 acres and
recommended denial based on All Development Criteria A-2.4, A-2.5,
A-2.6, and A-3.2.
Chairman Clements asked to hear from the Natural Resource Division
about the negotiation on this parcel, and if there is still an
active negotiation.
Susie Gordon, Natural Resource Division, stated that the City has
been working hard to put together an acquisition plan for this
property. They have not been successful so far. They are still
interested in pursuing it. That was the most she could tell the
board at this point.
Chairman Clements asked if it was dead in the water.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 2
Ms. Gordon replied no.
Member Walker asked Ms. Gordon for more context as to Natural
Resources interest in this parcel.
Ms. Gordon replied that this was a component to a larger area.
This was a very desirable addition to the Bridges property to the
west, and also some property Natural Resources is looking at on the
southeast corner of Prospect and Taft, referred to as the Michaels
property, which is also under negotiation.
Member Walker asked how much land Natural Resources owns there?
Ms. Gordon replied 12 acres.
Member Walker asked how much land this would be?
Ms. Gordon replied, a total of about 8 acres.
Member Walker asked how much land the Michaels property was?
Ms. Gordon replied she thought about 10 to 12 acres.
Member Cottier asked if this was on the priority purchase list?
Ms. Gordon replied yes.
Member Fontane asked if the land is purchased, is what is left of
the project continue and that piece be taken out.
Ms. Gordon replied that was correct.
Chairman Clements thought this sounded like a very important. piece
of land to Natural Resources, however, as a board, they do not have
any say so as to the go ahead for negotiation or purchase, and how
is that handled?
Ms. Gordon replied that the Natural Areas Fund is administered by
the Natural Resource Department with advice from the Natural
Resource Advisory Board. There is a set of priority acquisitions
that they are trying to acquire.
Chairman Clements point being that there is sometimes a
misconception that this board has the authority to give Natural
Resources permission to negotiate.
Ms. Gordon replied that is not the situation at all. Council has
the final decision on acquisitions.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 3
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that it should not go into the
board's thinking on this project as to whether it passes or fails
the LDGS. The board needed to look at the project in terms of the
criteria of the LDGS. Even if they approve it, that does not mean
that the City can't still purchase the property.
Chairman Clements asked to hear from the applicant.
Jon Prouty, Lagunitas Company, handed out some supplemental
information to his presentation. Mr. Prouty wanted to go over the
fundamental planning considerations. Mr. Prouty stated the
property was owned by an out-of-state property owner who interest
is to make money, and not to assist them in achieving their
objectives. The project he is proposing is an excellent patio home
project. The owner has granted them a 30-day extension to work on
details on this challenging site. He was here before the board
tonight with a recommendation of denial from the City staff. He is
operating under constraints of time or he has to drop the project
and/or forfeit a substantial amount of money. Secondly, the nature
of some of the questions tonight will be planning related.
Mr. Prouty will be asking for the board's input and guidance on 5
essential planning variance related matters that relate to this
project.
Mr. Prouty spoke on the four factors that are paramount on doing
good planning. One, is to look at the natural area; two, look at
the pedestrian situations; three, consider what the correct
definition and appropriateness and specification for roadways and
safety are; lastly, take a look at siting, housing style and
density. He thought if the factors were pursued in that order, you
could end up with a high density, aesthetic, functional living
environment for the residents that live in a specific neighborhood.
Mr. Prouty was in agreement with the density chart, give or take
20%, he was in agreement with how the city assessed it. He pointed
out that you are awarded 50% of the site percentage, which is
committed to be preserved as open space. His overall commitment
was that a significant portion of this site, 30 to 50% be preserved
in its open state in some fashion.
Mr. Prouty stated there have been extensive neighborhood meetings.
The have formed a . natural areas committee that has met several
times and has had several newsletters. The neighborhoods have been
very creative and articulate in bringing matters up, and continue
to do so. Mr. Prouty stated that he is committed to natural
resource protection, and this site is a very unique natural
resource refuge and is being enjoyed by many. It did have a lack
of access and lack of parking. If purchased, the city would be
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 4
able to gain access off of Stuart and also some configurations for
parking.
Mr. Prouty wanted a correction to the staff report on record. An
exception to the buffer requirement by Natural Resources was that
in the event that the water quality could be demonstrated to be
preserved to a high quality level, that buffer requirement would
not be imposed. The plan reflects working along those lines.
Mr. Prouty went over the concerns by staff, vehicle safety, and
pedestrian safety. He stated the design of the project suggested
a 15 mph or less design speed, which is an important aspect of the
safety consideration. A one way perimeter street, with a very low
traffic volume situation, and a very low speed traffic situation,
which proposed little, if no hazard, having pedestrians and
vehicles share the same roadway. Mr. Prouty also spoke on
emergency vehicle access, and thought that there was adequate
space.
Mr. Prouty stated that general design concerns were too much
asphalt and concrete. He submitted that this was mitigated by the
design benefits that occur. Mr. Prouty stated that the reason the
houses face out instead of in was because of the natural open
space, and that offered a greater quality of living. He thought
that this community focuses on the open space periphery. The site
slopes from south to north and there was an opportunity with
creative siting for every home to have a view, and enjoy some
alternatives to condominium or conventional townhouse living.
Mr. Prouty went over the 5 specific areas of explanation. They are
specific variance areas. Stepping stones to try to move beyond
traditional constraints and evolve towards more creative approaches
toward housing and right-of-ways. Mr. Prouty went through some
slides of the site, showing and commenting on street
configurations, perimeter streets, street widths, turn arounds and
hammerhead turn arounds, landscaping and walkways, and parking. He
also showed slides of streets in developments in Boulder for
comparison.
Ray Moe, American Company, traffic consultant for Mr. Prouty, spoke
on widths and standards of streets, and emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Moe stated he was in favor of this design and hoped the board
would consider it. He thought the design had some sound planning
ideas, and it was time to start looking at some of those ideas.
His belief is that the speeds along that roadway would be a
friendly community, encouraging biking and walking.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 5
CITIZEN INPUT
Emily Smith, President of Prospect/Shields Neighborhood
Association. The Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association
commended the developer of Bridgefield PUD for designing and
proposing a medium density residential development of single family
homes that places primary emphasis on creating a sense of
neighborhood and community. Their Association commends the
developer and the City's Natural Resources Department for working
diligently with the property owner and the adjacent neighborhoods
to propose a southern 8 acres of the site for city owned open
space. Ms. Smith spoke on the open space acquisition, and that
residents, various schools and youth groups regularly visit this
site.
Ms. Smith spoke on this piece of open space being an intrecal part
of creating a permanent open space pathway for wildlife and there
were many people who currently use the property.
Ms. Smith spoke on the population and density of the area. Ms.
Smith mentioned the quarter -cent sales tax voted on and that the
whole community should benefit from open space, and this was one of
the last parcels in the Prospect/Shields area that could be
acquired for open space, and the City should acquire this tract.
Their position was that the acquisitions are a P & Z problem and
should be addressed by the P & Z Board. They did favor single
family neighborhood oriented patio homes being built on the
northern portion of the property. They urged Natural Resources to
make the acquisition of the 8 acres of open space a priority.
The Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association recommends approval
of this application and will continue to actively work with the
developer, Natural Resources, and the adjoining Neighborhood
Associations in order to secure the parcel to be used as open
space.
Valerie Asseto, 1504 Constitution Avenue, she represented Bryant
and Constitution Street residents. In general, their neighborhood
strongly supports this project. Ms. Asseto spoke on their
neighborhood being single family homes surrounded by some of the
highest density in the City. They support the project because it
is a single family home project, it added to the diversity of the
housing types in the area. They would welcome this as part of
their neighborhood, but was concerned about crossing Prospect Road.
The neighborhood appreciates the diversity of people in the area
and would like to keep it that way. They have very strong support
for the City to purchase the natural area. It is heavily used by
the neighborhood right now.
Ms. Asseto stated that the neighborhood appreciated Mr. Prouty's
efforts to cooperate with the neighborhood, his attempts to
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 6
preserve the natural feel of the project, and his concern for
neighborhood access to the natural area should the City buy it.
Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Drive, representing Skyline Street and
the associated streets adjacent to that. He concurred with the two
previous speakers. Mr. McMaster spoke on the development in his
area and the large number of multi -family units that have been
built. The feeling of the residents is that they would like low
density, single family homes built. The neighborhood was pleased
with Mr. Prouty's development and how hard he has worked with the
neighborhood residents to meet their concerns. Mr. Prouty's
development was much better than a high density development. They
thought that this was a very attractive alternative to high
density. Mr. McMaster felt that the city regulations could be
worked out.
Mr. McMaster spoke on the open space area and asked that when
looking at planning and zoning of the city, this was a critical
matter to consider; and, since the Planning and Zoning Board cannot
control the issue, they hoped the board could work with them to
provide some positive impetus so this can happen. This was very
critical that this issue be should be addressed by the Planning and
Zoning Board. Mr. McMaster thought Mr. Prouty has worked hard to
establish a relationship with the neighborhood and that there would
be a win/win situation if the open space is purchased. Mr.
McMaster hoped everyone could band together and realize the
uniqueness of this area and get the decision made to purchase the
8 acres; and, make it part of the existing open space and wildlife
area, and make it a continuous corridor from Taft to Shields.
Sandy Hendrickson, 1636 W. Stuart, represents the neighborhood of
the Ridgewood/Stuart area. Ms. Hendrickson works at Blevins Jr.
High School and they use the open space every year for different
projects. The other teachers did not know that the City had not
purchased all of the open space. They have been working with
Natural Resources for the past year and their belief was that the
entire open space area was purchased. Ms. Hendrickson spoke of a
grant received in working with the Phillips Petroleum Environmental
Project. They have $2,700.00, the City of Fort Collins matched
that with $2,200.00, to come into this area and develop trails and
plant natural grasses and shrubs.' There will also be nature signs.
They do not want parking lots because there was already 1/8 of a
mile of free parking on Stuart Street. She felt nobody knew what
anyone else was doing and there was a lot of confusion.
Ms. Hendrickson stated that an employee of Natural Resources came
to her house at 5:30 this evening with a new map. On that map,
their goal was to take this entire field and purchase it for open
space, all the way to the northwest corner where Taft Hill and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 7
Prospect comes in because of all the ground water. As a
neighborhood, they have not been able to get it together because at
different meetings they receive different information. They did
not mind the project that is north of the Larimer Ditch No. 2, they
would like to see the project south of it on hold to allow them
time to meet with all they different people and get this
coordinated.
Ms. Hendrickson spoke of a bridge in their neighborhood that did
not exist anywhere else in the State of Colorado. There is a
bridge on Heatheridge Road that is 6 foot high. The piping on it
is 18 inches in circumference and they are set in walls of concrete
that is 2 x 2 feet that go 12 feet into the ground. This bridge
was set up to stop debris in the 100-year flood. Ms. Hendrickson
spoke of the Canal Importation Project that started in 1988. This
entire field of open space area was designated at that time by the
Task Force as the last natural drainage area for the City of Fort
Collins. The purpose of this area was to hold the surface water in
the 100-year flood. She could not believe that the board, at this
point, would say that it would be O.K. to come in and add 30 to 40
more houses into an area that is very dangerous if a serious flood
ever occurred. Ms. Hendrickson voiced her concerns about the
ground water in the area.
Ms. Hendrickson reiterated her comments on the open space and it's
importance to the schools and their current projects. She also
stated that part of the area was a wildlife corridor and must be
preserved for the wildlife in the area to move through. She would
like the board to approve the upper portion of the project, but the
bottom area should be put on hold for further organization.
Juanita Martin, stated her home is on the border of this project.
Her concern also was for the open space below. She agreed that Mr.
Prouty has worked hard. She was concerned with wildlife in the
area. They have deer come to their home a lot. They also have
been under the assumption that the City had already purchased all
the open space. Ms. Martin also asked for postponement on the
lower half of the property. She did not feel there was a need for
development of both sections of the property until they have had a
chance for them to work with Natural Resources.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Chairman Clements clarified that the board was very supportive of
natural areas.
Chairman Clements also clarified that Mr. Prouty was not the owner
of the land and was acting on behalf of the owner on this
development.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 8
Chairman Clements made a point regarding the board's ability to
tell this landowner to hold off on building a phase of this
development; and, the board did not have the right to do that. If
someone owns this land, and it is not the City, the landowner has
certain rights that come with owning property. The board has to
look at this development before them and judge this proposal on
merits set forth in the Land Development Guidance System, which is
our performance zoning. The board can encourage and support the
City and the Nat.:ral Resources Department to go ahead with
negotiating the pu- .ase of this property. Tonight, the board will
be looking at th.. velopment as proposed.
Chairman Clements asked about the grant mentioned for trails and
signs through this area.
Ms. Gordon responded that Natural Resources has a small amount of
grant money available for projects that come in to do neighborhood
level projects. To do revegetation and habitat enhancement
projects. She has not been directly involved in that for sometime.
She felt bad that there has been a misunderstanding about where the
private property begins and the City property ends. She thought
that there was a lot of confusion about this property. She thought
that one of the problems was not having very good maps. Ms. Gordon
stated that Stormwater was in the process of revegetating this
entire site for more biological control of the water course and to
treat the stormwater. She was not sure where that overlaps with
the Jr. High Schools project.
Chairman Clements thought that there needed to be some lines of
clarification drawn.
Ms. Gordon thought they needed to meet with them and understand
-what the scope of the project is. She did not see any reason for
them not to proceed on the Bridges open space natural area.
Chairman Clements asked if Ms. Gordon would follow up on that.
Ms. Gordon said she would.
Chairman Clements asked Mr. Schlueter from the Stormwater
Department to talk about this parcels, if there are any concerns
with groundwater.
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Department, stated there plans were to
build a channel system that would contain the entire 100 year flow
through the easement they have. The existing flood plain has not
been delineated. Staffs feeling was that this could be
accommodated, there might be some rearranging of his lots, or
filling or raising. At this point it should become a condition of
O
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 9
approval that the flood plain be delineated, then it would be
specifically addressed.
Mr. Schlueter stated the Stormwater Department did not deal with
groundwater. It was up to the developer and his engineers to
design their projects for the groundwater. The Engineering
Department sometimes gets involved if they are using City right-of-
ways to install their groundwater system.
Mr. Schlueter spoke on the confusion of the Canal Importation
Project and the bridge under Heatheridge. He encouraged the.
neighborhood to come down and talk to them. It was designed for
the 100 year ,flows to pass under Heatheridge so it would be open
for emergency access.
Chairman Clements thought there was a lot of confusion about
stormwater and groundwater in this area. All of those issues would
have to be addressed before a final would be granted. Was that
correct?
Mr. Schlueter replied that was correct. Staff has a lot of
questions at this point.
Chairman Clements asked.if the Engineering Department had any input
on the groundwater issue.
Mike Herzig, Engineering Department stated they had not seen
anything yet, that was an area that was covered at final, when they
have to do a hydrologic study and install pipe if they want to put
a subdrain system in.
Chairman Clements thought the general concern was flooding in this
area and it was up to the City and the developer to work together
to make sure that does not happen.
Mr. Herzig replied that was correct.
Member Bell asked about the comment on the Wildlife Act and the
corridor and deer.
Ms. Gordon replied they were aware that this property has a lot of
wildlife on it, and that it acts as something of a corridor. There
was a lot of habitat value associated with this property.
Member Bell asked if it included the triangle below the canal.
Ms. Gordon replied that property would be considered an upland
site. They asked Mr. Prouty to do a wetland survey and only came
up with small scraps of wetland vegetation that would indicate it
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 10
was not a wetland. That did not mean that it was not home to other
types of habitat, it was probably home to foxes and raccoons.
Member Carnes spoke of the criteria in the LDGS regarding wildlife
habitat and whether it had been identified by the Colorado Division
of Wildlife as significant and in particular need of attention.
Mr. Carnes asked for comment on that.
Ms. Gordon replied that that specifically identifies animals that
are endangered. That was a limited list. She did not think that
was the issue here. It was not endangered species.
Member Carnes stated that there was no reference in the criterion
to endangered or threatened species. He would like some
clarification at some point.
Planner Olt asked for the question to be repeated.
Member Carnes asked about the LDGS criteria regarding wildlife
habitat and whether or not it had been identified by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife as significant. Was there any areas like that
in Fort Collins?
Ms. Gordon replied that there was a couple of places in Fort
Collins that the Division of Wildlife does become involved in
because they have identified it for a specific species. It is part
of their migration patterns or a particular habitat. She did not
believe this property would be of interest to the Division of
Wildlife. It is to their department and it is in reference to the
entire complex. There is a wildlife ecologist on staff and staff
was confident that they are tracking areas that are really critical
to habitat.
Member Carnes said the reason he brought it up was the reference
from someone in the neighborhood to this being a corridor for
movement of wildlife.
Ms. Gordon replied that was true of any of the ditches or water
bodies in the City. They do tend to be how animals move around.
Member Walker asked about another criteria mentioned. It talks
about the physical elements of the site adapting to the physical
characteristics of the site, "and minimizing the disturbance of the
topography, water bodies, streams, wetland, wildlife habitat."
This concerns him, and wondered if this criteria has been met due
to the interest in the property by Natural Resources to acquire it.
That would suggest that some of the elements mentioned could be
lost due to this project.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page it
Ms. Gordon replied that the most unique thing about this property
is not its wildlife habitat, but its location. Its proximity to an
area they already own. It is a logical extension of a natural area
that they hope to also enlarge with the purchase of the Michaels
property. It is less for the wildlife habitat value than it is for
some of the other values.
Member Cottier asked about the triangle piece in the middle and if
the City was considering purchasing that. Was the Natural Resource
value of that parcel significant enough that some sort of
mitigation plan be required for any development proposed in that
area.
Ms. Gordon replied not particularly. What they have asked Mr.
Prouty to do, should his development go forward, is to retain the
character of the canals that have a lot of heavy vegetation on
them, and he has agreed to put together a forestry maintenance plan
for those trees and shrubs. In proximity to the pond, they would
have liked to see more of a buffer there, he has agreed to put
together a revegetation plan that would help screen the lake.
Member Cottier asked from Natural Resources perspective, if the
City does not purchase this piece, was this development
satisfactory in terms of maintaining the quality of the remaining
natural areas around there.
Ms. Gordon replied yes. She was concerned about the water quality
that would run off into the pond, but there are ways to engineer
that so it would not flow directly into the pond.
Chairman Clements asked if that should be a condition if it should
go ahead.
Planner Olt replied yes, that should be brought up at a later date.
Ms. Gordon has written recommendations and four conditions that she
felt would be appropriate on this plan, if it is approved, based on
the staffs decision. Based on four other criteria to recommend
denial at this time, staff did not feel that it was appropriate to
put these conditions from the Natural Resources Division on a
recommendation for denial. He would be prepared to recommend that,
should the board move for approval.
Member Strom asked to hear them now.
Ms. Gordon read the four conditions as stated in her memorandum to
Planner Olt dated 11/9/94.
Member Strom asked who owned the pond property.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 12
Ms. Gordon replied that it is currently owned by Heatheridge
Condominiums.
Member Strom was concerned about the confusion that already exists
in this area about who owns what. He was also concerned about
raising expectations that we are not in the position to enforce.
If this property is owned by Heatheridge Condominiums, they are a
party that is not present at this hearing, and is not involved in
this proposal. His question was whether the board was within their
prerogative here to try to enforce conditions on a third party, a
component in this case that they would be required to do
landscaping on someone elses land.
Mr. Prouty replied that in the course of their meetings with
Heatheridge to acquire the necessary emergency access through their
property; and, also an agreement to cooperate as far as crossing
their property as necessary to handle their stormwater needs to get
it into the city system, he felt comfortable telling.the board that
the concern that Heatheridge has with the pond is that it
represents a liability. They can't fence it because of stormwater
considerations, but they own it, and if someone drowns in it, they
get sued. There has been positive interest by Heatheridge in
working with Natural Resources, particularly, in light of the fact
that it could be totally surrounded by another open space
acquisition, and that the pond come into City control.
Member Strom also asked about Larimer Canal No. 2, and that some of
the canals end up with no landscaping at all along them because of
the management of the canals. He did not think they were in a
position to do anything about that.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that was true. The old canals
have a prescriptive easement in most cases. Sometimes they have a
deeded right, sometimes even a fee ownership. In most cases, the
interest is a prescriptive or one that has been acquired over long
historic uses. Their right is a wide enough right to carry the
water that is decreed to them, and has historically been carried,
along with a right to drive along the side of the ditch to maintain
it; and, so to the extent that if something gets in the way of that
maintenance right, they have the right to remove it.
Member Strom again raised the question, not because he did not
think it was a good idea to landscape, but because he was concerned
that people not be operating under false assumptions that we have
any right to do that landscaping. That right may be superseded by
someone elses right to strip the landscaping out.
Member Walker asked about the water quality in the pond. There
were words that something would have to be done to mitigate any
.0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 13
runoff from the site to protect the water quality of the pond.
Could he have more clarification on what the city has in mind about
the kinds of things that might have to be done to protect the water
quality in the pond.
Mr. Prouty replied that the project, as proposed, involved an
asphalt roadway around the perimeter. That was designed with a
curve on one side, which is the inside of the project. The flood
waters, runoff and residue, instead of running off of people's back
yards into the open space, is captured in the street curb flowline,
which is canted into the inside of the project and carried and
removed with the stormwater.
Member Walker asked about the 50 foot easement for the canal. Was
he proposing to add any landscaping elements within that 5o foot
easement.
Mr. Prouty replied no.
Member Cottier asked for clarification on the emergency access
situation, that that was one of the criteria sited for denial of
this project, Criteria A-2.5. Mr. Prouty has stated that
Heatheridge has agreed to emergency access.
Planner Olt replied that there was a secondary point of emergency
access that was adequate coming from Heatheridge Lake. What staff
has based their opinion on was the internal street network. There
are areas that Poudre Fire Authority has said is not acceptable to
transition from a local street to private alleyways without proper
turnaround.
Kerrie Ashbeck, Engineering Department stated that was correct.
The condition did not have to do with the secondary point of access
that Mr. Prouty is acquiring through Heatheridge. It has to do
with the width of the internal streets as well as the need for
turnaround areas where those streets deadend at 20 foot private
alleys.
Member Cottier asked if the variances requested for street widths
were the same as were requested for Indian Hills.
Kerrie Ashbeck replied the primary difference was at Indian Hills
there was a 4 foot sidewalk provided along the frontage where
houses front on the streets. In addition, the pavement he is
proposing on this project is 16 feet in width with a four foot
alternative surface for pedestrian walkways/emergency access width.
In Indian Hills there was a full 20 feet of asphalt pavement
provided.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 14
Member Cottier asked if the streets in Indian Hills are one-way?
Kerrie Ashbeck replied that was another difference as well. The
circulation system proposed is different. So far, it does not seem
that they will function as one-way. There are questions as to
whether people will travel the opposite way to get to their house,
in the shortest way possible, rather than following the directional
one-way around the perimeter of the site.
Member Walker wanted to pursue the street system more, he liked the
notion proposed here, he thought the design was innovative and
creative. He would like to hear more about what specifically are
the objections, and what would be the way for a project of this
nature to work, as far as the city goes.
Planner Olt replied the primary concerns are the cross sections and
safety issues from the standpoint of encouraging pedestrian
movement. Bringing it from the homes across the streets in all
locations and trying to encourage pedestrian movement around the
outsides. With the 16 foot paved area, there will be a significant
amount of traffic, both local residents as well as guest traffic.
There is still a concern with the width of the 7 foot wide indented
parking, with interspersed landscaped islands. The concern is with
the obstruction with the cars not being parked up along the
curbline. Also, with no sidewalks internal, there is a concern,
and staff feels that is where the pedestrian movement should occur.
A four foot sidewalk around the perimeter would be much safer and
would not create the pedestrian/vehicle conflicts that are
perceived.
Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, stated that Mr. Prouty has
proposed a one-way street system as a result of a meeting with
staff. In staff s internal discussions, it was felt that the one-
way was too restrictive and they did not think it was a good idea
because people would have too far to travel to go down the street
two houses. There would not be enough traffic on the street to
enforce the one-way system. Staff felt he should stick with the 20
foot roadway and not inter -mingle that with a walkway at this time.
Another concern with the street system was the dead-end streets and
hammerhead turnarounds. The Engineering Department is not prepared
to support that type of turnaround. Staff feels that he should do
something to cul-de-sac these, or extend the streets to a through
street.
Another concern is with the buildings fronting onto Prospect, they
do not have the rear alley. The street is not designed with any
parking on the north side and that would attract people to park
there anyway. Staff would like to see it widened out to provide
parking in someway. In staff's opinion there is too little parking
0
i
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 15
for those lots. Mr. Prouty also needs to provide more parking on
the main drive.
Chairman Clements asked parking for who.
Mr. Herzig replied guest type parking, convenient to the houses
they are trying to visit. Mr. Herzig stated a lot of the
difficulty on this was that staff felt that all of the issues had
not been resolved before we had to recommend denial based on the
fact there is no resolution to those issues.
Chairman Clements concern was with the fact that Mr. Prouty was
bending over backward to work with the neighborhood and staff to
assist in resolving these issues, and has a recommendation of
denial. it seemed inconsistent with other projects that come in
with a lot of conditions and get approval and stay in the pipeline
to get the conditions resolved This project comes in with an
applicant that is bending over backwards to work with the
neighborhood and the staff and the staff is recommending denial.
She was curious.
Planner Olt replied that part of the problem with this was Mr.
Prouty was caught with front end of the pipeline of doing business
differently. Staff, as of October, has indicated to the
development community; and, based on concerns from the Planning and
Zoning Board about a lot of conditions and unresolved issues at
preliminary, staff is changing things based on when information if
required. Based on the four All Development Criteria that staff
felt was not being met, and we could not ignore, staff felt that
that had to be used to make a recommendation.
Chairman Clements understood that, but usually when the board is
complaining about that is when neighbors are standing up here
saying that issues were not being resolved, their concerns were not
being addressed and they did not have time to review the plans.
Member Carnes asked if staff felt that an approval could be given
at this time without approving layout and density, as he had seen
on a previous application approval.
Member Walker commented that in this situation there is a layout
and density that does have a lot of positive attributes. The
neighbors have commented that this provides another element in a
mix of housing types for this area, and strengthens the fabric of
this neighborhood. From that standpoint, the concept as far as the
density and layout are very workable. There are small details that
cannot be overlooked, but it seemed to him, some of the street
issues could be resolved. He did not feel strongly enough about
denying this project, because he felt the issues could be resolved.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 16
He suggested a continuance, with a suggestion that the neighborhood
and city staff try to address these issues.
Member Walker addressed the open space.issues. He felt that it was
a critical issue and this was a very unique open space for this
area being in one of the most highly dense areas in the City. He
did not think the open space attributes in this area could be
overlooked. He thought the city has an opportunity to enhance this
high density area and mitigate it with the open space. He thought
that it was important that the City make a significant effort to
acquire this open space.
Member Fontana moved for approval of the Bridgefield P.U.D. with
the following conditions:
1. The variance to the right-of-way width of a local street from
54 feet to 43 feet. The onstrest parking would be reduced
from 8 feet to 7 foot wide.
2. A variance of the local access street right-of-way width from
541 to 341, and the street width flovline to flowline from 36,
to 29•.
3. A variance for curve radiuses permitting less than the
standard 2400 (less than the 30 mph design speed).
4. The conditions recommended by the Natural Resources
Department.
5. The study or what over would be appropriate for the flood
plain to be delineated.
Member Cottier asked about the variances 3A and 3B.
Member Fontana would like to sea those straight streets go through
and take out the two lots.
Deputy City Attorney asked about the solar variance.
Member Fontana added the variance to solar orientation.
Member Cottier asked if the motion was for approval with taking out
those two lots and not allowing the hammerheads.
Member Fontana replied that vas correct.
Member Cottier asked for a friendly amendment that would leave it
open for further negotiation between Mr. Prouty and the street
department.
I
Alanning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 17
Member Fontana accepted the amendment.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Member Cottier commented that it was important to remember that
this is an infill site and the neighbors had some very important
comments about the acceptability of this project. It would have
been nice to see Indian Hills constructed and had that as a point
to see if it does work. She thought the board needed to be more
receptive to creative projects. She thought that the Street
Department and Fire Department needed to be more flexible and
creative also.
Member Strom was struggling with this. He thought that the concept
was good, but there was a lot of details that had to be worked out.
The standard being worked with was equal to or better than. He
would be more comfortable with another 30 days to try to work out
some of these details. He thought some of these issues needed to
address layout before they could be resolved. He was not sure he
could support the motion at this time.
Member Bell felt pressed to support this motion. She felt that
there were a lot of questions unanswered, especially around traffic
issues. She would like to see more attention given to discussions
with the Transportation Department so the board could see some
clearer concepts before preliminary approval.
Chairman Clements toured some neighborhoods like this in Boulder,
so she knows they are working, and has less of a concern that they
will not work here. She felt that if Mr. Prouty, the neighborhood,
and staff have worked this well together to this point,. she had
little doubt that they would not continue to work together to
resolve these issues. That was why she did not have a problem
supporting this project.
Member Cottier asked about adding a further condition to the motion
that layout and density are not guaranteed.
Deputy City Attorney replied we have done it before. He thought
that it was another condition that could be added. From a legal
perspective it could be done. From the standpoint of establishing
a new tradition, it leaves the preliminary approval without there
being much to it.
Member Fontana accepted the condition.
Member Carnes stated he could support the motion as it stood now.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 18
Deputy City Attorney Eckman thought with regards to the Natural
Resource Conditions, legally binding agreements from the ditch
company should be in order at the time of final that would make
those conditions possible.
Member Fontana added that was her intention with the motion.
Member Cottier agreed as the second.
Chief Planner Blanchard wanted to clarify for the record what the
conditions were. He understood them as granting from page 3 of the,
staff report, variances 1,2, at 4, the 4 Natural Resource
Conditions and the delineation of he 100-pear flood plain, the
redesign to eliminate the hammerhea:, and researching the deletion
of two lots, there would be no granting and no -vesting of the
layout and density, and the variance to the solar orientation.
Chief Planner Blanchard asked about any change to the sidewalks.
Member Fontane replied no change in the sidewalk pattern.
The motion was approved 4-3, with Members Strom, Walker, and Bell
voting in the negative.
#29-90 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director gave the staff report
stating the Planning and Zoning Board was being asked to consider
the adoption of new land use policies and design criteria as an
update to the Harmony Corridor Plan. The Planning area for the
study extended 4 1/2 miles from the I-25 interchange to College
•Avenue and extends 1 mile north and south of Harmony Road.
The key issues focus on how much, where and what type of commercial
and retail development should be permitted in the corridor. Last
July, the City Council took some steps to answer these questions.
One of the measures was the enactment of a six month moratorium on
the processing of Planned Unit Development applications for retail
and commercial development in the corridor. The moratorium was
intended to provide the City with some breathing room to look at
the planning policies which guide future retail and commercial
development. During the moratorium period, city staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board were directed to review the City's
policies and recommend any necessary amendments to the Harmony
Corridor Plan.
The update to the Harmony Corridor Plan involved two parallel work
efforts. The first is a technical planning effort, which analyzed
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 19
existing conditions and future opportunities. They have reviewed
information from the original Harmony Corridor Planning effort and
gathered new information about retail development. At the same
time, there has been a public participation process. A citizen
advisory committee was formed and has met several times over the
past 4 months. A well attended open house was conducted in
September on alternative land use scenarios, and over the past 4
months, numerous meetings with property owners and residents of the
corridor have been held. The comments and ideas generated during
this public participation process have helped shape the
recommendations in the draft report.
Early in the planning effort, it was clear that a total overhaul of
the Harmony Corridor Plan was not necessary. The vision of the
plan that had become an activity center and major employment center
still appears to be widely supported among residents and property
owners in the corridor. What is clearly needed is definition of
the policies to guide future retail and commercial development.
Many of the concerns of the residents and property owners pointed
toward the need for more predictability in the location and
character of retail uses, especially shopping centers. The
suggested amendments to the plan are intended to strengthen the
vision of the corridor. The plan is that non -retail jobs continue
to be the major economic focus of the corridor area. The vision
also includes having a variety of retail uses to meet the needs of
employees and residents of the corridor, as well as the community.
The plan is to require retail uses to occur in attractive compact
shopping centers at specified locations along the corridor. Some
limited, free standing commercial uses are planned as part of the
business or office parks. As the corridor develops, new housing of
a mix of types and densities is planned near jobs, shopping, parks
and schools. Finally, the corridor is envisioned to reflect
several urban design themes including excellence and high quality
in the design of the buildings and streetscapes, preserving the
heritage of the old Harmony community and encouraging walking and
bicycling in the corridor.
The focus of future development activity is to take place in two
major activity centers. The basic industrial and non -retail
employment activity centers are located where either industrial
uses, offices, or institutional type land uses are planned to
locate in the future, in planned business park settings. Secondary
uses, such as hotel, motels, restaurants, neighborhood convenience
shopping centers, child care centers, and a mix of residential
types and densities are also planned to locate in this activity,
but are planned to occupy substantially less area in comparison to
the basic industrial, non -retail employment uses.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 20
Approximately 1800 acres in the corridor is located in this
activity center, they are shown in blue on the plan map.
Approximately 1/2 of this activity center is already planned or
developed as a major employment center. Ideally, the undeveloped
areas could eventually provide for the location of an additional 10
to 15,000 jobs. Mixed use activity center are areas in the
corridor where a full range of land uses are planned to locate. It
is within these mix use activity centers where shopping centers are
planned to locate. The mixed use activity centers are indicated by
an orange color on the map. The essence of both activity centers
are is mix of complementary land uses, along with urban design
criteria to encourage wa ;ing, bicycling and transit use, as well
as an attractive appeara :e.
The location of future shopping centers has also been debated
extensively among the members of the advisory committee. The land
use map plan shows the potential for 5 new centers in the corridor.
One new regional shopping center is planned to located at the
northeast corner of Harmony Road and College Avenue. Two new
community shopping centers are planned for the northeast and
southwest corners of Harmony Road and Timberline Road. Two new
service centers are planned, one is adjacent to the Golden Meadows
development at McMurry and Timberline Road, and the other planned
center is located for the southwest corner of County Road 9 and
Harmony Road. The five new shopping centers represent
approximately 150,000 to 1.25 million s.f. of new retail and
commercial space in the corridor.
It became evident that in the planning for the location of these
centers, :.hat it was necessary to develop specific definitions for
these centers. They found that the current definitions did not
provide enough description for these centers. They concluded that
the current shopping center definitions in the City Code needed to
be updated to reflect current market conditions to provided
direction for scale and character. New definitions have been
prepared for Neighborhood Service Centers for Community Shopping
Centers and for Regional Shopping Centers. These new definitions
apply only shopping centers located in the Harmony Corridor and not
in the rest of the community. The new definitions describe the
centers in terms of use, size, minimum number of shops, maximum
size of the principal tenant, and general character.
The Advisory Committee and City Staff also spent time discussing
the design of these facilities in terms of their appearance, their
scale, their relationship to the surrounding neighborhoods and
function, and develop new design standards and guidelines for the
corridor.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 21
Mr. Frank turned it over to Clark Mapes to review the design
guidelines.
Mr. Mapes stated that the main concerns of the neighborhood were
things associated with retail development such as light, noise,
traffic impact, exhaust fumes, and scale and character of retail
development. Primary goals were developed out of the residents who
live in the corridor to develop these guidelines. A lot of the
concerns and goals are already promoted in other city policies, in
the Guidance System, and the existing Harmony Corridor Plan. The
standards and guidelines are intended to clarify the intentions of
the Harmony Corridor Plan and augment the policies contained in the
Land Development Guidance System.
There are three elements in the guidelines. Buildings, the site
relationship to surrounding neighborhoods, and mixed land uses.
The intent of the guidelines for buildings is to promote site
specific design rather than formula based development imposed into
neighborhoods. The intent is to promote the derivation of a design
response out of context, whether it is the context of an adjacent
buildings or other relationships to existing neighborhoods. one
aspect of the guidelines, that covers buildings is the image and
detailing of buildings, as well as the massing and the way the
massing shapes space. The guidelines also speak to the
architectural character of buildings.
With regards to the guidelines for relationship to surrounding
neighborhoods. Access and circulation is one of the key points
that the guidelines deal with. They encourage integration of
centers with existing neighborhoods in such a way that the centers
compliment the neighborhoods and generally try to promote a
harmonious relationship rather than an absolute buffering or hard
edges between retail development and surrounding neighborhoods.
One item that is mentioned in the guidelines and not covered in
very thorough detail because it is already covered in existing
policies is the promotion of mixed land uses related to shopping
centers and retail development to the extent that a mix of uses can
be provided in a center or between surrounding residential
development. It can help to integrate all the development together
and promote an end result that looks like a community as a whole
rather than isolated projects.
Mr. Frank stated that in addition to the issues surrounding retail
and commercial development and design, the committee also dealt
with a number of other issues, some of which were unresolved.
There was not the time nor the resources, or they were issues
beyond the scope of the study.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 22
One of the issues the committee spent considerable time discussing
was the division of the corridor's major employment center. One of
the unresolved issues was how much land should be preserved for
basic employers and how much remaining land should be allowed to
develop as secondary uses, such as single family homes. The
conclusion of the committee and city staff, was that this issue was
much broader than just the Harmony Corridor and was beyond the
scope of this study. The committee recommended that this issue be
studied in the context of the entire community as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update, which is scheduled to take place in the
next year.
Another recommendation discussed dealt with the area ease of I-25,
which is not in the city's Urban Growth Area, and therefore is not
part of the Harmony Corridor Plan, but future development is
important to the Harmony Corridor. The recommendation for this
area was that the City and Larimer County and the City of Timnath
enter into a joint planning effort for Harmony Road, east of I-25,
which is compatible with the Harmony Corridor Plan.
Another issue dealt with briefly was dealing with the transfer of
ownership of Harmony Road to the City. Harmony Road is a state
highway and as such, the State controls future widening plans,
speed, improvements to the road, as well as landscaping. The goals
and objectives of the State may not always parallel those of the
community. The recommendation of the committee was, we need to
continue to pursue local ownership of Harmony Road.
The committee also discussed protection of local historic resources
in the corridor. The recommendation in the report include the City
exploring local landmark designation for the few remaining historic
buildings in the corridor. That we should emphasize historic
heritage in the design guidelines standards, and we should provided
the opportunity for historic interpretation as part of the Harmony
bikeway study, which is currently underway.
Another unresolved issue was the relocation of the residents of the
Pioneer Mobile Home Park, which is located on the northeast corner
of Harmony Road and College Avenue. The mobile home park is shown
as a future shopping center. The park is home for a number of low
income families. The committee was very concerned with the loss of
housing and the need to have a viable plan for their relocation.
The committee also identified the need to coordinate the
recommendation of the Harmony Corridor Plan with the Harmony
Bikeway Study. The bikeway has the potential and the opportunity
to be an important link in the Harmony Corridor to achieve many
goals of the plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 23
Lastly, the committee spent considerable time talking about future
market conditions and the need to continually come back the plan
and evaluate the policies and actions recommended to the plan.
There is a recommendation that the plan be reviewed again no later
than 10 years or sooner as needed.
Member Carnes asked about the statement made of 1800 acres
identified as planned or developed or potential major employment
areas.
Mr. Frank replied that the facts presented were that there were
about 1800 acres and about half of that is already developed, which
leaves approximately 900 acres in different size configurations.
Member Bell asked about Harmony
any plans to have a median from
existing median currently is?
Road, the median, and were there
College Avenue down to where the
Mr. Frank replied that there were not any plans currently to
install a median.
Member Bell asked if that has ever been looked at and she thought
there should be a continuation of the median all the way up to
College Avenue.
Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department, replied that the South
College Access Control Plan envisions that eventually College will
have medians in it well south of Harmony. Although there are not
specific plans to implement those medians. There were not any
specific plans to put medians in. However, the access control
function of the median could be evaluated in the context of
specific projects.
Member Bell asked for clarification of the plans in the future to
widen Harmony Road.
Mr. Frank replied that Harmony Road, from I-25 to the railroad
tracks is a major arterial street, then it turns into an arterial.
The plan is for six lanes at such times that additional lanes are
needed. Again, it is a State highway, and it depends upon their
desires for when that extra land would be needed. That was another
issue of local ownership. There were no plans to widen at this
time.
Member Fontane asked if the committee discussed if the City was
infringing on any rights by setting properties aside as a
designated use.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 24
Mr. Frank replied there was a
had a lot to do with that the
basic employers and how much
uses. Allowing the secondaz
respond to the shorter term ma
some neighborhood types of she
on to it longer, probably is
into industrial. How much she
in industrial uses. It was
issue, it is an issue that ne
was a broader community issue
strategies and objectives for
lot of discussion on that issue. It
issue of how much do we preserve for
should be allowed in the secondary
y uses, allows some flexibility to
.ket pressures for residential or for
pping, and to allow property to hold
ghat it would take for it to fill up
ild be in secondary uses and how much
not their mission to look at that
eds to be addressed. He thought it
that we need to look at in terms of
jobs.
Member Fontane asked where the proper arena was to discuss the
economics of that versus incentives and things like that.
Mr. Frank replied that where they ended up was in the Comprehensive
Plan Update.
Member Fontane asked if the Comprehensive Plan was where they would
also look at the transportation system and the volumes that would
accompany the various major employers.
Mr. Frank replied that had already been addressed in the Harmony
Road Access Control Plan. The plan is showing that the volumes can
fit into the projected Harmony Corridor Plan.
Member Walker asked for review of the three types of shopping
centers and the sized limitations, especially on the principal
tenant.
Mr. Frank replied that the committee utilized the existing
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center definition. The three
they looked at was the definition of Neighborhood Service Center,
Community Shopping Center and the Regional Shopping Center.
Examples of the Neighborhood Service Center are Scotch Pines,
Cedarwood Plaza, Raintree Shopping Center and the Crossing Shopping
Center. This center is oriented in meeting the demands from
adjacent neighborhoods. The size of this is 7 -15 acres, although
sites up to 20 acres would be permitted. The square footage is
between 50 and 120,000 s.f. of uses with the opportunity for 10,000
s.f. for secondary uses. It would have more than 6 business
establishments. The principal tenant would be a grocery store,
supermarket, or drug store with a maximum of 49,000 s.f. of floor
area.
The Community Shopping Center is a larger center, designed to
satisfy the demands, not only from the surrounding neighborhoods,
but from the larger neighborhood, or part of the community. The
9 .•
Planning and zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 25
acreage is from 13 to 30 acres, it can range in size from 117,000
to 250,000 s.f., it has more business establishments, and the
principal tenant can be up to 80,000 s.f. in gross leasable area.
The principal tenants could be junior department store, variety
store, a food superstore, a discount department store, or other
kinds of superstores.
The Regional Shopping Center is the largest center in Fort Collins.
Our examples in the corridor is Harmony Market, also the Foothills
Fashion Mall, University Mall, Foothills East. The Regional
Shopping Center would be meeting the demands from the entire
community and some outside the community. This center is 35 - 70
acres, has a 250,000 to 530,000 s.f., and the largest single store
is recommended to be 80,000 s.f. The size of this principal tenant
needs to be revisited when the superstore project is completed.
CITIZEN INPUT
Tim Dolan, 4212 New Hampton Court, stated that this was a good
plan. He thought that the changes made were necessary. The thing
to remember was that nobody got everything they wanted, but
everybody got something they wanted. He hoped the Board
recommended it.
Tom Moore, representing his family, they own a quarter section on
the north side by Hewlett Packard. They have lived, worked, and
invested in Fort Collins for five generations. They have not only
been involved in the life of the community, but also maintain
several businesses including farming since the 18701s. His father
and himself actively participated in the development of the Harmony
Corridor Plan in 1990 and 1991, and are here tonight to convey
their deep concerns, objections, and dissatisfaction with the
update to the plan they are considering.
They believe the draft report and recommendations are neither
visionary nor well thought out in terms of their content. They
appear to them to be lacking in context. Instead they appear to
reflect the desires of City Council to achieve some short term
political gains by mollifying some residential neighbors, as well
as to reward some specific property owners of the corridor with a
windfall of zoning value. This moves, in their opinion, totally
away from the City's reliance on a performance based development
system to one where logic and forethought have gone out the window.
As long-term residents, property owners and business people,
concerned about the future of Fort Collins, they are appalled about
the shortsighted direction of the proposed revisions the plan seems
to be taking. A number of disturbing aspects about the process
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 26
used to arrive at the recommendations. First, the City Council in
June recommended limiting Community/Regional Shopping Centers to
five selected intersections of the Harmony Corridor. Then in July,
the Council placed a six-month moratorium on certain types of
commercial uses. Then in November plan comes out with the same
limitations adopted by the Council in June. It does not appear to
them that the dialogue by interested parties, with the Citizen
Advisory Committee doing much more that fulfill the Council's
specific desires from June to do something about commercial
development. This strikes as a preordained conclusion preceding
old Advisory Committee's works, which makes the Advisory Committee,
in their minds, quite suspect.
Secondly, the mixed use concepts set forth in 1991 plan is being
changed in content. Examples, are that instead of providing
opportunities at each major intersection, these opportunities are
being given to a select group of property owners, rather than
allowing more market sensitive process that was set forth
previously in the 1991 Planning and Zoning Board's plan for the
corridor. Land Use Policies are being amended to work against
them, being able to use their properties that had been set forth in
the first Harmony Corridor Plan, considerations of 1991.
They have dreamed, for example about moving their lumber yard to
the property along with a series of related businesses. The new
plan combines their proper. to basic industrial and some non -
retail businesses. The prey s plan would have had an opportunity
for mixed use on their property. They believe this meant that they
had the option of proposed commercial, industrial, and residential
combinations. With the new plan they seem to be limited to
developing an industrial park or office park.
What they perceive is they were being asked to place property in a
land bank for open space, and therefore devaluating their long-term
investment. They have been good stewards of their land and now are
being punished for it. They are being asked to limit their options
with their quarter section, while immediately across County Road 9,
a shopping center can develop. There is no question in their mind
that the plan also steers away from giving very much residential
guidance to a property owner. They have long thought that they
would have the opportunity to develop a portion of their property
for residential purposes, both multi -family and single family. The
way the language looks, it looks like they were going to be
regulated to a land bank, rather than be afforded the opportunity
to provide housing alternatives to the community.
In short, what they have done with the new Harmony Corridor Plan
was focus on the commercial aspect, ignore all consequences and
relationships with everything else. They believe it is not a very
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 27
logical way to proceed to plan for the future of the community.
the plan also seems to be aimed at changing the rules to knock the
Sullivan/Hayes shopping center to neighborhood activists. This is
another example of ignoring the long-term economic consequences to
Fort Collins. In essence they do disagree that the City has the
ability and duty to examine and re-examine past plans and policies.
Considering how large other parts of the community like North
College Avenue had languished for decades without an iota of
interest from the City in terms of planning.
Their recommendation is to go back and not only look at the
perceived problems of commercial development but examine them in
the context of traffic, employment opportunities, regional, local
commercial needs, and environmental protection.
They believe the plan is currently prepared as flawed because it
lacks a holistic approach. This plan is not a big picture and
certainly deserves to be. They feel a small group can make zoning
changes by political pressure rather than keep the best interest of
the community at heart. They urge the Planning and Zoning Board to
send the draft back to the drawing board for a more comprehensive
look.
Jim Moekler, representing the owners of the property at the
northeast corner of Boardwalk. He read a letter from the property
owners asking for their property to be put in the Neighborhood
Convenience Center zoning, basic industrial and non -retail, for
development of an office park anchored with a sit-down restaurant.
He handed the letter out to the board.
Larry Stroud, stated he has no economic interest from Timberline ,
east. From Timberline to Harmony Market he does. His comments are
ones of principal, not personal economic considerations. In
concept, one of the things that disturbs him about the whole
Harmony Corridor Planning was that he felt that it is needed and
fells that the LDGS has needed to have some additional input into
guidelines, specifically design guidelines. The real disturbing
part is that they take the Moore's concern, and what they have done
with their property is similar to what Post 2001 wanted to do with
the corridor between Loveland and Fort Collins. Only in that case,
what they wanted to do is compensate them for lost rights and lost
land. He thought that they have taken something from the Moore's
if this plan is adopted. He would simply like to suggest that
there may be occasions in the future where we want to maintain the
spirit of the LDGS in a site by site flexibility. He suggested
that we have some mechanism that will allow a future use to be
considered to have a provision in this plan that will reconsider
primary and secondary uses. That does not absolutely set in
concrete what can and cannot be done. This is simply a matter of
fairness in his view.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 28
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED
Member Walker asked what was Mr. Eckman's interpretation of the
issue of the potential taking as the plan is proposing.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that yes, we have to be careful
not to deny landowner all reasonable uses of their property. That
gets to be the argument of what is a reasonable use of the
property. At any given time, there must be some uses permitted on
the property that are reasonable economic uses.
Chairman Clements asked about the concern of limiting the potential
creativity that a user might have on a site by being so
prescriptive hat perhaps there might be neighborhood support for a
potential use on a site and the Harmony Corridor Plan as revised
might state, no, that is not on the list. She has a fear that they
are limiting potential creative uses by a plan of this nature.
Mr. Frank replied that the uses allowed in the basic industrial,
non -retail employment activity center, the only use you could
propose right now would be the larger shopping centers. That was
the difference between the EP, Employment Park Zoning District,
which has no potential for a shopping center. All the other uses,
could be approved as a Planned Unit Development.
Chairman Clements asked about the request for a change on the
Boardwalk/Harmony site.
Mr. Frank replied that they have talker :.o them and he thought that
it would be acceptable and did not see a problem putting it in
blue.
'Member Carnes stated he did not have a problem with allowing major
shopping centers in certain areas. He thought the concern was the
long-term future of Fort Collins. As far as having good sites for
base employment and protecting those areas for the long-term. It
is a community wide issue, but it comes down to less than a handful
of sites that would be suitable in the corridor. He thought that
land owners should not have to hold their breath forever. He would
expect to come out of the Comprehensive Planning process with very
clear recommendations about where in this community we make certain
we have really good sites for major base employment.
Member Fontane asked if there was any consideration to getting a no
net loss kind of policy on the number of acres that are designated
to specific use designations.
Mr. Frank replied that was not something that was discussed on the
committee.
•
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 29
Member Bell commented that she would like to have the language on
secondary uses looked at further.
Member Bell stated it would be helpful to have some sort of map
that would be clearer to understand what is going on currently with
these properties.
#54-94 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DESIGN GUIDELINES
POR LARGE SCALE RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
Claudia Haack -Benedict, Project Planner gave background information
on the moratorium ordinance. She stated Council adopted the
moratorium on superstores on July 29, 1994 and it provided for a
six-month suspension of large retail over 80,000 s.f. The purpose
of the moratorium was to give staff and the community time to study
superstores. What are superstores? What are the issues related to
superstores? To also develop regulations to mitigate the impact.
The process that was developed for the project was to first develop
a citizen advisory committee to guide the process and discuss the
issues. Representatives from various groups and interests in the
community volunteered to serve on the committee.
Ms. Benedict thanked the committee and volunteers for taking part
in the process.
Ms. Benedict stated that another aspect of the process was to keep
the Council, Boards and Commissions, and the general public
informed about the progress of the project and provide
opportunities for input. They have given presentations to Citizen
Planners, the Chamber, an open house was held and advertising was
done on various occasions for opportunities for the public to
•participate.
Ms. Benedict stated that this was another opportunity for public
input and there would be another worksession on December 1, with
another hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board on December
12th, and a hearing before City Council on January 3, 1995.
Ms. Benedict went on to say that the last aspect of the process was
forming a staff team and hired consultants to research superstores
and develop technical recommendations.
The first phase of the project was to evaluate what are superstores
and what are the issues related to superstores. They had a report
done that gave them background information. The report concluded
that superstores can be divided into four general categories. The
first being discount stores, which are about 80,000 s.f. to about
200,000 s.f., and examples are Wal-Mart and K-Mart. The second
category is warehouse clubs that are also very large, 80,000 s.f.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 30
or more, and an example is Sam's Club or Pace Warehouse. The third
category is "category killers", and they start at about 25,000 s.f.
and examples are Toys R Us and Office Depot. The last is outlet
stores mostly found in malls like the one in Loveland. They can be
small at 10,000 s.f. and an example of that in town is the Current
Factory Outlet.
Other characteristics these stores share is that they serve the
entire community and beyond. Their market area is at least the
community. They buy volume and sell value. They offer less
service and lower quality, sometimes selling last year's lines.
The report established that Fort Collins is a very attractive
market for superstores based on our demographics in terms of income
and population growth, and based on the economic trends of the
entire Front Range. Colorado Springs has seen 15 developments of
superstores within the last two years. The report estimates that
in the next 2 to 5 years, we might see approximately 5 to 7 more
stores in Fort Collins. Based on this evaluation, the committee
discussed more specific issues for Fort Collins.
What are the problems regarding superstores? The buildings are
very large and often not very attractive. Currently, improvements
to such developments are pain stakingly negotiated and the
retailers that come in with these type of developments what a "no
frills" image. They don't want to make big investments, and come
in with stock plans that you can find in other communities just as
well.
Another aspect is that the community integration is difficult, and
the committee discussed access, preventing strip development,
better pedestrian and bicycle access, and prevention of sea's of
parking in front of stores. The .committee also heard complaints
about loading times at these types of stores. The Best Buy Store
was used as an example, the sea of parking in front of the store,
the unattractiveness of the store, and the lack of addressing the
community character of Fort Collins.
The committee defined two major objectives. one was to mitigate
mass, and two, to provide better community integration. To achieve
these objectives, for mitigation of mass, a requirement of design
guidelines was recommended and that was what the Board would find
in the draft before them. In the past, we have relied on
guidelines or negotiations, but it seemed appropriate for this type
of development to have more required standards.
Regarding the objective for better community integration, the
recommendations include the design standards, guidelines, and
changes to the LDGS. The recommendations are still in draft form
and beyond the mere architectural features outlined in the design
standards, they do include some approaches that are fairly novel.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 31
Achieving •such things as pedestrian access through multiple
entries. These type of recommendations are not without opposition,
and would appreciate any guidance the Board would give them on
this.
The first objective, regarding the mass mitigation, the committee
discussed the recommended design standards. Addressing issues such
as break up of the facade, working with recesses and projections.
Adding detail features with different colors, texture, and using
quality materials such as brick and native stone. Varying
rooflines with more features, roof plains. Accentuating entryways,
with canopies, arches and raised parapets. The recommended design
standards would also require buildings to conform on all sides, not
just the front facade. Apply all the characteristics to the entire
building.
Ms. Benedict went through slides showing examples of developments
and features more of what our guidelines and standards would
hopefully achieve.
The second objective, community integration, they were not as
specific as the Harmony Corridor Plan, because the moratorium
applied to the entire community. They could not identify a specific
neighborhood and say these are the things that would make it
compatible. It does include finding a balance between good access
for all modes of transportation, and to overall reduce the apparent
scale of the development.
There were members of the community who would like to see it go a
lot further and incorporate come ideas that have come out of the
Congestion Management Plan. It seemed premature to include such
far reaching urban design elements in a project that is so limited
in scope.
The committee recommended, in terms of the design standards, that
we should require more entrances, better screening to adjoining
uses, screen and recess loading and storage areas, more sidewalks
and better connections on the site, and limit the loading and
delivery times or provide for mitigation measures to keep noise
levels down. They also talked about reduction of up front parking
to about 50%. That is one of the issues that is very controversial
and hopefully would be resolved within the next two weeks.
In terms of guidelines, something that would not be a standard
requirement, but something that would be encouraged in the
recommendations, would be to encourage points of community
interest.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 32
Ms. Benedict introduced Tom Vosburg, who would talk about the
measures they were including in the LDGS, mostly transportation
related.
Mr. Vosburg stated there were a couple of revisions to the Land
Development Guidance System that would be proposed to address the
transportation and locational issues related to superstores.
The first revision was a recommendation to revise the LDGS to
require that superstores not be located within 1 mile of the Urban
Growth Area Boundary. The :,:tent was to keep major retail located
closer to ,_e developed u_tanized area rather than out on the
periphery -c the City to reduce the vehicle miles traveled by the
majority of people who shop at these centers. The second revision
would be to require superstores to locate in planned centers along
with other uses. This would be to better manage the traffic
impacts and access into centers than through a series of
uncoordinated stand-alone stores. The third revision would be to
encourage centers to locate at the corner of two arterials. This
is because superstores primarily draw from the entire community and
sites at the corner of two arterials offer better access and more
direct travel. They are proposing to revise the LDGS to encourage
that the centers take access from a non -neighborhood collector
street system. There were two important concepts, first, it was a
system of collector streets that can distribute traffic to two
arterials. Second, that distribution does not unduly impact a
neighborhood. The final revision to the Community/Regional
Shopping Center point chart was a recommendation that the manner in
which joint parking criteria is administered be revised to truly
promote efficient joint parking strategies.
Ms. Benedict stated that the committee also discussed other issues
that have come up in the process of this project and would
recommend a few other points. To develop criteria that would even
further encourage good design. That could be achieved either
through the development of a flexible point chart, as bonus point
chart in the LDGS or totally separate point chart. That would be
something that would be considered after the moratorium ends.
Another recommendation of the committee is to review many other
issues such as the economic impact of superstores, affordable
housing, activity center concept, urban design guidelines based on
the Congestion Management Plan, the distribution and accessibility
of grocery stores. All of these things need a more comprehensive
approach than what was available in this project and the committee
would like to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board and the
Council to consider this in the Comprehensive Plan update or the
Community Dialogue project planned for next year.
• .•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 33
The committee is not recommending a size limit on superstores. The
basis is one, we have an existing policy that we will accept what
ever the market brings to us and mitigate. The recommended design
standards would give a great foundation for that mitigation. Also,
it is very difficult to establish community wide, a public purpose
for a size limitation of individual stores. Unlike in an area like
the Harmony Corridor where there are already be established
neighborhoods.
Chairman Clements asked about the citizen advisory committee
dividing into two groups. One discussing the larger philosophical
issues and the other group looking at design oriented criteria.
What were the guidelines set forth by Council, and how did was
mediation done between the two groups to come up with the following
standards.
Ms. Benedict replied that the moratorium ordinance spoke very
specifically to issues regarding size, location, design, and truck
traffic. That was the scope of work identified. She also would
not say there were two groups. There were some people who would
have liked to discuss other issues, but most of them actually
agreed to say at some point that this goes beyond a six month
project. As long as they had a way to recommend to Council to
consider these issues in the future and not just forget about them,
they would continue to participate in the process.
Member Carnes was mystified that size could not be addressed more
explicitly. They were recommending a revision to the LDGS that
anything over 25,000 s.f. would go into a Community/Regional. On
one hand they are saying no size"limitation, on the other hand they
were looking at size. He was not convinced that they could not say
more about size at this stage or say more clearly than he is
hearing it. His other issue was not being able to resolve in the
scope of the study, the distribution of grocery stores in the
community. If they were to follow the recommendation regarding
buildings over 25,000 s.f. going into Community/Regional, did that
mean they would not consider a 40,000 s.f. grocery in a
neighborhood center of 120,000 s.f. He was uncomfortable with the
lack of resolution regarding questions and issues regarding size.
Member Walker thought there were contradictions on size. on one
hand they were saying for a variety of good reasons, they should be
put into Community/Regional Shopping Centers. He agreed with that.
But yet, by the definition of a Community Shopping Center, being
120,000 to 250,000 s.f. His concern was that with some of the very
large superstores going up to 180,000 to 200,000 s.f. there could
be on tenant creating a community shopping center. Then there
would be a free standing community shopping center. The nature of
community shopping centers was that there was an anchor and other
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 34
tenants to provide a mix of establishments. There seemed to be a
flaw in the argument of not restricting the size. He thought that
it defeated the purpose of what was trying to be done with
community shopping center aspects.
The other thing was the issue of grocery stores. There is a policy
that was being encouraged, distribution of grocery stores
throughout the community in neighborhood service centers. The idea
being that grocery are something people travel to more frequently
than something you wouldfind in a Regional/Community Shopping
Center. He thought that it was a good policy, it reduced vehicle
miles traveled. He thought that there was a potential of creating
a grocery store type operation within a Regional or Community
Shopping Center and that undercut the achievement of the
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center and also somewhat goes
against the definition of a Community/Regional Shopping Center is.
Namely that those are things that appeal to the whole community.
He suggested that they consider how grocery stores are located in
Regional/Community Shopping Centers.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Ira Paul, Architect, stated having read the report, he was curious
as to the intent of the goals and stated objectives. He believed
that there maybe some misunderstanding about how retail business
function. Traditionally, many stores had multiple entrances. They
don't any more, due to them not working. Multiple entrances
duplicate functions within the stores, they require duplication of
cash register locations, they create security problems, and
centralizing these areas have allowed some stores to function in a
more efficient and cohesive manner. It also allows the public to
know where to enter and where to leave.
His second area of concern was the displacement and disposition of
parking in the proposals with regard to the 508 maximum goal
between the front facade and the street. Centers that have had
parking in the back of buildings or on the side have failed due to
safety.
His third question was that the concept of good design relative to
size. A large building well designed can be a good building. A
small building poorly designed can be a bad building. The problem
with large box buildings is that they tend to be 28 to 35 feet
high, but most of the treatment to make them look smaller occurs 14
to 15 feet in the air down to the ground. When you look above the
elements that break the facade, they tend to have long high walls
straight across the building. The building problem can be solved
by treating the entire facade and create a interesting and
articulated surface that works well.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 35
He thought the bigger concern was the system of pick three of these
five parts and that would solve the problem probably was well
intended but would have serious problem in the long run. Each
building should be site specific. There is a probably a best
design for each location within the City. The same building is not
appropriate in two different spots on the same street. He thought
the best result would be achieved by having each particular design
simply subjected to a design review on its own merits. Allowing
good design and well presented it will be approvable. He would
encourage the code to be written in a way simply as a guide, but to
allow the flexibility that good design can be brought forward on
its own merits and approved on its own merits where it is
appropriate. The thought superstores were a more efficient way to
shop, having multiple uses, and provides a significant service to
the community if well designed.
Mike Byrne, lives in Fort Collins, stated his concern was one of
quality. The structures being discussed tonight were ones our
children would inherit. They were building of a scale that to a
very large extent we bet our community on when one is built. If
you look at the history of large boxes, the aesthetics are very
poor. All over the country people are standing up and saying they
do not want to become mediocre communities. To a large extent, the
large boxes can do that. We are at a point in the community where
we have to decide whether we want to be a community standing up for
quality. He thought this was an opportunity to turn things around
for big development and their aesthetics.
Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, also President of Citizen
Planners. Citizen Planners would like to recommend that the size
limitation be revisited on big boxes. He understands that the
moratorium applies to the city at large, but not to forget that we
currently have height limitations that apply to the city at large.
In terms of the question of public good in promoting public safety,
health and welfare, aesthetics pass under the guidelines of general
public health, safety and welfare criteria. We have a sign code
that applies to the entire city.
The basis of the objections of Citizen Planners of not limiting the
size would be to look at what we have today. We currently have
three stores in Fort Collins that are 100,000 s.f. and we know as
a community what that means, we have a feel of the scale and size
and how that fits within our community. Citizen Planners feels
that is the limit for the size of our community. It would be a
shame to go through a six month moratorium and have the City
designate resources, as we have, to look at this issue, and come
out of this moratorium without limiting size and possibly looking
at a 250,000 s.f. super Wal-Mart or K-Mart in Fort Collins. They
did not feel that was an appropriate development for the size of
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 36
this community that is moving toward quality. Not to allow for
what the market is giving us. Our height limitations and our sign
codes are good examples.
Les Kaplan, 1060 Sailors Reef, noted for the record that there were
several other committee members here to address the issue but left
due to the lateness of the meeting.
He too thought that the size limitation should be addressed more.
The committee, in talking about size, they were told it would be a
violation of Interstate Commerce. He thought there would be ways
in working with the City Attorney that the size issue could be
looked at. Right now in the zoning ordinance there are lot to
floor area ratios. He thought that should also be looked at for
some of these larger stores we could set a limit for larger stores
but allow the size of the store to be based on the size of the
property is to some kind of lot to floor ratio.
Mr. Kaplan stated he was on both committees. He thought the
Harmony Corridor Committee made decisions that truly benefited Fort
Collins and was tailored to address the problems. He thought that
on the Big Box Study, the design recommendations that the Board was
seeing came from outside the community. They came from a company
called Clarion & Associates. They came to one meeting, and did not
even stay the entire meeting. They gave the committee a report.
They are not even designers, they are land use lawyers. He did not
know how they got involved and what their qualifications are to
design. The committee did not get any information of where the
design standards have been applied, where they worked, or what the
problems have been. He viewed the guidelines of kind of coming
into town in a way that is not understandable to him and most of
the people on the committee. These standards were not developed by
the committee.
Granted the committee did want design standards and guidelines and
struggled with it. What we have here is something that is separate
from the thought process and separate from what many of the
preferences are of the people who are on the committee. When they
were first given to them, the understanding was that they could
take many forms. They could take the form of being modifications
to the LDGS, they could be guidelines, there could be some
performance criteria. The committee did not learn until the second
version that the staff was intending to make these standards, to
make them laws. They are so specific that to make these laws would
be very inappropriate and really stifle the creative process of
design. What it would do is wide up relegating the staff and
relegating the Planning and Zoning Board to having the ordinance do
the thinking as opposed to us doing the thinking.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 37
He thought there was also confusion about what these design
standards apply to. Do they apply to Harmony Road? Do they apply
to any buildings over 25,000 s.f.? Or, do they only apply to
buildings over 80,000 s.f.?, which really was the charge of the
committee. He thought there were inconsistencies with the Harmony
Corridor Plan.
In summary, he thought that nothing was needed in the form of
standards this rigid. There could be a much better crafted
approach, which did not put us literally in a box in terms of how
we are going to be designing things. He recommended that we have
more input on the design guidelines and standards from the design
community. They have not seen them and have not had a chance to
comment. There was no one from the design community on this
committee, other than one person who did not come to the meetings.
Secondly, he thought it should be considered more from a standpoint
of design criteria and performance standards as opposed to an
ordinance. Thirdly, he thought the size of big boxes should be
considered and it was a serious omission in the study. He
suggested looking at it more of lot to floor area on setting a
limit on size.
Larry Stroud, Committee Member, concurred with Mr. Kaplan. He
stated that they wrestled with capping the size. It was very
difficult. He wanted to remind the Board of a 7-0 decision some 5
or 6 years ago on Pace's third site in Fort Collins. It was a
100,000 s.f. site located on College Avenue on Fossil Creek. There
were not big box guidelines, we had LDGS guidelines. The Board
prevailed in denying a site and a use that was inappropriate on
that site. There were a lot of tools in the Board's bag with the
LDGS. What the committee is trying to do is give some design
guidelines, some ideas of how we can take mass and mitigate it.
Just because it's a retail building does not make it evil. He
thought that they needed some professional planner's input in town
in the next couple of weeks before this gets adopted because there
were come conflicts in the guidelines that would result in a
Western Auto type look fronting on a street. This was not all
peaches and cream. He wanted to remind the Board, if all else
fails, the LDGS does work.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Chairman Clements stated her biggest concern was that there was a
lot of pressure to just get this thing finished. Do we want a
document that we just want finished because City Council has said
that the 6-month moratorium is up and we are not giving you any
more time. She has concerns about that and would entertain in
their recommendation to City Council to take a minimum of three
more months to look at this thing.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 38
She also has concerns about the more entrances problem after
reviewing the documentation, as well as the displacement of
parking. She was concerned about safety in parking in the back and
on the sides of buildings. She thought they should be looked at in
more detail. A concern about being so standard oriented that
neighborhood input is curtailed that the design review at the
neighborhood level prevents neighbors from having an impact on what
they want in a center that will be in their neighborhood and what
it will look like.
She thought is sounded like many people wanted the size limitation
revisited. She remembered that their initial message to City
Council was they felt there were the tools in place to deal with
big box development as they came in.
Design criteria opposed to standards, to we use these as
guidelines, or standards. Do we use the LDGS functioning as it is
today.
Member Carnes thought there was a lot of hope in coming out of this
with more resolution that we have now. He also addressed the size
issue. He echo's Chairman Clements concern about spending more
time on this and doing it right. He encouraged the design
community to get involved.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Eckman if Council could legally extend the
moratorium.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied yes, it would take an ordinance
of the City Council. There must be a limit on how long a
moratorium can be.
Chairman Clements thanked everyone form coming.
OTHER BUSINESS
Member Carnes asked for a motion from the prevailing side for a
motion to reconsider Hugh M. Woods P.U.D. for the purpose of
correcting the record. Having to do with the number of Certificate
of Occupancies that would be issued for this project.
Chairman Clements asked for the information received by the
Planning Department and why it was wrong in the board's report, and
why it needed to be corrected and what the ramifications would be.
Chief Planner Blanchard replied that in the presentation, staff
related to the definition of a superstore as it is in the ordinance
establishing the moratorium; in which, it says that, "Superstores
shall mean any building, or any combination of buildings intended
0 .r
Planning and zoning Board Minutes
November 21, 1994
Page 39
to be used principally for the purpose of retail sales and
marketing, which exceed 80,000 s.f. in size and for which a single
Certificate of Occupancy would be issued." In the case of the Hugh
M. Woods proposal, there was some mis-communication early on in the
process, in which staff understood that it was only the enclosed
structure that would require a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff has
discovered that the outside storage structures would also require
Certificates of Occupancy, anywhere from 1 to 5 that would
accompany the Hugh M. Woods proposal if it is approved.
Chairman Clements asked why that was, given there would be not
persons occupying those structures.
Chief Planner Blanchard replied that there was a structural
component of meeting code, therefore they have to get a C.O.
Chairman Clements asked what that meant in terms of square footage
total for Certificate of Occupancy.
Chief Planner Blanchard replied that it would still be a single
Certificate of Occupancy plus the criteria of exceeding 80,000 s.f.
It does not become a "Big Box" under the Superstore.
Chairman Clements asked if it would be considered a "Big Box" under
the current definition?
Chief Planner Blanchard replied no, not under the moratorium
ordinance.
Member Cottier asked if a motion needed to be made to correct the
record.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied a record has just been made.
The next step, is based upon this new information that corrects
information that was not correct before, if the board desires to
reconsider because board members would change their vote based on
that information, then a motion should be made to reconsider.
Member Cottier asked who decides how many building permits are
needed.
Chief Planner Blanchard replied the Building Department.
Chairman Clements asked if anyone who voted for the motion wanted
to change their voted based upon the new information.
There was no response.
Chairman Clements stated there would be no reconsideration.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m.