HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/08/2005Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 2
Project: Shields Street Lofts (515 South Shields Street —
Project Development Plan, # 15-05
Project Description: Request to demolish the existing single-family house
at 515 South Shields Street and construct a new 3-
story mixed -use building containing 5 two -bedroom
dwelling units and 1,400 s.f. of commercial uses on
.22 acre. The property is located on the west side of
South Shields Street between West Mulberry Street
and West Myrtle Street and zoned NCB,
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
This item was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 2005
Item #4: Shields Street Lofts
(515 South Shields Street)
Project Development Plan
Board Members:
David Lingle
Jennifer Carpenter
Brigitte Schmidt
Butch Stockover
Sally Craig
Steve Olt
Cameron Gloss
Troy Jones
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 MR. LINGLE: First item is Number 4, the Shield
3 Street Lofts Project, 515 South Shields Street, and it is a
4 Project Development Plan. Since this is a continuation of a
5 previously discussed project in the public record -- well,
6 the testimony, that's part of the public record from the
7 previous meeting is still part of our consideration -- I
8 would like to ask both staff and the applicant to maybe focus
9 your presentation on the parts of the project that have
10 changed since the last meeting, and then the audience
members, if there are any that want to speak to that, can
12 address those as well as anything else. Go ahead.
13 MR. OLT: Thank you. As stated, this is the Shield
14 Street Lofts Project Development Plan. It was previously
15 heard on October 20th, and the board deliberated it, and made
16 a determination to continue to tonight's meeting to address
17 several concerns that they had.
18 And, at that time was stated one concern, the
19 amount of parking provided on -site, and the other one was a
20 privacy issue dealing with a large outdoor deck area on the
21 west side, the rear side of the building at the second level
22 potentially overlooking residences to the west.
23 The applicant has resubmitted plans to us for this
24 project. Basically, the project remains the same in the
25 sense that it is still a three-story building. It is a
3
1 three-story building containing five residences or dwelling
2 units, and approximately 1500 square feet of nonresidential
3 uses. The one residential unit would have been on the first
4 floor with a loft up above, and the residences from the
5 second floor with a loft above into the third story of the
6 building.
7 Again, as previously presented to you, along the
8 west side of the building, you can see on the site plan there
9 are 9 parking spaces. These 9 parking spaces constitute the
10 minimum required parking for the nonresidential uses per the
11 land use code and have no minimum parking requirement. There
12 would be a maximum parking allowance for that use, based on
13 the square footage.
14 This resubmittal does contain any additional
15 parking spaces over what you saw on October 20th. Going to
16 the building elevations, looking at the side, this is the
17 north elevation of the building, which would be along the
18 alley. You're looking from essentially the parking lot
19 toward the 7-Eleven to the south, to the north elevation of
20 the building.
21 To the right of the image is the parking area.
22 The 9 parking spaces would be under a canopied area that you
23 can see cantilevering out, and, on both, that would then be
24 residential dwelling units. There now is no longer what was
25 a 25 foot wide outdoor deck or patio. You can see there is a
5
1 the stairs, the second level has been widened by about 10
2 feet. The building is 80 feet longer, for about 800
3 additional square feet of building in this particular case.
4 That outdoor patio has been eliminated. There is a 5-foot
5 walkway in this location that would serve as access to the
6 building units.
7 Putting a scale to and the numbers to a previous
8 plan, the discrepancy isn't really in the amount of square
9 footage in the building. It really has to do with how the
10 numbers were calculated previously. In the old plan, they
11 had identified 5 dwelling units at 1100 square feet per unit.
12 That would be 5500 square feet of residential, and
13 approximately 1500 square feet of commercial, which would be
14 about 7000 square feet of building.
15 We look at the new building, and it's based on
16 specific numbers that we have been given with this
17 resubmittal. We are looking at about 6700 square feet of
18 building. Putting a scale to this, and looking at the
19 outside walls, the first floor is 20-feet deep -- pardon me,
20 30-feet deep.
21 The second floor is now 40-feet deep versus the 30
22 on the first floor and the 30 on the second floor. If you
23 were to go,back to the old plan, that would yield about 53 to
24 5400 square feet of leasable floor area, which was
25 inconsistent with the number that had been given to you on
0
1 the staff plan or in the site report previously, on the
2 numbers that were provided on the site plan.
3 We are going to have to ask the applicant to
4 clarify the reason for the discrepancy in those numbers.
5 However, the building that I am presenting to you tonight
6 really is no larger than the building that was proposed to
7 you on October 20th, in terms of square footage that was
8 indicated within the building.
9 The height of the building is essentially the
10 same. There has been a change in the height of the building.
11 This was approximately 30 and a half feet in height with a
12 small element on the front of the building up here about 33
13 and a half to 34 feet high. The roof line now has been taken
14 up to that maximum height, the 33-feet-something inches,
15 basically all the way across, and, again, the applicant will
16 provide you with additional information as to why that has
17 changed.
18 But, again, the building size, scale, and mass
19 would be similar or the same as what was previously
20 presented. So those are the changes that have been presented
21 and are before you tonight, and I will then end my
22 presentation and welcome any questions of the board.
23 MR. LINGLE: Are there any questions of staff
24 before we go on to the applicant? Okay. Could we have the
25 applicant then?
7
1 THE
APPLICANT:
Thank you. Mr.
Lingle,
Chairman,
2 and members of
the board,
I just wanted to
follow
up on one
3 of the points that was brought up at the work session on
4 Friday, and Steve had indicated that I would follow up on
5 that issue to start with. Previously, on the site plan, we
6 had indicated 1100 square feet per unit, and we inadvertently
7 only represented the top end of each unit. They were up to
8 1100 square feet per unit; however, we didn't represent
9 previously that they would be potentially less than 1100
10 square feet per unit.
11 And the reason why, right now, is we are in the
12
site planning stage. We look at
the outside of the building.
13
We look at the building massing.
We look at the total
square
14
footage, but we didn't, per se,
go into the details of
where
15
are the party walls between the
units and that sort of
thing.
16
So we gave a kind of ballpark of
the 1100 square feet.
And I
17
apologize for the confusion, but
that was kind of the maximum
18 previously.
19 So, if you add up 1100 square feet times the
20 dwelling units, obviously, you will get a really high square
21 footage, and that is all that Steve had to go off of. And,
22 obviously, if you look through our previous submittal, we
23 inadvertently didn't tell you, here's the total building
24 square footage; however, these units will be split up between
25 that.
0
1 And I apologize for the confusion, but we
2 calculated the building square footage that had been drawn.
3 Basically, we looked at our old drawings in Auto CAD, and
4 basically, you draw up the shape and you ask it what is the
5 square footage.
6 So, previously, the square footage was 4942 as
7 shown on the elevations that Steve just showed you, and now
8 we are at 6677, which is approximately a difference of about
9 1600 square feet. And what that entailed and -- do you mind
10 forwarding to the site elevation?
11 The one that has the over/under. Okay. I would
12 like to just show you the before and after, both the north
13 and the south elevation. If you recall how previously on the
14 top, we had this deck that had some kind of outdoor spaces
15 for the units, and we heard real clear, and you made some
16 very good points about why that deck was a problem. And we
17 have obviously rectified that, and we would like to talk
18 about that in a minute.
19 But, ultimately, the difference between the two
20 elevations, on the top, what you will see is 10 feet narrower
21 on the second and third floor and on the bottom. So the
22 whole length of our building, approximately, 80 feet by an
23 additional 10 feet on the second floor, and -- well, the
24 second and a half story, I guess you would call it.
25 So that is where, basically, the 1600 feet comes
1 from, the additional. So that is kind of the first point,
2 just to clarify that. That was asked at work session, and I
3 said that I would be happy to track that down and try to
4 clarify that issue.
5 I submitted to you a response to the continuance,
6 and basically in the continuance there was a number of items
7 that were quoted as code citations as to why the project was
8 continued. And we should come back with either more clear
9 reasons as to why we were going that direction or revisions
10 that address the things that you all had said.
11 And like I started to mention to you a few minutes
12 ago, you also brought up a very good point about the privacy,
13 with the deck as shown out there. And it really didn't occur
14 to us until when it came up, and the neighbors had mentioned
15 it. And you all agreed that the deck that we had on the
16 second floor overlooking the rest of the neighborhood could
17 have a real adverse effect on the neighborhood from a privacy
18 standpoint.
19 And we have changed that, and what that is, is a
20 combination of architectural things that accomplish that.
21 So, previously, as you can see up here, we had the deck, but
22 now we have got an additional 10 feet.
23 we have got the 5 foot -- I guess you would call
24 it a walkway that accesses the unit. It's not a deck at all.
25 It is just wide enough to get people in and out of the units,
11
1 their goals are? And what do the rules really say about
2 that?
3 And I would argue starting out with the spirit of
4 the code. If you make it to where everybody that uses every
5 building always has a place to park at all times, you are
6 going to get people always driving through a building. That
7 is human nature, and I think that the City Plan translated
8 into land use code -- you know what? We acknowledge that is
9 not the direction that Fort Collins intends to go. We want
10 people to be motivated to choose and to have a viable reason
11 to use other modes of transportation.
12 So parking is going to be a little bit
13 inconvenient, and therefore, what the City came up with in
14 1997 as a result of City Plan and the visions entailed with
15 City Plan was residential units must have a certain minimum
16 amount of parking. Yes, they will need that. Commercial,
17 let's let the market decide how much parking they think they
18 need; however, the City is not going to require any.
19 And if a business wants to come in and not provide
20 any, obviously, they will cater to their users that don't use
21 any. So that's the fundamental philosophy, and that is
22 really where we are with it.
23 Do we have a land use code that said that there
24 was no parking maximums for commercial for a reason? And
25 what was that reason basically based on? What I just
12
1 explained, or was there a spirit of the code that they
2 missed? And I would argue the City Council, when they
3 adopted that, they didn't miss what they intended. They were
4 clear about what they intended, and they intended that there
5 was no required parking for commercial uses.
6 And you don't see this a lot in city zoning and
7 planning boards, that they don't propose any parking for
8 their commercial uses. However, it's near campus where you
9 can walk, where a student that lives in this place can walk
10 to campus, where they can walk to 7-Eleven without getting in
11 their car and going somewhere, where you have got a mixed -use
12 building, where you have got Campus West within walking
13 distance with a variety of retail with a variety of
14 institutional, commercial, and other residential uses.
15 I mean, if not there, then where would it be
16 appropriate for this? And I would argue that, yes, it's a
17 tough decision, and I understand, and I sympathize with the
18 struggle that you have all gone through the last time.
19 And I'm sure as you are reading through all of the
20 information again this time, you are struggling with it as
21 well. But, if not here, then where in Fort Collins? And I
22 think that fundamentally this is what was intended, and I
23 agree that it's tough.
24 However, I think the code is clear; no parking for
25 commercial is required. It's clear as well, that you are
13
1 allowed to put certain hours of restrictions of certain
2 things on approvals. However, that was one of the issues
3 that came up last time, was whether or not a portion of the
4 code dealing with project compatibility in 3.5.1J says, yes,
5 you have got to have more parking.
6 And I would argue that if you look at the
7 word-for-word language of 3.5.11 -- I would like to read and
8 I think that is fundamentally the big question here tonight.
9 It says, 113.5.1 Building Project and Compatibility
10 J, Operational Physical Compatibility Standards. The
11 following conditions may be imposed upon the approval of
12 development applications to ensure that the new development
13 will be compatible with existing neighbors and uses,
14 including but not limited to restrictions on" -- and the one
15 that was quoted was the second -- "location on site
16 activities to generate potential adverse impact on adjacent
17 uses, such as noise and glare."
18 Noise and glare are different from parking, and,
19 in addition, it says, "restrictions on" -- where is it?
20 where is the location? Where did I see that? Yeah,
21 "restrictions on locations on -site activities to generate
22 noise and glare."
23 So we are talking now about noise or glare, and I
24 realize this is a "such as," but I would argue they are
25 talking about the location of the site in 3.5.1J of things
14
1 that have adverse impact and not whether or not parking -- I
2 think it would really be a stretch to say that you have to
3 have parking because 3.5.1J says that you do.
4 It's talking about how you locate things that are
5 and are not allowed on the site and make it the most
6 compatible. It can be given the constraint that you have
7 there.
8 So I think that I want to close my presentation,
9 and I will be open for questions, but I just wanted you to
10 kind of take the big picture view that I talked about, and I
11 know that it is going to be a tough decision, and I know that
12 you are going to have a lot of neighbors that are going to
13 have a lot of strong opinions about how this is going to
14 affect their neighborhood.
15 But I think they consciously made this decision,
16 and I think that it is really clear that they made this
17 decision, and we're compatible with the letter of code. And
18 I would just like to close with that. Thank you.
19 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Are there questions of the
20 Applicant?
21 MS. CRAIG: Now, I have a question. Let's see, I
22 was noticing one of your responses had to do with building
23 and project compatibility. Architectural -- it would be the
24 one that I was looking at in the area. And I guess my
25 question is, I would like to hear your rationale for how this
Wi
1 term, because according to the land use code in a residential
2 zone, such as this -- and there has been an interpretation
3 that clarifies that -- it can be up to 12 and a half feet.
4 So you could have -- on the elevation, you could
5 have basically 25 feet to the top of the second story. This
6 zone district allows 3 stories, so, you know, on a third
7 story, you could have another 12 and a half feet on top of
8 that. So that is 37 and a half feet, according to zoning, if
9 you maximized what the code and the subsequent interpretation
10 allows you to do.
li However, a half story is not as much a difference
12 in height that you would get in a third story. That is a
13 basic difference is massing.
14 MS. CRAIG: Of course, this is relating to
15 compatibility. So I was curious, are there two-story houses
16 across the street from this, and, if so, are they the
17 standard, like 24, 26 feet?
18 THE APPLICANT: I'm pretty sure, but I don't know
19 off the top of my head. There are houses across the street,
20 directly east. There is a -- catty -corner, like I said, to
21 the west.
22 MS. CRAIG: To the west?
23 THE APPLICANT: To the west, I believe they are
24 primarily one story, but they are different zones in both
25 cases. Across the street to the west and to the -- excuse
17
1 me -- to the -- across the street to the east, across Shields
2 and across the property boundary to the west, neither are
3 NCB.
4 And NCB is a zone that is specifically called out
5 as a taller zone than either of those. NCB is a zone -- you
6 will see it along Mulberry Street, for example, east of
7 College Avenue and you will see it on Shields Street
8 periodically here, and then again to the south of the campus,
9 west.
10 And, when you read through the purpose statement
11 of the NCB zone, which this is, it is intended to be a buffer
12 between the residential uses and a busy arterial or a busy
13 activity center. So that is why this is clearly a different
14 type of building. The zoning is different, and being on
15 Shields is different as well.
16 MS. CRAIG: 'Okay. Now was the lot south of it, is
17 it also an NCB?
18 THE APPLICANT: The lot directly to the south of
19 it? So directly to the west of this lot is RL, which is
20 residential.
21 MS. CRAIG: I'm curious south.
22 THE APPLICANT: South is NCB, and that owner -- we
23 had a couple of neighborhood meetings, as you have seen in
24 your minutes from last time. That owner is ver
y interested
25 in doing something very similar to what we are doing, as far
m
1 as redeveloping his property.
2 And, at one point, we were talking about teaming
3 up, but the timing didn't really work and kind of doing one
4 project together. So you may be seeing that in the future.
5 However, it is NCB, and it's a one story.
6 MS. CRAIG: And the one to the north is also NCB,
7 so if it ever developed, it could also be three stories?
8 THE APPLICANT: Yes.
9 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
10 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Questions?
11 MR. GLOSS: i had a question for the applicant.
12 You made a statement about square footage under the original
13 submittal, then your revised submittal. And it just seemed
14 to me, just going over the numbers, that is a little bit over
15 1800 square feet of difference between the two. I was
16 wondering if you could explain the bedroom count between the
17 two submittals, and the reason that I ask is because the
18 parking standards are based on the number of bedrooms per
19 unit.
20 THE APPLICANT: It's still two bedrooms per unit.
21 we are adding space in, you know, the rest of the unit.
22 Larger bedrooms, larger living rooms, but not any extra
23 bedrooms. And it is real clear on the plans that there are
24 two bedrooms, and it would -- we couldn't get a building
25 permit or CO if we tried to do three bedrooms. That's the
19
1 way I understand it anyway.
2 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: I just wanted to make sure that I am
4 reading and understanding the plans correctly, because when I
5 see the diagrams on the first floor, the building is
6 separate, but then on the top floor, it goes over the
7 breezeway. So it's connected?
8 THE APPLICANT: Right.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
10 THE APPLICANT: So that's basically the front from
11 Shields looking at the building right there.
12 MS. SCHMIDT: The other question -- and I don't
13 know if this is for you or for Steve, but let's assume that
14 market factors take over and because either people can't park
15 at the commercial or their cars get towed from the 7-Eleven
16 lot or they just choose not to walk there.
17 MS. CRAIG: And it becomes unfeasible to maintain
18 that as commercial, and what sort of options are available?
19 Could you turn that bottom portion into residential, but then
20 it's no longer a mixed -use building? And does that change
21 regulations? You know, I'm just looking at the future, if
22 things don't work, what would happen and how would that
23 affect everything that we are approving now?
24 MR. OLT: You couldn't change that to residential,
25 because one additional residence dwelling unit, even with one
21
1 demand for in -and -out parking on an hourly, daily basis with
2 not a lot of employees.
3 MR. LINGLE: Okay. My other question I think is
4 probably for Paul or possibly Cameron or Steve. If we accept
5 the premise that the land use code intentionally does not
6 require any parking, does the P&Z board have any
7 responsibility, I guess for lack of a better word, to review
8 a project like this in terms of, if these uses fail because
9 of the fact that there is no parking at all, and we are left
10 with empty store fronts on that street face, is that
11 something that we should consider in our deliberations, as
12 far as being an adverse neighborhood impact or not?
13 MR. OLT: I think you should just measure these
14 applications by law that you have in the land use code, and
15 not measure them by some extraneous or ambiguous standard
16 that you might have in your mind about what empty store
17 fronts might be like.
18 And chances are if those store fronts are empty,
19 they will just lower the rental rates until the store fronts
20 are not empty, because some rent is better than no rent.
21 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Other questions?
22 MS. SCHMIDT: Troy, on one of my set of plans, and
23 I'm not sure if it is part of that diagram, it said something
24 to the north, it said "new 25-foot alley" or something, and I
25 wasn't sure if that was in addition to the alley that was
22
1 there or if it was going to be repaved or improved somehow.
2 THE APPLICANT: Repaved is what we meant by the
3 "new." Where you see the light gray on the alley is the
4 repaving facing the right-of-way that is existing.
5 MS. SCHMIDT: In that alley, if people do park
6 alongside the alley, does anyone enforce that or is -- do you
7 know, Steve, is that wide enough if a car is parked for
8 another car to get by?
9 MR. OLT: I don't know if I can effectively answer
10 that question. Obviously the sidewalk for this project, as
11 shown on the north side of the building, will go right to the
12 edge of the alley and then to the edge of the building. So
13 there wouldn't be any room for vehicles to park along the
14 north side of this building.
15 I can say, physically, along the south side of the
16 7-Eleven building, there is room. I can say that only
17 because when I was out here taking pictures, I parked along
18 the south side of the building for just a minute of two.
19 But, that is certainly if the property owner has the ability.
20 That is not designated as parking space. That property owner
21 has the ability to enforce illegal parking in that location,
22 I'm sure.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: But I'm just wondering as the alley
24 goes down behind the houses, what happens then, if someone
25 just sort of pulls in alongside something?
23
1 MR. OLT: This is, in fact, pretty much standing on
2 the sidewalk on Shields Street looking west. So that you can
3 see, currently, there is a little cottage on the property,
4 which is just to the left of the slide of the property in
5 question.
6 Now, that area would disappear with the
7 construction of this project. This is the existing alleyway.
8 That's the 7-Eleven and small store front that is attached to
9 the 7-Eleven to the right. As you can see, that is my car
10 parked there. There is enough room to park a couple of cars.
11 Legally parked, I suspect not.
12 Certainly the property owner would be able to
13 enforce that. That won't change with the construction of
14 this project, but that certainly cannot depend on that
15 parking there for the residents or the users of the Shields
16 Street lots. And that has been expressed, as you know, a
17 concern of both the garage to the rear of this building, as
18 well as the 7-Eleven site.
19 MR. LINGLE: Other questions? All right. If not,
20 we will open the meeting up to public comment at this time.
21 Could I get a show of hands as to how many people would like
22 to speak to this item? About 10. Okay. What I would like
23 to do is to ask if you could restrict your comments to about
24 three minutes, and come on down to the podium. We would like
25 you to give us your name and address for the record and then
24
1 also sign the log.
2 No. You're at the podium. And if you could give
3 us your name and address and sign the log.
4 THE SPEAKER: My name is William W. Moseley
5 (phonetic). I live at 2817 Waconda Drive, Fort Collins. I
6 do not live in the neighborhood, but I attend the church that
7 is just across the street.
8 And that church, as some of you may know, is the
9 governing body, in part, of the Elder House Adult Daycare
10 Center. We began that daycare center some 25 years ago.
11 It's now a semi-independent corporation, but we continue to
12 subsidize it.
13 So we as church members, have an interest in the
14 well-being of the church, as well as the Elder House. My
15 question is this: I believe, if I understand correctly,
16 these apartments will have five two -bedroom dwelling units,
17 which is 10 bedrooms. I would like to ask, first of all, how
18 many inhabitants, how many occupants, might be in these 10
19 bedrooms?
20 MR. LINGLE: We'll take your comments, and then we
21 will have the staff address those things after all of the
22 public testimony.
23 THE SPEAKER: That is a potential of 20
24 automobiles, if you have two people in each bedroom and very
25 often students have their own automobiles. So the potential
25
1 for the number of automobiles or the occupants for the
2 dwelling units is far greater than the number of parking
3 spaces available that the builders would provide, that the
4 developer would provide.
5 One of my questions is where are those people
6 going to park, students, or whatever they may be? And I
7 would suggest that there needs to be some safeguard ensured
8 for the parking area of the Elder House and of the church so
9 that those inhabitants do not encroach upon space, which is
10 reserved, legitimately so, for the users of the church and
11 for the Elder House. And that is my major concern.
12 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. I would like to ask
13 people, we do have two podiums, so if you want to come on
14 down and line up behind the podium, that would help us.
15 THE SPEAKER: My name is John Sanderson (phonetic).
16 I live at 1012 Sunset Avenue, which is four homes east of the
17 project site, and when I was here last time at the last
18 meeting, my biggest concern at that point was how the project
19 is not compatible with the neighborhood area, the residential
20 area.
21 As you heard last time, we are at least 50 percent
22 owner -occupied in there. And, as you've seen in these photos
23 here, it's a lot of one-story dwellings in that area. The
24 church is the largest structure in the area, by far.
25 But it also became clear last time that we really
27
1 from a second story, obstruct views to the west from our
2 neighborhood.
3 But the area that I think applies most
4 significantly to Mr. Lingle's question earlier of whether or
5 not we can take some other avenue to address the parking
6 issue, I said last time and I will say it again, that I think
7 it's preposterous to think that there will not be parking
8 provided for the commercial establishment.
9 The code is very clear in 3.2.3G that in no cases
10 shall shared parking include parking required for residential
11 use. So residential parking is off limits. But the
12 important part is up here where it simply states that, "All
13 vehicular use in any proposed development shall be designed
14 to be safe." This is 3.2.3D. "All vehicular use areas in
15 any proposed development shall be designed to be safe."
16 Well, there's a very obvious place that folks are
17 going to park when they come to this commercial development,
18 because 7-Eleven and the folks there and the folks at the
19 garage are not going to appreciate them parking on the south
20 side of their buildings there.
21 So they are going to park across the street on
22 Sunset Avenue. They are going to park across from Shields
23 Avenue on Sunset, and that is what the stores are going to
24 face. And Shields is a very busy street, and Mulberry is a
25 very busy intersection.
9.1
1 I've tried to cross there many times. There is a
2 crosswalk at Sunset Avenue and Shields. Even at the
3 crosswalk it's precarious to cross Shields Avenue. And so I
4 would like to submit that the parking continues to be nowhere
5 close to adequate for this particular development. So, I've
6 taken up more than my time. Thank you.
7 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Next.
8 THE SPEAKER: Carolyn (inaudible). My husband and
9 I own 1124 West Myrtle. That's four lots to the west of this
10 new building. The alley is nowhere near wide enough for
11 two-way traffic under normal circumstances.
12 My husband and I go a couple of times a year to
13 clean out the area between the alleyway and the back of our
14 fence, which gets impacted with cigarette wrappers and so
15 forth from 7-Eleven. And when we pull our truck over -- and
16 we don't have a big truck; we just have a little Ford
17 Ranger -- people have difficulty getting around us one at a
18 time.
19 So, if people try to park along that alley, there
20 is going to be major chaos. My husband and I have rented for
21 a good 25 years in Fort Collins, first in Loveland, and all
22 of our tenants, all of our two -bedroom units always have two
23 vehicles, always.
24 The last time I knew students who only had
25 bicycles, I would say, would probably date back to 1968.
29
1 This is a mobile society. If we don't provide for parking,
2 there is no way that this is going to work. It will be
3 chaos.
4 The tow companies will makes lots and lots of
5 money, because the people who own those properties will be
6 having vehicles towed from their driveways and from the
7 alleyway. There is no other way that it is going to -- this
8 is not going to work unless you provide for proper parking.
9 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Next.
10 THE SPEAKER: My name is Laura Williams (phonetic),
11 and I'm the owner of 1020 Sunset Avenue, which is just two
12 spaces over from where this development will be. This is
13 currently a rental property.
14 However, I would have to agree with the gentleman
15 who just spoke. I think that folks are going to definitely
16 park where they see parking, and that's going to be right in
17 front of where the property is.
18 I care very much about this neighborhood, even
19 though I don't live in the neighborhood. I think that I may
20 even move back in the area. Even if I don't, I care very
21 much about whether my tenants have parking, and I think that
22 you are definitely going to have to take this into
23 consideration. So thanks, very much.
24 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes?
25 THE SPEAKER: Andrew McMann (phonetic), 605 Monte
30
1 Vista Avenue. My backyard is up against the Baptist church
2 on Shields. I would like to echo the comments that John
3 eloquently made, and I firmly believe that the parking issue
4 has not been adequately addressed, and there is going to be
5 overflow parking at the 7-Eleven and Monte Vista, as well as
6 increased traffic. This is just going to be a nightmare and
7 unsafe. Thank you.
8 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
9 THE SPEAKER: If I can look for the photographs
10 that I took today, and I don't know if there is any way that
11 I could use these, or the ones that I have taken, but I think
12 that I have a couple that they didn't present. Is that
13 possible?
14 MR. LINGLE: I don't know.
15 THE SPEAKER: Maybe I could just run through the
16 ones that you had, and they will be on there. Okay. Could
17 we just -- my name is Ronnie Estelle (phonetic), and I live
18 at 1012 Sunset Avenue. Mostly what I want to address is
19 within the code 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility with
20 our neighborhood, and will address Point A and B with a
21 purpose, and the architectural character.
22 But it would be helpful to be able to see our
23 neighborhood. Okay. You can pass along. The first -- this
24 is a good one. Thanks. The first thing that you start to
25 notice is the height of the building in our neighborhood. It
32
1 the context of the surrounding area.
2 The architectural character, part B, says here,
3 "That with new developments in or adjacent to existing
4 developed areas, shall be compatible with the established
5 architectural character of such areas." And what we have
6 seen of the plan, it in no way matches the established
7 architectural character of the area. Let's -- maybe we could
8 see some more pictures.
9 Most of the houses in our area -- I guess we are
10 only going -- there is a two-story brick building. Most of
11 the houses in our area -- you don't quite see it in the
12 picture -- are one story, wooden lap houses, and they are
13 quite simple.
14 Some of them are brick, but they are not, you
15 know, multistory buildings. And they have rather simple
16 characteristics that would not be compatible with what the
17 developer is proposing. That is all that I want to say.
18 Thank you.
19 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
20 THE SPEAKER: My name is Allen Bertrand (phonetic),
21 and I live at 2136 Eastwood Drive, and I have nothing to do
22 with this. I came here for the Timberline Center rezoning,
23 but sitting here in the audience listening to this plan, I
24 think you've got to be kidding me, five, two -bedroom units on
25 the second and third floors and commercial on the main floor
33
1 and 9 parking spots? I mean, get real. Come up with a
2 credible plan. That's all that I have got to say.
3 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
4 THE SPEAKER: My name is Amy Yakolev (phonetic),
5 and I live at 1008 Sunset Avenue, and I too would like to
6 echo my concerns for the parking. The alley is part of my
7 morning run, so I see a lot of what happens there early in
8 the morning. And the 7-Eleven has a building unattached to
9 it to the south, which looks vacant, but I noticed a couple
10 weeks ago that there was a meeting being held in there.
11 And what I saw was the 7-Eleven parking lot
12 completely full, and at the white house. So I am going to
13 point to where that is. All along here were seven cars
14 parked. This parking situation is a huge concern, and as
15 proposed, it is not going to work, and I, too, would echo
16 that this building is out of character. It's much too big
17 for this neighborhood. Thank you.
18 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Next.
19 THE SPEAKER: My name is Chris Johnson (phonetic).
20 I live at 613 Armstrong Avenue. Two points, and they've been
21 brought up many times. Again, the parking, iterating that,
22 again, that it is a large problem. I was a little bit late,
23 so I didn't hear it.
24 At the previous meeting, we had talked about the 9
25 parking spots that were allowed, and then the issues that
34
1 were involved with that with one of those becoming a
2 handicapped parking spot, and I didn't really know if they
3 addressed any of that, as far as required spots, one of them
4 being handicapped. And therefore there is really only 8
5 spots that are designated for regular parking for the tenants
6 and how that is being dealt with.
7 And the other thing I'm concerned with is, again,
8 the compatibility. This was an issue that we had in the
9 previous meeting. And, in the new plans that we have now,
10 the size of the building has actually increased by 10 feet
11 and width another 80 feet. And now the building is even a
12 larger mass, so I see that as a real problem.
13 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
14 would like to speak to this item?
15 THE SPEAKER: My name is Andrew Wardoch (phonetic),
16 and I live at 600 Monte Vista, which is about a half a block
17 east of this proposed site, and I have got a nice view of the
18 foothills, and I can see it clearly through the trees in the
19 winter and can see the sunset and so on, and I would like to
20 preserve that view.
21 It's part of the reason why we bought the house in
22 the neighborhood, and I think it adds to the quality of life
23 in the neighborhood. I think there is an ancient rule or old
24 rule that you are never supposed to build higher than the
25 church in the community, so I think that we should stand to
35
1 that old rule.
2 And I agree with every previous concern about
3 parking. I think that is the most serious out of all of the
4 concern. If students fill these apartments, they are going
5 to pack as many students as they can into each apartment, and
6 each student has a car, and we have seen that in our
7 neighborhood where there are four or five students living in
8 a house, and they all have cars and they are parking on the
9 grass and lawns, and so on. So I am very concerned about the
10 parking. Thanks.
11 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
12 THE SPEAKER: My name is Sally Leigh (phonetic). I
13 live at 932 Pioneer, and I first want to say that I am a big
14 proponent of Infill (phonetic). I think that it's important
15 to what we are doing here, and I appreciate the work that
16 everybody has done with this. And I have a couple of
17 concerns, too. And, of course, the parking is a big one, and
18 is there going to be enough parking for everybody?
19 And I missed the last meeting, so I apologize if I
20 am being redundant about this, but we have worked really hard
21 in our neighborhood to develop a sense of community. And it
22 started initially because of some of the student issues that
23 we have had to deal with.
24 I'm a block north of CSU. I am going to have
25 students, but we have got a pretty cohesive group of
36
1 residents, and this year has been much better than last year
2 because of some of the work that we did last year and also
3 because of some of the work that CSU has done.
4 And I guess that one of the things that I see
5 consistently is that we are getting more and more traffic
6 down Sunset. People are cutting down Sunset to avoid that
7 corner of Mulberry and Shields, and that could be even worse
8 with this project.
9 So that is my big concern about it. And I was
10 hoping that maybe we could have big cement poured on that
11 street or something so that it would create a big speed bump,
12 and that people wouldn't be going through there. But I do
13 think that we need to consider these projects really
14 carefully, because I think it can improve the quality of the
15 neighborhood. However, the parking is a concern. Thank you.
16 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
17 THE SPEAKER: My name is Nancy Holquist (phonetic).
18 I live at 912 Pioneer. I have a question for the developer.
19 I would like to know if there's a possibility of making a
20 profit with a smaller building and more parking.
21 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Anyone else tonight?
22 Okay. I see none. I'm sorry. Okay.
23 THE SPEAKER: My name is Sue Lee (phonetic). I
24 live at 939 Pioneer, and it's about four houses down from the
25 project. I've been involved in this from the beginning, and
W
1 oh, well, they can park along the alleyway. That is, first
2 of all, against the law. I'm not sure that we should be
3 talking about saying that that is a solution to the parking
4 problem.
5 Secondly, you know, it was an unfortunate issue
6 that the City, on the planning and zoning part, does not have
7 any required parking for commercial units, but that doesn't
8 mean that you can just say, well, since that is not -- can we
9 satisfy the zoning law. I think that you really have to take
10 the neighborhood impact and safety into consideration,
11 otherwise, I am not sure why we need a zoning board.
12 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
13 would like to speak to this item? Okay. If not, let's --
14 maybe we could take staff responses first. Steve, the very
15 first question was based on bedrooms and number of occupants.
16 Is there anything that you can share on that? Maybe just
17 reiterate how the parking requirements are based.
18 MR. OLT; well, the land use code obviously sets
19 forth a minimum parking requirement for residential, based on
20 the number of bedrooms, not necessarily the number of beds.
21 There is also an ordinance in the land use code dealing with
22 number of nonrelated residents.
23 The City has been through that for some time now,
24 and that's an enforcement issue, certainly trying to
25 anticipate that is something that is a little difficult to
39
1 apply to the requirements of the land use code, without, you
2 know, any code violations, you know, occurring until they
3 actually do. So, again, I don't know what control there
4 would be over how many beds could be in a particular bedroom.
5 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. The other question
6 that I heard that I think that maybe you could address, I
7 think it's 3.5.1 A and B concerning compatibility and height.
8 And the quotation about established architectural nature of
9 the neighborhood.
10 I guess the question that was raised with me with
11 the NCB zone where this was supposed to be transitional and
12 encouraging higher densities and potentially taller
13 buildings, to make the transition, how would a project ever
14 be deemed in compatibility with an established character,
15 when it is considerably less dense?
16 MR. OLT: Right, and that is obviously somewhat
17 subjective, I think. But if you look at the materials and
18 you look at the size, scale, and mass of the building, yes,
19 it's two and a half to three stories in height, similar,
20 overall, to the church. I believe that it is.
21 As you can see, from the slide that we passed by
22 briefly, the building at the northeast corner of Mulberry and
23 Shields is,a two-story brick structure, which this building
24 would be. it would be approximately the same height to the
25 pitch of the roof, and mass wise, it's a fairly large older
40
1 home, two-story home.
2 Right next door, that's a brick building with a
3 store front, and certainly there is store front glass that
4 would emulate basically what is going to be on the first
5 floor of this building. The church itself carries the same
6 kind of material as you would see in this building.
7 Height -wise, the church would be approximately the
8 same height of that structure that -- the State Farm office I
9 just indicated. Two blocks to the south is where you would
10 start to see two-story buildings in the form of that vacant
11 fraternity house.
12 And then it moves into the fraternity and sorority
13 houses, and some multifamily, and you go back on Birch
14 Street. So two to three to four blocks is where you start to
15 find the height. I don't deny that the majority of homes in
16 the area on all four sides are one-story structures. Is it
17 fair to say that compatibility means, like, in the sense that
18 because you are putting a building into a one-story
19 residential neighborhood, that one-story homes are the only
20 things that are compatible with that? I think that would be
21 very hard to demonstrate.
22 If you look at the makeup of how any city is
23 constructed, what was implemented into the land use code and
24 buildings being able to be up to three stories in height, and
25 in this case that Shields Street is almost to the corner of
41
1 two arterial streets with the commercial already there.
2 You are looking at a transitional area, small as
3 it may be, from lower density residential to buildings of
4 this nature, mixed -use buildings, or even commercial
5 buildings that could occur. But when it was implemented into
6 the land use code that these building heights could occur, it
7 also implemented into the land use code architectural
8 aspects,
so that you
couldn't
just
put, literally,
a box,
9 two- to
three-story
tall box
from
the ground up to
the top of
10 the building on one plane and would go up three stories,
11 potentially 30 to 35 feet in height.
12 There has to be some building articulation. There
13
has
to be a roof
line
recede every two feet
back as you get
14
into
the building
so
that you're looking at
an architectural
15 mass that better relates to the smaller buildings in the area
16 so that you don't have this 30- to 35-foot high wall,
17 literally, looming down on the shorter structures adjacent to
18 it.
19
So I think
that was looked at, and I certainly
20
think that the staff
evaluated looking into
the building
21
materials in context
to a lot of the single
family residences
22 as well as the buildings in the area.
23
I
don't know
if there is
any real
discrepancy in
24
the building
materials.
Yes, the
building
height and mass,
25 to some degree, will change the appearance of that site for
42
1 certain. But out of scale and out of character, it has been
2 determined from the staff standpoint that that really is not
3 the case.
4 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Troy, I guess would you
5 like to address some of the things from the applicants point
6 of view? I think that certainly was one question that was
7 brought up more than once: Can your client make a profit _
8 with a smaller building and more parking, and then, if you
9 want to address some of other things you might have heard,
10 too.
11 THE APPLICANT: Well, my client has worked out the
12 numbers in this scenario. I can't say whether he can make a
13 profit with another scenario. However, this is not the
14 point. That is not the reason that the program has been put
15 on this site.
16 The zoning code allows a one-to-one ratio of site
17 area to building area, and we are well below that. Again, we
18 talked about the parking requirements with commercial. We
19 read the code. We designed it accordingly. You know, there
20 was a lot of talk about bedrooms, and, you know, obviously,
21 the tenant that has four cars for one unit is not going to be
22 comfortable living here.
23 We are not trying to make the tenant comfortable
24 here, and we don't think it's right to make every apartment
25 near campus amenable to have four cars. we think this is the
43
1 right place because it's so close to campus. So I guess that
2 answers your immediate question, but, in response to a couple
3 of other things, you asked Steve a few questions about
4 compatibility, and I think that he gave an excellent answer.
5 I would like to point out that we have gone
6 through a very rigorous review with staff, and as you all
7 know, we submit something, and they just don't say, yeah, it
8 looks great, and we come to the board. We talk about it. We
9 revise. We resubmit, and we talk about it quite a bit about
10 how it does or doesn't meet the code.
11 And then; when this staff points out, "Here is
12 something we feel you don't meet the code at," we revise it.
13 We fix it. We get to where the staff is comfortable, and
14 that is Steve. That is Steve's supervisor, and that's the
15 engineers. That is storm water. That is all of the various
16 departments. It takes awhile to get in front of you, as you
17 may very well know.
18 But I just want to reiterate, that you have got a
19 professional staff that is recommending approval. The staff
20 says that we met the code, and I understand it's contentious
21 with regard to the issue of compatibility.
22 However, when you read one of the key terms in the
23 definition that I see when I read it, it says compatibility
24 does not mean "the same as.,, And I think that is key here.
25 If one-story buildings were only compatible with one-story
44
1 buildings, then if the first building in a town was one
2 story, there never would be anything other than a one-story
3 building.
4 And I think it is clear that it's appropriate to
5 do more than one-story buildings next to one-story buildings,
6 and in this case, it's two and a half stories. And, in this
7 case, it has been zoned for up to three, and, in fact, we
8 proposed a three-story building, which had basically a flat
9 parapet, and it was an urban -looking building, which the
10 neighbors said, you know, that's just a little out of context
11 for our neighborhood.
12 They said, we just think that is out of context,
13 and we said why don't we make it a pitched roof instead of
14 the three-story building? Let's tuck that top story up
15 inside. so we have backed off of what we were originally
16 proposing, which was compatible with the zoning.
17 But I guess the final comment that I would like to
18 make in response to all of what we have heard, and I do
19 understand and appreciate what the neighborhood is saying. I
20 think it goes back to the big picture of what the City Plan
21 is trying to accomplish, and why it is that we have this
22 struggle in front of us.
23 If we were a community that strictly said it's our
24 goal to be a suburban community, we would not have a code
25 that supported our project. But the fact is that we have a
45
1 vision that we're going to urbanize in places that where
2 it's -- you know, next to an arterial, you know, it's
3 downtown or it's an activity center or next to campus or a
4 variety of other reasons. There's been zoning put in place
5 that has higher maximum heights than some of the things next
6 to it, because it has been said we can no longer afford to
7 sprawl at the periphery of the community in every case.
8 We need to provide an urban environment where it
9 is appropriate, and the zoning code was written to urbanize
10 areas where it was deemed to be appropriate to do so. So I
11 guess what I would just argue in my closing rebuttal is that
12 we are proposing something that is more urban than what the
13 neighbors are comfortable with, but it's completely and
14 entirely consistent with the vision of what the City had said
15 that they wanted to see in this sort of thing.
16 MS. CRAIG: One question. Where were you planning
17 on the employees in the travel agency or whatever you said
18 that it was going to be, primary sort of office space use,
19 where is the employee that is going to be there from 8:00 to
20 5:00 going to park?
21 THE APPLICANT: Well, you can't technically have
22 shared parking, but realistically, you could, if somebody
23 that lives,in those units happens to not be there during the
24 day. We are not going to have assigned spaces that says this
25 space is for this unit. But, technically, you can't count
m
1 it, but technically, you don't have to.
2 Realistically, you would see that, but the parking
3 demand, you know, during hours that -- you know, the evening
4 and nighttime, well, obviously, the residents are going to be
5 home. During the day, some cars are going to stay there,
6 living there, and go to campus and doesn't drive. But some
7 cars are going to leave. I guess that would be one scenario.
8 The other, they might live nearby. They might have taken the
9 bus, bike, or park somewhere blocks away.
10 MS. CRAIG: Thanks, Troy. Maybe Steve can respond
11 to this next question. The parking across the street, let's
12 say along Sunset, is that 24 hour or it's not like a two-hour
13 limit or anything. Those are residential streets?
14 MR. OLT: No. This is a standard residential
15 street from Shields on the end where you see the trees,
16 actually, that is Shields Street. So I'm not sure if I'm
17 standing on Monte Vista or Del Norte. As you can see, that's
18 a standard local residential street. There is no time limit
19 on the parking there. This is this week. I was out one
20 morning taking this photo about 10:00 in the morning.
21 MS. CRAIG: Thank you.
22 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Sally?
23 MS. CRAIG: Is there any ordinance whatsoever that
24 the neighbors can use to keep the students from parking on
25 this street?
47
1 MR. OLT: None except for the extended periods of
2 time. I forget what it is, a car that has to move within a
3 certain period of time, but that is a public street. That is
4 public parking.
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. LINGLE: Any other questions?
7 MS. SCHMIDT: I believe we had a question about the
8 handicapped spot, and I don't think that we addressed that.
9 If you could do that, Steven.
10 MR. OLT: You don't distinguish between a
11 handicapped and the standard parking space in terms of
12 meeting that requirement. You do have to have, at least in a
13 lot this size, at least one handicap parking space, but that
14 is included in the minimum number of parking spaces required
15 for the number of units and bedrooms per unit.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: But I just -- I can't see you can
17 require -- I mean it's required because of the commercial
18 part of the building, right? It's not part of the
19 residential?
20 MR. OLT: Well, actually there is a table in the
21 land use code for any parking lot. 1 to 25 parking spaces,
22 you have to have one handicapped space, and it goes on,
23 graduated upward. In any parking lot --
24 MS. SCHMIDT: But the 9 spaces are being required
25 to meet the residential part of the building, but none of
ON
1 those units are going to be handicap accessible.
2 MR. OLT: To my knowledge, that is true.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
4 MS. CRAIG: If it's okay, could I have Troy come up
5 again, please? As much as I appreciated your informing us
6 about City planning and urbanization and et cetera, et
7 cetera, well, when we talk about college students, somehow
8 that doesn't quite fit. One question is what is the bus that
9 comes down here? Does it go downtown? Does it go to campus?
10 Because we are talking about the necessity for alternative
11 modes of transportation.
12 THE APPLICANT: I know there is one that goes down
13 Shields. I don't recall that there is one that goes down
14 Mulberry or not, but I do know, for sure, on Shields there is
15 one.
16 MS. CRAIG: Do you know how close the bus stop is
17 from the development? Are we talking blocks?
18 THE APPLICANT: It would be in there. I don't
19 recall. I don't recall it being extraordinarily far, within
20 a block and a half probably is my best guess.
21 MS. CRAIG: Okay. My other questions had to do
22 with enforcement within the development. You spoke about not
23 encouraging renters that have vehicles, et cetera. Are there
24 going to be covenants? Are you going to have an HOA? Are
25 you going to do any kind of enforcement? Are you going to
1 set up the lot so that if the people that are in it, if they
2 aren't designated, they can be towed? How are you going to
3 encourage this?
4 THE APPLICANT: We haven't gotten far enough to
5 think about covenants or whether or not somebody would -- a
6 multitude of cars would decide to live here, when they are
7 deciding yes I do or no I don't want to live here, they will
8 see 9 parking spaces, and if they have got a multitude of
9 cars, they will either say, I don't want to live here because
10 of that, or if they are students, they have the option of
11 putting a car in one of those X lots, and they can store
12 their car on campus or one of the student parking lots.
13 But for them to expect that -- I guess that we
14 haven't formalized any covenants to say clearly you are only
15 allowed "X" number of cars here if you are a resident. I
16 guess we figured at this point it would be self-evident as
17 far as the tenants are deciding whether to sign a lease.
18 MS. CRAIG: What if a tenant comes in and sees only
19 the 9 parking spaces, and goes ahead and takes four
20 roommates, and they take four of them. Then tenant number B
21 shows up. What enforcement can the next four spaces -- and
22 by the time C comes in there are no spaces. How are you
23 going to regulate that?
24 THE APPLICANT: Well, we don't have a method
25 written down yet. We don't have the covenants drafted yet.
50
1 That's an issue that we will have to deal with. However,
2 we -- you know, we are meeting the minimum residential
3 parking standards, and those were written with two -bedroom
4 apartments in mind. 1.75, on average, per two -bedroom
5 apartment was put in the code for a reason, and we think it's
6 a good reason to not overpark.
7 And, by that, I don't mean that there wouldn't be
8 people wanting to park more. There would be more demand if
9 we had it, but if you build it, they will come, basically.
10 And if you don't build it, people will choose a different
11 mode of transportation or they will choose a different part
12 of town to live in.
13 MS. CRAIG: One of the reasons that I am bringing
14 this up, and I think it was on Shields, and they actually, as
15 their units came up for lease, they assigned different
16 parking spaces. So unit A knew they would get one. I don't
17 know how they are going to get a three-quarter, but they
18 tried to regulate it.
19 And this parking issue has been from the
20 neighborhood meeting to our last meeting, and it seems to me
21 like the applicant has taken a stance instead of stood back
22 and understood what the issues are. And the fact that this
23 isn't some -- it's going to be a big issue because we all
24 know what college students will do.
25 And I guess I'm a little bit disappointed that the
51
1 applicant hasn't addressed this in some way and come back to
2 us with something to show us that they understand, and
3 they're trying to also work with this issue.
4 THE APPLICANT: And we do understand, and we do
5 appreciate the neighbors' concerns, and it is understandable
6 that the neighbors have the concerns that they have.
7 However, the reason that we haven't changed the parking
8 aspect of this plan is we really think big picture, for the
9 reasons that I have explained for the whole urban versus
10 suburb. And we feel the reason that the City Plan didn't
11 require parking for commercial in the first place, we really
12 think this is the right thing to do.
13 And sure, it's going to be a bit of a struggle for
14 a while, but I think the equilibrium of the situation will be
15 that people will not choose to live here that choose to have
16 a lot of cars. And I think this is a good place for that
17 type of a decision to happen. And that's why we didn't
18 change the parking. It was conscious and it wasn't in
19 rebellion. It was a true belief that it was the right thing
20 to do.
21 MS. CRAIG: But you also have to go with the
22 market. You are not going to sit there with an empty
23 building because you told people if they show up with four
24 cars that there is no parking. So, in some regard, I didn't
25 feel that this is being addressed as it should be because
W,
1 it's still going to be an issue. But you've answered
2 everything that you can. Thank you, Troy.
3 MR. LINGLE: Other questions or do we want to --
4 MS. CARPENTER: I think that the thing that stands
5 out for me in the parking problem is that there is absolutely
6 no on -street parking associated with this building or really
7 within a block or two. I think that usually when we have a
8 building that has the parking requirements, and they have
9 just minimally met that, you have a relief valve somewhat in
10 that there is some on -street parking, and this has none. And
11 that is the concern that I have, and I wondered if you guys
12 looked at that.
13 I understand what you are saying about the idea of
14 City Plan and the minimal parking, but I think this is a
15 little bit different. Did you look at that?
16 THE APPLICANT: To try to answer that, as painful
17 as it may be to the neighbors, there are public streets in
18 the neighborhood, and particularly where we will see the
19 overflow parking is at issue here, is that we don't have
20 commercial parking. If a commercial user wants to go to that
21 building and doesn't have a parking space, they will probably
22 go around the corner, and they probably will park within the
23 neighborhood.
24 And I don't think that is what everybody is
25 concerned about. Primarily on this commercial parking, that
53
1 is going to be during business hours, and what I have heard
2 the concerns are, the concerns are they don't like what the
3 code says about residential parking.
4 And I understand that if we provided a ton of
5 parking, I bet a ton of parking would be used, but, like I
6 said, I don't think providing a ton of parking is what we
7 need to do. I think we need to not encourage people to use a
8 ton of parking in this location.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Troy, I guess my feelings on it, I
10 certainly agree with you on the parking on the residential,
11 and I feel like we have made some variances for other
12 buildings. I agree with Jennifer's comment that this area
13 has no on -street parking, and I guess the thing that worries
14 me is we are adding commercial to the mix.
15 And you want the commercial building to go, and
16 although you say you recognize the fact to me that you're
17 definitely going against the code because there is on -site,
18 there is no other place for the commercial to park except to
19 share it with the residential. And that's a violation of
20 that --
21 THE APPLICANT: To not count it is a violation, not
22 to use it.
23 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry. Do you want to explain
24 that?
25 THE APPLICANT: To count the spot as a required
54
1 space, you can't do that. That is what it says. Shared
2 parking in the code means you count the commercial parking,
3 and you count the residential parking, and you count the same
4 space toward the requirements.
5 It doesn't say a commercial user can't use that,
6 it just says that you can't, for the purpose of calculating
7 that number, you can't use that same spot for both purposes.
8 And we're not, because there is no required parking for
9 commercial, but to say that they both can use -the space is
10 perfectly legal.
11 MS. CARPENTER: So, in theory, any multi -use
12 building could just say all of the parking is residential at
13 any time is what you are saying.
14 THE APPLICANT: The way the code reads right now.
15 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Okay.
16 MR. LINGLE: Are we ready for discussion? Who
17 wants to start?
18 MR. STOCKOVER: Well, I will start, and I was just
19 sitting here quietly thinking, and I just think that it is
20 wrong to try and push this project on the neighbors because
21 we haven't spent three hours on this thing on how we can make
22 it work. We keep talking about how it's not going to work.
23 And long after we are gone from here tonight, and
24 long after this developer has cashed his last check, the
25 neighbors are going to be fighting with him over parking.
55
1 And I just cannot support that.
2 If we are looking for a loophole to make this
3 work, and that being that we don't require commercial
4 parking, we're looking for a loophole to jam on the neighbors
5 that doesn't fit, and I cannot support that.
6 MR. LINGLE: Other comments.
7 MS. CARPENTER: As far as parking goes, Butch, I
8 agree with you. It's going to be a problem, and I would
9 encourage my colleagues who are going to be here after
10 tonight to bring this up again and perhaps to look at the
11 code specifically, in a mixed -use building, and I think that
12 needs to be addressed for the parking.
13 I think that, first of all, we didn't consider
14 that anybody would actually put in commercial and have zero
15 parking. I mean, it just didn't make sense that anybody
16 would do that. So I think that the idea behind it was to let
17 the market work it out, and if we let the market work this
18 out, it is going to be the neighbors working it out, and I
19 think this fundamentally does not make sense.
20 But I think the thing that really pushes me over
21 the edge to not be able to support the project is
22 compatibility. I was concerned about the compatibility
23 before of the building, and now it's even larger and out of
24 scale.
25 I don't believe that we have to have all one-story
56
1 buildings. I am not saying that. But I do believe that you
2 take that into account, and then when we just made -- the
3 building had gotten even larger, even more massive, and I
4 don't believe that it fits in with the neighborhood. And I
5 think because of this reason, I can't support this project.
6 But I do encourage you to look again at the parking and the
7 zero maximum parking for the code and maybe for the spring
8 code changes or whatever.
9 MR. STOCKOVER: I guess this is what makes this so
10 difficult, when we draw little boxes on the map and say this
11 is going to be an NCB zone and this is going to be a this
12 zone. Because by making those boxes, you change the
13 requirements.
14 And I realize, I think, looking at this building,
15 it certainly looks a lot larger than things around it, but
16 then, again, it's because it's the first building in the NCB
17 zone. Whether the goal would be that you get an intermediate
18 size building with like a floor and a half, and then the next
19 building would be a three-story building because that is what
20 is allowed, and the fact that it is next to a one-story
21 7-Eleven that may not always stay there.
22 The building may not always stay there. I mean,
23 that's the difficulty, I think. I do appreciate the fact
24 that they worked and took away the deck. I think it makes
25 the building -- you're right, it's a larger building, but
57
1 that is towards the back. But that in some respects makes it
2 more compatible for the neighborhood.
3 My main concerns aren't on compatibility, and I
4 realize it's an adjustment to see something really different
5 in your neighborhood like that, but unfortunately, that's the
6 zone that they are in. And the goal, for whoever decided
7 that should be that particular zone there, was that there
8 were going to be a series of larger buildings.
9 And, again, I suppose that you would say that the
10 residential towers being as tall as they are, they are right
11 across the street from the one-story building, and they
12 aren't really compatible either. But my main concern is
13 still the parking, and I do believe that it's an issue that
14 will negatively impact.
15 And I think that although the agreement is -- you
16 know, I agree that in the Infill area, you would need less
17 parking, but I think, on especially the commercial aspect of
18 it, we are hitting the extreme with this project.
19 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Sally?
20 MS. CRAIG: I know that parking is going to be an
21 issue, and I was involved in City Plan, and I understand
22 their organization, and I think it's something that you start
23 with downtown and you work your way out with it. You just
24 don't come to suburbia and drop a piece in a neighborhood and
25 say this is what City Plan is all about. Let's test it here.
37
1 If it wasn't going to impact the neighborhood so
2 directly, I would be all for it. Because, in some regards, I
3 tend to agree with Bridgett, as far as the NCB. If you
4 wanted to fight the height of the building, you should fight
5 the zoning. But the parking -- the fact that this applicant
6 has not even looked at ways of addressing this, they have
7 pretty much said, I have met the code, and they have a right
8 to say that.
9 But, when you put something in that area, you know
10 that it is going to be students and read -- even soap boxes
11 that we run in the Coloradoan. People of Fort Collins are
12 not ready to give up their cars. We cannot force it on them,
13 and what is going to happen is they are going to end up
14 parking in the neighborhood, and they are going to end up
15 parking in the alley. And I feel like that is the code that
16 we should address is the 3.2.2B, the general standard when we
17 talk about convenience and safety.
18 I think that before this is all said and done,
19 those two are not going to be met, even though we can't, so
20 to speak, prove it tonight. And that is how I feel. I
21 completely agree with Butch.
22 MR. LINGLE: What was that code section?
23 MS. CRAIG: 3.2.2B, the general standard.
24 MR. LINGLE: Okay. I guess I've struggled with
25 this one a lot, too, and I kind of inherently think that it's
59
1 not going to work very well for a lot of different reasons.
2 And, Sally, you were using the example of tenant A comes in,
3 and then what happens.
4 I think that that could happen across the spectrum
5 of anything of our 1.75 two -bedroom unit. In a 30-unit
6 project, you could have 25 or 26 spaces and still have that
7 problem, but I think it is exacerbated because the project is
8 small. The impact is just concentrated. I have some issues
9 with the compatibility.
10 I do agree that compatibility does not mean the
11 same as. So I recognize the transitional nature of the
12 zoning district and what that means, and that things are
13 going to need to change and should change as part of this
14 neighborhood transition.
15 And I don't agree with the position that the
16 applicant takes in that if he meets the land use code that
17 the project should automatically be approved. I think there
18 wouldn't be any reason to have neighborhood meetings, and
19 there wouldn't be a reason to have Type I and Type II
20 reviews, and there wouldn't be a reason to have a planning
21 and zoning board, like someone pointed out.
22 But, deciding where the limit is between the
23 strictures,of our land use code and where our purview comes
24 in is really hard, especially in this one. And I guess in
25 this case I am kind of coming down on the side of the land
m
1 use code.
2 it does meet the intention and all of the criteria
3 of the NCB zone. It does meet the staff's review and
4 analysis of the architectural compatibilities and materials
5 and scale and all of those things. And, as I said two months
6 ago, I think my problem is that I've got a problem with
7 parking, too, but my problem with the parking is the
8 standard, not the project.
9 And I think maybe it had to take a project like
10 this to come forward to say, maybe this zero requirement
11 isn't really what we intended it to be. But that is
12 something that we need to address next year in the land use
13 modification process.
14 And I think that City Council is encouraging us to
15 look at that. They want us to do a more comprehensive thing.
16 But I know that we have talked to them in regards to looking
17 at parking requirements and things like that. So I think
18 tonight what I am going to do is come down on the side of
19 that I don't agree with the standard, but I can't penalize
20 the applicant because of my disagreement with the standard.
21 So I am going to support it from that standpoint.
22 But I agree with everything that everybody said in terms of
23 compatibility. I don't know that we have enough teeth to
24 enforce that tonight. Having said that, we need -- we have
25 got two items that we need to act on.
61
1 The first is the request for the alternative
2 landscape plan, and that one may or may not be
3 straightforward, but that would take a separate motion and
4 the PDP itself. Paul, could you refresh us on what you said
5 at the last meeting, that if a motion is for denial that it
6 needs to --
7 MR. ECKMAN: Sure, the City Council has asked us to
8 make sure if we have a project development plan that comes
9 before you and the motion is for approval, then it is
10 implicit in that motion that the plan complies with every
11 section of the land use code, because the land use code
12 requires that.
13 If it is for denial, it's not implicit in a denial
14 motion that the plan violates every section of the land use
15 code. It probably does not, so we need for you to indicate
16 those sections or that section of the code that you think has
17 not been complied with except by the denial. And it's
18 helpful then for the Council to focus if there is an appeal
19 to the Council.
20 MS. CARPENTER: When we say an NCB zone that the
21 permitted maximum building height is three stories, does that
22 mean that inherently a three-story building or
23 two -and -a -half -story building is compatible anywhere in that
24 zone, or is that up to us as a subjective thing for us to say
25 at this particular time, it's the maximum. It doesn't mean
1 that's what belongs there.
2 MR. ECKMAN: I think that Cameron had wanted to
3 chime in on that, too.
4 MR. GLOSS: There is actually two places in the
5 code where you have got a reference, and the first that you
6 mentioned is the specific standard for height, and that is
7 Article 4, but, in addition to that, there is a general
8 compatibility standard, and that is in Article 3.
9 That is the section that essentially says the
10 project shall be compatible with the surrounding area, and
11 that may be an area that you might want to hone in on if you
12 decide to make a motion in opposition of the project based on
13 project compatibility. I can give you that citation here in
14 just a second.
15 MS. CARPENTER: That's Subsection B, 3.5.1B.
16 MR. LINGLE: Is that everything? I guess what i
17 would suggest is let's deal with the alternative landscape
18 piece first. Paul, do we need to do that if the PDP itself
19 is --
20 MR. ECKMAN: I do think that is enough like a
21 modification of the standard that you can take a separate
22 vote on that to make sure that the board is in agreement, at
23 least on that part, before you go to the main question.
24 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Is everybody clear on what that
25 alternative is? Could I get a motion then for that?
M
1
MS.
SCHMIDT: I recommend an approval for the
2
Shields
Street Loft as described in this staff report. Do I
3
have to
say in the facts and findings?
4
MR.
ECKMAN: That's fine.
5
MR.
LINGLE: Okay. Is there a second?
6
MS.
CARPENTER: I'll second it.
7
MR.
LINGLE: Move to second to recommend the
8
approval
of the alternative landscape. Is that all? Okay.
9
Roll call.
10
THE
SPEAKER: Carpenter?
11
MS.
CARPENTER: Yes.
12
THE
SPEAKER: Stockover?
13
MR.
STOCKOVER: No.
14
THE
SPEAKER: Craig?
15
MS.
CRAIG: Yes.
16
THE
SPEAKER: Schmidt?
17
MS.
SCHMIDT: Yes.
18
THE
SPEAKER: Lingle?
19
MR.
LINGLE: Yes. Okay. That part of the action
20
has been
approved. The second part is for the PDP itself.
21
Is there
a motion
for that?
22
MR.
STOCKOVER: Yes. Can we do more discussion?
23
MR.
LINGLE: Sure.
24
MR.
STOCKOVER: I still think in talking about
25
this, the code
requires commercial to have adequate parking.
65
1 modifications will be to the detriment of the public good.
2 The zoning board of appeals does the same thing in
3 connection with their granting of variances. And Section
4 1.7.2 of the
land
use code
deals with conflicts of interest
5 and provides
that
if there
is a conflict between two
6 provisions in
the
land use
code, the more specific prevails
7 over the more general one.
8 So, for example, in the parking situation, if you
9
look
at the
general standard,
by its own
moniker
says that it
10
is a
general
standard. Then
if you have
a more
specific
11 standard further on in the book that deals precisely with
12
this type
of
a parking
lot
situation,
that would
be more
13
specific.
If
they are
both
of equal
specificity,
then the
14 more stringent standard applies.
15 And we have felt that the more stringent one is
16
the
most
difficult
for
the
applicant
to comply with.
That is
17
the
more
stringent
one,
but
in this
case, I think that
the
18
general
standard obviously is
more
general than
the
standard
19
further
on that provides that
these
are maximums
and
not
20 minimums with respect to commercial parking.
21 And I remember when this was all debated
22 politically, and the idea was just that, that we didn't want
23 overparking. we didn't want commercial businesses to provide
24
too much
parking,
and we
figured
the developers
of
business
25
parking uses would
surely
provide
some parking
if
they wanted
m
1 to be profitable.
2 MS. CARPENTER: I'm ready to make a motion. I move
3 for denial for this project, for the PDP, stating Section
4 3.5.1, that it is not compatible in size and massing to the
5 general area and to the residential area.
6 MR. STOCKOVER: I'll second that.
7 MR. LINGLE: And it has been moved and seconded to
8 deny the PDP application. Is there any further discussion?
9 Okay, if not, I will -- go ahead.
10 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess that we are really in a tough
11 spot here because, as Dave was saying, we all have certain
12 feelings about this, but I think as Paul was pointing out, we
13 don't have any code that is really going to back us up
14 legitimately.
15 And I think that it would be fine if we wanted to
16 sit here and deny it, but the reality is the situation is the
17 City Council will overturn that, so we are wasting another
18 night for the neighbors. Just because I don't think, again,
19 that the code really says things in a definitive enough
20 manner that they will probably uphold it.
21 Whichever way the vote turns out, I think that the
22 one consolation that we can offer the neighborhood is that
23 the planning and zoning board will certainly be looking into
24 it to try to improve the code in this area, and that
25 hopefully in the future something like this won't happen
67
1 again. Thank you.
2 MS. CRAIG: I was looking up the parking
3 requirements, and they used family as part of the terms, and
4 I looked up family. Where are we at as far as family when it
5 comes to unrelated group of persons? Because what I have
6 that is on the books tonight, that I know of, is that it's
7 either not more than three persons, which I'm assuming it
8 doesn't quite fit the second one, because the second one, B,
9 says not more than two unrelated adults and their children.
10 So, when they say "three persons," does that mean
11 that one of them is related and then the second -- this is in
12 definition -- this is Article 5, page 16.
13 MR. ECKMAN: And I think that has been amended more
14 recently, and I can't recall what is new.
15 MS. CRAIG: It's in the log tonight.
16 MR. ECKMAN: Yes, but I can't recall -- it's not
17 more than three persons. That can be any persons. And then
18 this unrelated adults with their related children was meant
19 to allow for more than three.
20 If you had -- let's say a man with a couple of his
21 children and a woman with a couple of hers, you would have
22 more than three unrelated persons, but they wanted to make
23 accommodations for that so that you could have all of the
24 children together with their parents, their respective
25 parents.
W
1 MS. CRAIG: So do you remember off the top of your
2 head as far as what the new ordinance is? Are we talking
3 about could not possibly four people even fit in these two
4 bedrooms after this new ordinance?
5 MR. ECKMAN: I would have to find that recent
6 modification. I would have to ask you to give me some time
7 to go find it.
8 MS. CRAIG: Well, the importance of this goes back
9 to the parking. If they can't have four people, then we have
10 cut back on the people right there, depending on what the
11 ordinance requires in these families.
12 MR. LINGLE: But the standard is still based on
13 bedrooms not occupants, right?
14 MS. CRAIG: I don't know. The standard here talks
15 about attached dwellings on Article 3, page 29. For each
16 two-family and multi -family dwelling, there should be parking
17 space provided as indicated by the following table, number of
18 bedrooms per dwelling unit. Okay. You're right.
19 MS. CARPENTER: But, Sally, my motion doesn't speak
20 to parking.
21 MS. CRAIG: I know, but I was just asking
22 generally, as far as the parking, whether they were legal
23 anyway.
24 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Any other comments? Are we
25 ready for the vote? Roll call.
70
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
2 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
3 I, Lela A. Brister, a Court Reporter and Notary
4 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing
5 proceedings, taken in the matter of the Type II Planning and
6 Zoning Board Review, and recorded on Thursday, December 8,
7 2005, at 300 West LaPorte Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, was
8 duly transcribed by me and reduced under my supervision to
9 the foregoing 69 pages; that said transcript is an accurate
10 and complete record of the proceedings so taken.
it I further certify that I am not related to, employed
12 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
13 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
14 Attested to by me this 30th day of January, 2006.
15
16
Lela A. Brister
17 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
171 North College Avenue
18 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
19
My commission expires October 6, 2007
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 3
Project: Timberline Center Rezoning, # 41-05
Project Description: Request to rezone a 16.13 acre parcel from T,
Transition to I, Industrial. The parcel is located on the
west side of Timberline Road and approximately one-
half mile north of East Drake Road.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Project: Timberline Center — Project Development Plan
Project Description: Request for a 176,200 s.f. mixed use project located
in the Industrial Zone on 21.84 acres. Land Uses
include convenience shopping Center, auto -related
services and enclosed mini storage. The property is
located on the west side of Timberline Road
approximately one-half mile north of East Drake Road
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
The Project Development Plan was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript
for these two items is attached.
1
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
December 8, 2005
Items #5 & 6
Timberline Center Rezoning &
Project Development Plan
Members Present: Sally Craig, Brigitte Schmidt,
Dave Lingle, William Stockover
City Attorney: Paul Eckman
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 MR. LINGLE: Okay. We're back, and we are ready
3 for discussion. Agenda items numbers 5 and 6 are related
4 issues, the Timberline Center rezoning and the Timberline
5 Center Project Development Plan, so what we're going to do
6 is have a combined staff report on those two items as well
7 as this combined applicant presentation on those two, but
8 when it comes time for making decisions, we'll be -- we'll
9 be casting separate votes on those two items. So, Ted?
10 MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is
11 the rezoning first. This is a request to rezone 16.13 acres
12 that are located within and part of Timberline Center, owned
13 by one of the two applicants, to take the parcel out of the
14 T transition zone into the industrial zone. The parcel is
15 located on the west side of Timberline Road approximately
16 one-half mile north of East Drake Road. The Union Pacific
17 Railroad right-of-way forms the western boundary. The
18 request complies with the City's Structure Plan Map, and a
19 Project Development Plan accompanies this rezoning request.
20 And the zoning property out of the T is governed by Section
21 4.9 of the City Code, and there are some specific standards
22 related to the timing of that such that they're not
23 restricted to the twice -per -year -schedule. Staff is
24 recommending approval of the rezoning.
25 The next item in my presentation will be brief
3
1 here as well. It is the PDP itself. This is a larger
2 parcel. It is owned by two co -applicants, and it comprises
3 approximately 22 acres, and this is a request for a
4 mixed -use project that would be totally in the I zone, and
5 one of the conditions of approval relates to that zoning
6 being in place prior to submittal of final compliance. And
7 the land uses are roughly divided among three categories:
8 Convenience shopping center, auto -related services and
9 enclosed mini storage.
10 Specifically, the uses are listed in your staff
11 report. The convenience shopping center allows two specific
12 uses that would not otherwise be allowed in the industrial
13 zone, and that is retail stores and drive -through
14 restaurants, and that issue is outlined in your staff report
15 as well. So you'll have two options before you tonight
16 based on one of the modifications relating to building K-1
17 and building K-2. I'm sure the applicant will go into great
18 detail on that. The -- there are two new public streets
19 being proposed. The east/west street is Bear Mountain
20 Drive. The north/south street is Joseph Allen Drive.
21 Access will also be gained via Nancy Gray intersection with
22 Timberline Road, which will be signalized. The intersection
23 of Bear Mountain and Timberline Road will not be signalized.
24 There are four modifications, and they're outlined
25 in your staff report, and Staff is recommending approval of
5
1 through that very succinctly, and I'm here to answer any
2 questions after you listen to the Staff's presentation -- or
3 the applicant's presentation.
4 MR. LINGLE: Could I ask a question before that,
5 Ted? K-1 is their preferred site plan. If we -- if we go
6 along with your recommendation and deny the modification
7 request, then we get K-2 by default?
8 MR. SHEPARD: That is correct.
9 MR. LINGLE: Okay. And then if -- if that
10 happened, are there any limitations on how many
11 drive -through restaurants can be a part of a convenience
12 shopping center?
13 MR. SHEPARD. No, there are not.
14 MR. LINGLE: Okay, thank you. All right. Is the
15 applicant ready for presentation? Maybe?
16 MS. RIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I
17 think we're ready. We brought our own CD tonight, and for
18 some reason, we're having a little trouble getting it
19 loaded. I'm going to start with introductions, and then, if
20 it's not loaded, I did bring some boards just in case, so
21 we'll go forward with those if we have to. I'm here -- my
22 name is Linda Ripley with VF Ripley Associates, and I'm here
23 tonight representing Kris Fleischli and Craig Howe, who are
24 co -developers of this project. Our other team members here
25 tonight are Mike Overlander with North Star Engineering,
HE
1 providing civil engineering services, Matt Delich, traffic
2 engineering, and Steve Steinbicker is our architect for this
3 project.
4 As Ted explained, this is a 22-acre project, at
5 least for the development. A smaller portion of that is the
6 rezoning request. It's situated on North Timberline Road.
7 North of this site is existing industrial development. The
8 Side Hill residential PUD is across Timberline Road from
9 this proposed project. South of here, we have one vacant
10 parcel, and then we have what will eventually become Nancy
11 Gray Boulevard, which will be a signal -light intersection,
12 and south of that is the police service center on the west
13 side of Timberline Road. West of our site, we have a
14 railroad track and railway -- railroad right-of-way that
15 buffers this project from the Parkwood East neighborhood.
16 Are you having any luck? Okay. I'm going to put up our
17 board so I can talk to you about the PDP.
18 MR. SHEPARD: And while she's doing that, I did
19 give you some supplemental material before tonight's
20 meeting. It is a list of definitions that might be
21 pertinent tonight out of Article V of the Land Use Code, so
22 you have them as a quick reference. Since there are a lot
23 of land uses involved in this project, I thought it might be
24 handy to have those definitions on hand.
25 MS. RIPLEY: Does this work? Is it working? Now?
7
1 Can you hear me? Okay. We'll stick with this.
2 This proposal is for a mixed -use land development.
3 If we start -- I really apologize for this. I would put it
4 on your list for things to do in the future, is to try to
5 get a better system in here. I don't know. It's -- it's
6 frustrating, and we -- we've learned to bring boards because
7 this isn't the first time this has happened.
8 Okay. Anyway, starting at the northeast side of
9 our development, we're proposing automotive land uses, so
10 these four uses right here to the northeast are auto -related
11 land uses. The types of things that you'll see happening in
12 there might be a tire store, a lube shop. We're proposing a
13 car wash in this area.
14 Have you got it? Does that work? Okay.
15 And then along Joseph Allen Drive, up in this
16 area, the far northeast corner, is an office building, a
17 small-scale two-story office building. These three other
18 buildings are mixed -use buildings -- that could be retail,
19 office or restaurant or a combination of those uses -- as
20 well as the two buildings to the interior of the site are
21 planned to,be mixed -use as well. To the south, we're
22 proposing a fast-food restaurant adjacent to the vacant
23 parcel, and then to the south, along the Timberline
24 frontage, two uses share the Timberline frontage; one being
25 a convenience store, and that's the -- the K-1 we've
M
1 spoke -- Ted mentioned, and a drive -through banking
2 facility. Those are the land uses that we think are very
3 compatible in the neighborhood for the growth that's
4 occurring -- currently occurring here and planned to occur
5 in the future. The residents across the street as well as
6 the ones that already live there, this convenience shopping
7 center provides a lot of convenience for them as well as
8 restaurant opportunities. And in addition to that, all of
9 the people that are now employed in the Timberline corridor,
10 this is an added service area for their use as well.
11 To the west of the property, we're proposing a
12 storage facility. I think it's an ideal location for a
13 mini -storage facility. It's located not very far off of
14 Timberline Road, the major arterial, so it's convenient to
15 all the office and industrial development in the corridor as
16 well as people that live in the area, but it's also pretty
17 convenient for anyone in Fort Collins to get here because of
18 its location close to a major arterial. It's nice that it's
19 set off because it's not -- it's attractive, but it's not
20 the kind of thing that is the most beautiful building in the
21 world, so we like the idea that it's set back. It's
22 buffered very well from the residential neighborhood,
23 Parkwood East back here, by a very wide railroad
24 right-of-way in addition to fencing and landscaping that
25 would be required in any case. So we think that that piece
10
1 site plan that works well for both of them. They have a
2 shared access point right here in the middle. It is a
3 three -corner access point, meaning that it's right in, right
4 out, and left in. Once a person is in the center, if they
5 want to travel back to the north, they either circulate
6 through the project to the north or go back to Joseph Allen
7 Drive to get out to Nancy Gray Boulevard, where they would
8 access the traffic signal. Because of all the Timberline
9 improvements and the police service center being built, the
10 expectation is that Joseph Allen Drive will be built through
11 this vacant parcel back to where it becomes the west edge of
12 the police service center. So it -- the combination of that
13 circulation street back to a signal and this three -corner
14 movement works well for the development and doesn't encumber
15 Timberline Road with too many access points.
16 Another point to -- as I described that we've got
17 five buildings here that are mixed use that can be -- they
18 can have restaurant uses in them, office or retail. The
19 restaurant uses would -- are limited to about 6,000 square
20 feet. So if this develops out, Staff will be keeping track
21 of that. Traffic impact study updates would have to be
22 shown that we don't exceed our traffic impact. So, we're
23 trying to provide as much -- can you still hear me? Okay.
24 We're trying to provide as much flexibility since we don't
25 have -- the developers don't have tenants for each building,
11
1 and yet we're cognizant of the fact that if they all became
2 sit-down restaurants, the parking and our access could
3 potentially fail. So, I just want to make it clear to the
4 Board that we're cognizant of that, Staff was cognizant of
5 that, and that gets tallied up as we go through this, and
6 right now, the restaurant use is capped at 6,000 square foot
7 in addition to the fast-food restaurants proposed. I can
8 clarify that more if you have questions later.
9 The buildings are all facing streets, with the
10 parking and circulation to the interior of the site. Along
11 Timberline Road, the closest building is 30 feet from
12 Timberline, the furthest one is 80. The average setback
13 distance along Timberline is 60 feet, so a generous setback
14 or detention is located on Timberline Road. In addition to
15 that generous setback, we've got street trees in the parkway
16 as well as evergreen trees and ornamentals that will screen
17 the little bit of parking that is visible. Drive-throughs
18 would be screened, and in addition, that plant material kind
19 of softens the architecture.
20 Inside, the center is designed to be convenient
21 and safe for vehicles and pedestrians. We've provided
22 crosswalks and sidewalks through parking areas where we
23 would like to encourage people to walk through and around
24 the center, where they would likely want to move from one
25 use to another. Architecturally, I'm going to have Steve
12
1 Steinbicker talk about the architecture because I think it's
2 an important part of this project. We've worked hard to
3 make it integrate all the uses into one center. But before
4 I do that, I want to go over the modifications with you
5 because they're kind of complex, but I want to walk you
6 through them, and then I'm going to let Steve talk about the
7 architecture just for a minute, and then we'll be open for
8 questions.
9 The first modification has to do with the
10 convenience store that we're proposing right here, right at
11 the corner of Bear Mountain and Timberline Road. The reason
12 we're requesting a modification is the standard that
13 requires C-stores with fueling stations to be three-quarters
14 of a mile from the closest fueling station. So in -- Sandy,
15 do you have that? I'm going to -- you have in your packets
16 this next exhibit that I wanted to use tonight, and what --
17 and I've also got some extras tonight, so if you need us to
18 hand you out one, please let us know. We've got some extras
19 here. Why don't you just give him one?
20 What this -- what this diagram illustrates is
21 where we're proposing to put the C-store, and where the
22 fueling station further south -- the one to the south is the
23 fueling station at the King -- the new King Soopers grocery
24 store in Rigden Farm. They have a fueling station as part
25 of that development, and we're closer than three-quarters of
13
1 a mile only by the way the crow flies, but the code is very
2 specific. It says you're supposed to measure the distance
3 not by how you would travel there in your car but how -- a
4 straight line from spot to spot the way a crow would fly.
5 So, if you were to measure the distance by how you actually
6 drove there, we would actually meet the requirement. The
7 same is true -- the next closest fueling station is on
8 Prospect a little further to the east in the Spring Creek
9 Center, a fairly new station over in that area. The same is
10 true there. If you measure the distance by the way one
11 would drive, we meet the distance requirement, but as the
12 crow flies, we don't. I think it's important to understand
13 that both of those stations are off of Timberline Road, so
14 if you were driving north on Timberline Road looking for a
15 place to fill your gas tank, you wouldn't necessarily even
16 see those.
17 So I think, you know, one of -- one of the issues
18 is proliferation of C-stores. You know, that's -- that's
19 been an issue since forever. Before the Land Use Code, we
20 had a similar separation requirement back in a document that
21 specifically governed how you did convenience centers. Back
22 then, in the early 180s, a C-store wanted to go in every
23 arterial corner. They were ugly. They wanted to pave the
24 whole corner. They wanted to have continuous curb paths.
25 They were not such attractive buildings. They used garish
14
1 colors and signage, and they were -- they were pretty bad.
2 we've come a long time -- we've come a long way since then.
3 The C-stores that you see being developed in our community
4 now are regulated in a variety of ways. You can't build
5 them in every zoning district. Most of the time, they have
6 to be part of the center. The architecture is regulated, the
7 landscape is regulated. Certainly, the access is regulated.
8 So it's kind of a different animal now altogether. But I do
9 'agree that we should have a separation requirement. I just
10 believe that in this particular case, a modification is
11 appropriate and desirable.
12 I mentioned that we're -- we're close to two. If
13 you measure the distance by how you drive, we would actually
14 meet the requirement, but there's one other thing that is
15 unique about this site in this situation, and that is that
16 in the I industrial zone, you can do a gas station with no
17 separation requirement. If we wanted to do a gas station,
18 this would not be an issue. we wouldn't be talking about
19 it. You can also do retail in the I zone. The fact that
20 the two are combined is what creates this issue; the fact
21 that it's a C-store, the fact that somebody can fill up
22 their gas tank and in the same stop pick up a jug of milk to
23 take home, that's what you're saying can't be allowed here.
24 And in my mind, that makes no sense because we have so many
25 policies that -- in our city saying that's what we want
15
1 people to do. We want them to make one stop and do as many
2 things as they can to save on trips and to save on air
3 pollution.
4 So I think that those two factors, the fact that
5 we are separated by the other -- there's nothing else on
6 North
Timberline,
on the road itself.
You don't
see them.
7 There's
no visual
proliferation in this
area of
C-stores.
8 And secondly, why are we -- why are we saying that it's
9 wrong to encourage those two uses to occur together, when
10 it's obviously something people use, it's convenient. So,
11 I -- I think it's a very appropriate use for this particular
12 corner.
13 However, if the Board does not approve the
14 modification, we want to move along with the project, and
15 the alternative use would be a fast-food restaurant on the
16 same corner, basically on the same pad. Sandy, could you
17 flip -- oh, God, it's running. I didn't know that happened.
18 Wonderful. Okay. So this -- this shows the C-store -- or
19 the fast-food alternative, so that very same place in the
20 development now is occupied by some additional parking, a
21 drive -through lane and a fast-food restaurant. So, in
22 meeting the task of the modification, is it equal to or
23 better than, I -- I feel like a C-store is equal to or
24 better than a plan with a fast-food restaurant in the same
25 location, but that's for you to judge tonight, and I'll stop
16
1 on that one.
2 The other three modifications are a little bit
3 simpler. The first one has to do with the fast-food
4 restaurant located on the south end of the site, in this
5 location right here, and the modification is to allow the
6 connecting walkway, which needs to come from the public
7 sidewalk, so the public sidewalk here on Joseph Allen would
8 have a connection here, and it's to allow the sidewalk to
9 cross a driveway in order to connect to the front of the
10 fast-food restaurant. And Staff is supporting that
11 modification with four conditions, all of which we agree
12 with, and most of which are actually shown in the plan now.
13 We've provided a very direct, or as direct as we can get,
14 access to the front. We've added a pedestrian access in
15 this location that previously wasn't there that connects
16 this building to this building. We've changed where we
17 showed outdoor dining to be on the south end of the
18 building, which is something Ted suggested, and we
19 absolutely agree with, is a much better location on the south
20 here or -- or to the east, anyway. And the fourth one was
21 adequate screening, protecting and buffering whatever
22 happens to the south in the future. We've got about 12 feet
23 there. We can do fencing, we can do landscape buffering, we
24 can do a combination of both, and we're happy to work with
25 Staff during the final process to figure out exactly what
17
1 that should be.
2 The third modification has to do with a reduced
3 setback along the west edge of the storage facility. The I
4 district requires that the industrial district land use
5 be -- if you're adjacent to a zoning district that's not I,
6 you're supposed to have a 30-foot landscape buffer. In our
7 particular case, we -- we are showing about 20 feet, which
8 gives us enough room to plant some trees and do some
9 buffering. Since there's a railroad right-of-way that is in
10 excess of -- what was it? It's in your Staff report. It's
11 very wide, 200 feet or more before you get to a residential
12 neighborhood, we felt that we'd rather have a little wider
13 setback along Joseph Allen Drive here, and that would be in
14 the best interests of the community to have -- have more
15 green on the public street and 10 foot less green back there
16 along the railroad. Staff is supporting that modification.
17 And then the last modification has to do with
18 these two buildings right here and the build -to line. The
19 Land Use Code requires us to pull our buildings out to the
20 street to at least 15 feet from the street. We've done that
21 along Joseph Allen, but right here, we wanted to pull the
22 building further to the east to allow some paving on the
23 south side of that building to allow outdoor dining
24 opportunities. And then to match it on the other side and
25 great -- create kind of an enteruria there, we thought it
1 would be nice to have those setbacks more closely match
2 rather than have one building be 15 feet away and the other
3 one be 25 or whatever it is. So that's -- that's the
4 modification request of build -to line for those two
5 buildings.
6 With that, if you have any specific questions for
7 me right now, we can cover that; otherwise, I'll have Steve
8 Steinbicker talk to you about the architecture plan for the
9 center. Should I go to Steve? Okay.
10 MR. STEINBICKER: Good evening. Steve
11 Steinbicker, Architecture West. I appreciate the
12 opportunity to talk tonight. I'll make it brief and go over
13 some basic design concepts, and then please feel free to
14 offer some more questions to me as further clarification.
15 I think Linda started off at the beginning just
16 mentioning that it was a unique opportunity, having two
17 clients that were both interested in a high -profile,
18 high -quality project, maybe a little smaller than what you
19 can see here, but I've got some blow-ups if you'd like to
20 take a look at those closer up. You could, if you want to
21 pass them around. It might show the detail a little bit
22 more. I think one of the important things is we did begin
23 with Staff sometime ago, as -- as Linda pointed out, and we
24 met with Planning Staff specifically to talk about
25 architectural standards and quality and criteria. In that
MI
1 regard, Ted was very helpful to point out certain aspects of
2 some newer developments that have taken place, and we
3 definitely intended to and believe we did create a
4 continuity of the project in a combination of materials,
5 scale, massing, so that this really could develop into more
6 of a retail/mixed-use project that had more of a
7 campus -style approach, meaning to say, again, compatibility
8 of the scale of the buildings, compatibility of color,
9 materials, landscaping even.
10 So the -- the scale, the heights of the buildings,
11 parapet variations that you can see on some of these
12 buildings, this being one of the smaller buildings, the K
13 location on your site plan, some of the office retail in the
14 back combining one- and two-story elements, roof
15 combinations and materials. We've tried to solicit some of
16 the more residential character of things, starting off with
17 asphalt shingles as kind of a base composition, and color
18 range, which, again, some of that detail is in this legend
19 area here, but then also being able to utilize some updated
20 of -- updating of materials, meaning metal roofing as
21 accents, sunscreens. You'll see this -- some indication
22 here over some of the window patterning being repeated here,
23 one-story metal roofs top and bottom, again, as accent to
24 bring in some character, bring in some scale, some shadowing
25 to the building. Certainly, it was our intent to bring it
20
1 to become a user-friendly, pedestrian -based kind of facility
2 that clearly, from the plan, can be interlaced with users
3 coming here and then walking to various services.
4 I guess the last thing we'd just have you take a
5 look at is the streetscapes, which, unfortunately, are
6 misapplied here. Those are both referencing a west
7 elevation, which, on the site plan, would be this elevation
8 of the storage units and this elevation, which, of course,
9 would be the additional west elevation of Timberline, so
10 those are misapplied. I imagine you figured that out. But
11 what we've tried to create here was just a general
12 streetscape, again, Ted working with us, trying to give you
13 a flavor of the scale, the continuity of -- of the project,
14 but also some diversity in the heights. A good example
15 would be the bank with the one-story drive -up facility but
16 combined with a one- and two-story office type of use. And
17 with that, I didn't talk in great detail about it, but the
18 storage wall detail, we did walk -- work with a consultant
19 on that who had built several other projects and talked to
20 him about the quality of it and the massing of it, the
21 materials, and how we could interface that with the rest of
22 the retail and office development portion. And unless you
23 have some questions right now -- I guess you do.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: I just have one. Where the diagram
25 of the tire center --
21
1 MR. STEINBICKER: Yes.
2 MS. SCHMIDT: -- is, where on the map does that --
3 does that face? Is that going to be the view from
4 Timberline?
5 MR. STEINBICKER: That would be this structure
6 right down in here, and if you look at it, what I tried to
7 create is -- look at my west elevation on Timberline, and it
8 starts the same orientation, so this is the bank, proposed
9 bank and drive -up, the gas station/C-store, the other
10 retail -related auto sales types of use, the tire shop,
it which, again, none of those doors would be facing to the
12 street, and lastly, another auto -related, potentially a lube
13 type of -- again, what we're trying to do here is this
14 building is approximately 120 feet long, but realizing the
15 service side of that is only one portion of that, that's our
16 higher element. The other portion can be more the office
17 and service waiting areas, those kinds of things. So, a
18 variation in the massing where it was appropriate for the
19 uses that were internal to the project or the building. So
20 this is consistent with, again, these uses, of course, right
21 across here, and -- and would follow the site plan
22 accordingly.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
24 MR. STEINBICKER: Thank you.
25 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Linda, does that complete your
22
1 presentation?
2 MS. RIPLEY: Yes. I did forget to mention one
3 thing, and I knew it came up at work sessions, so I wanted
4 to let the Board know that bike lanes are planned on both
5 Bear Mountain and Joseph Allen. There will be bike lanes on
6 both streets. They just weren't labeled on the -- the
7 graphics that you have. So we're --
8 MR. LINGLE: Okay.
9 MS. RIPLEY: -- open for questions.
10 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Are there questions of either
11 Staff or the applicant? Yeah. Sally?
12 MS. CRAIG. My questions have a lot to do with
13 traffic and the time line, et cetera, but to start with,
14 Ted, I wanted to double check. On Timberline, the Master
15 Street Plan shows it to be six lanes, and I was just double
16 checking that their street curb is far enough over to
17 include that third lane right-of-way. Is that right? How
18 does -- how does that work? Because I -- I'd hate to see
19 these trees all put in, and about the time they're maturing,
20 we decide to put in another lane.
21 MR. OVERLANDER: Hi. I'm Mike Overlander with
22 North Star Design. I'm the civil engineer for the project.
23 I also was one of the civil engineers that worked on
24 Timberline Road.
25 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
23
1 MR. OVERLANDER: The road section that will be
2 built all the way through Drake to the north side of this
3 project will be the full six -lane roadway. The outside
4 lanes will double as right -turn lanes until such time as six
5 lanes go all the way through to Prospect.
6 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So when your project goes in,
7 you'll be building to the six lanes; they just won't be
8 marked as six lanes, but the width will be there?
9 MR. OVERLANDER: Our project is contributing the
10 same as Side Hill and the police station to the Timberline
11 Road Project that Street Oversizing is building, so that is
12 going out for bid here about the first of the year, and
13 those plans put the curb where we've got it shown. Those
14 plans will actually build the sidewalk and build the street
15 returns for Bear Mountain Drive to come into the site, so
16 everything is -- is set for the ultimate section through
17 that entire stretch.
18 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So are you saying that the
19 applicant will be putting in the median for this project or
20 that the City will be putting it in?
21 MR. OVERLANDER: City Project will be constructing
22 it. The applicants are paying their oversizing fee to the
23 City ahead of time. I think that fee's already been paid,
24 which typically doesn't happen until building permit. So
25 all of these developments -- Side Hill, the police station,
24
1 the parcel south of the police station - have all already
2 contributed money to get this street built with the curb and
3 gutter and the medians and the landscaping. I think the
4 only thing that the developments themselves put in is the
5 street trees; is that correct? I don't think the Oversizing
6 Project puts in the street trees between the walk and the
7 curb, but other than that --
8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So --
9 MR. OVERLANDER: -- as far as my drawings for the
10 PDP, basically show Timberline as an existing street six
11 lanes wide, and in reality, they will get built, hopefully
12 simultaneously, but nothing can really -- I don't know that
13 we can necessarily even pull a building permit until
14 Timberline is built.
15 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And that's where Staff will
16 help me --
17 MR. OVERLANDER: Right.
18 MS. CRAIG: -- so I'll get somebody --
19 MR. OVERLANDER: And --
20 MS. CRAIG: -- from Staff.
21 MR. OVERLANDER: -- you know, all of the services
22 are coming in with Timberline Road. Electricity isn't in
23 this corridor right now. That's coming up with the Timberlin
24 Road Project, so it's going to be very similar to the police
25 station in concept, that all of this has to pretty much be
25
1 in place or under construction before anything other -- you
2 know, before anything can really happen. We can be under
3 construction, but we can't -- if Timberline Road weren't
4 built, we can't do this project.
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay. You can't pull a building
6 permit?
7 MR. OVERLANDER: If you approved us today, and we
8 turned around a Final Compliance set tomorrow that was
9 approved, I don't think we probably could.
10 MR. ECKMAN: I don't think they would have met
it their adequate public utility requirements.
12 MS. CRAIG: That -- that's part of, I think, why I
13 need to talk to Staff. I'm assuming it would be Traffic to
14 start with, or --
15 MR. OVERLANDER: Sherry would know the most unless
16 someone from Oversizing is here.
17 MS. CRAIG: Yeah. Sherry was here earlier. Is
18 she still here?
19 MR. SHEPARD: We're searching the back room as we
20 speak for either Eric Bracke or Sherry Wamhoff.
21 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
22 MR. SHEPARD: And I don't know the precise details
23 as to the arrangement that Street Oversizing did with these
24 property owners. It is sort of a de facto SID, and I think
25 Mike's general characterization is correct that the
26
1 improvements have to be installed prior to, maybe CO as
2 opposed to building permit, but I can't answer that question
3 directly. I'm not knowledgeable of that agreement.
4 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Now, you did bring up the fact
5 that this is -- this is an SID, Ted, and you might be able
6 to answer this. I assume with an SID that the development
7 community puts in the infrastructure, and then the property
8 taxes or the owners within the SID pay them back. That's
9 not what I'm hearing here. I'm kind of hearing that the
10 City is going to pay for this infrastructure. Am I
11 confused? Is this connected with Bob? Is that why this
12 is --
13 MS. WAMHOFF: I may be able to help clarify that.
14 The SID, the major portion of the money for the project, was
15 put forward by two of the developments that are already
16 going forward in the area, the Side Hill Development on the
17 east side of Timberline, and then the property that the
18 police station is going on. They've contributed money in
19 order to get the roadway improvements done.
20 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
21 MS. WAMHOFF: The City is participating in the
22 portion of the street oversizing funds that are going --
23 that would be paid anyway toward the middle portion of the
24 roadway, but it's their -- the other two developers are
25 basically fronting the money, and then they will get paid
27
1 back from the other property owners with the assessment from
2 the Special Improvement District.
3 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
4 MS. WAMHOFF: So the only money that the City
5 really is putting forward, in my understanding, right now is
6 the Street Oversizing portion that would normally go to this
7 street.
8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And so this applicant isn't
9 required to come up with money under this SID?
10 MS. WAMHOFF: I -- yes, they -- they would be
11 paying that, and I think they're already working that out
12 that they're giving their money as they're coming forward
13 with this, that they are paying for their portion of that
14 project. They've been working through some different
15 agreements with our Street Oversizing Program in -- as
16 Timberline plans and project is going forward to get the
17 improvements out on Timberline to work for the -- the street
18 going in and all -- everything like that. So they've been
19 coordinating with that already to get that going forward.
20 So they're already -- I don't know if they've given the
21 money to the project yet, but they will be funding some
22 money toward the Timberline improvements.
23 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And I want to double check,
24 Sherry. It was stated before that this project couldn't
25 even pull a building permit until these improvements are --
ME
1 either are complete or in the process or --
2 MS. wAMHOFF: The way the code reads is once it's
3 a funded project, this project could move forward.
4 Timberline Road is considered a funded project, so in that
5 sense, yes, it could go forward. I think -- the problem
6 that I think Mike talked about is the fact that the services
7 are not going to be there. Your electrical services, your
8 other utilities and stuff are not going to be in place to
9 serve this development for them to be able to get a permit
10 that way until the Timberline Road improvements go in. And
11 so that's -- it's -- it's not necessarily because the road
12 is not built, because the code says once it's -- the money
13 has been allocated for the roadway, it can be approved and
14 go forward, the project can. It's the fact that physically,
15 it needs these improvements in place to get their
16 electrical, their water, those type of things, in order for
17 them to get a building in place.
18 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Do you know what the time line
19 is on the Nancy Gray as far as that intersection goes?
20 Because it -- from looking at the TIS on this particular
21 project, it looks like it's pretty important in the
22 short-term; and I just want to make sure that our time lines
23 are meeting so we don't approve a project that we put in,
24 and we really don't have the infrastructure to facilitate
25 the traffic it's going to bring in.
29
1 MS. WAMHOFF: Sure. The plan is for Nancy Gray and
2 the three -- basically, Nancy Gray and then the other two
3 roadways and Timberline that surround the police
4 department --
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
6 MS. WAMHOFF: -- project will be built at the same
7 time that Timberline is, through the same contract, so that
8 will all go in at the same time as the Timberline
9 improvements are done.
10 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And we're feeling that's going
11 to happen?
12 MS. WAMHOFF: They have -- they have already started
13 some of the work out there already and are starting to work
14 on the relocation of some utilities and stuff, stuff that
15 probably is not as much noticed by everybody driving by yet,
16 but they've been trimming some trees, doing some other prep
17 work and getting it ready so the -- that work will be --
18 it's actually started, but the start -- it will be visible
19 here probably in the spring once they get to stuff that
20 people will see.
21 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I didn't totally understand on
22 this -- is it called Joseph Allen now? I know that there's
23 a blank piece of property between the police station and
24 this proposed project. Is that piece going to be connected
25 so that they can get to Nancy Gray, and if it is, what?
30
1 Does the applicant pick that up, and then they're reimbursed
2 when it's developed to the south?
3 MR. OVERLANDER: It's my understanding from Matt
4 Baker's office that they intend to build that stub with the
5 three streets around the police station. If, for some
6 reason, that is incorrect, we have a letter of intent from
7 that property owner to the south that he will dedicate that
S right-of-way, and we'd build that street.
9 MS. CRAIG: And you would build it?
10 MR. OVERLANDER: Right.
11 MS. CRAIG: So some way, somehow, if --
12 MR. OVERLANDER: Some way, somehow, yeah.
13 MS. CRAIG: -- we allowed your project, that
14 connection will be made.
15 MR. OVERLANDER: Staff recognize that we need
16 that --
17 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
18 MR. OVERLANDER: -- connection, so we got the
19 letter of intent, even though it sounds like that a part of
20 the agreement with getting the three streets built around is
21 to get the continuity up to this parcel.
22 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
23 MR. OVERLANDER: Because the City does not want
24 another full -movement access similar to our PDP --
25 MS. CRAIG: Exactly.
31
1 MR. OVERLANDER: -- they want us to get to that
2 signal.
3 MS. CRAIG: Which is understandable. I understand
4 that. Okay, thank you, Mike, and thank you, Sherry. You
5 were very helpful.
6 MR. LINGLE: Questions? Ted, I've got a couple
7 questions. One is, can you explain the -- Linda's diagram
8 that shows the, you know, the bird -- the as the crow flies
9 versus as you would actually drive it, what's the rationale
10 in the Land Use Code for the separation being measured as
11 the crow flies?
12 MR. SHEPARD: Well, it's my understanding -- and
13 Paul, jump in here -- is that we wanted a very
14 straightforward, unambiguous methodology so there wouldn't
15 be any disagreement about driving the city streets, taking
16 shortcuts, well, if I go on Route A, I get there in X amount
17 of feet, but if I take Route B, I can go this way, and we
18 thought that crow flies, it's clear, and I think it was
19 inherited from the Land Development Guidance System as well.
20 Paul, is that your recollection?
21 MR. ECKMAN: Uh-huh
22 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah.
23 MR. LINGLE: Okay, thank you. And then the other
24 thing is about the contention that the only thing that's
25 triggering that separation requirement is the fact that
32
1 gasoline sales and convenience sales are being combined in
2 the same use; whereas, if those were separate uses, there
3 would be no separation requirement. Is that just a glitch
4 in the code, or is that intentional, or --
5 MR. SHEPARD: Not -- not a glitch. The industry
6 has brought forward this phenomenon called the convenience
7 store with fuel sales. That, to us, is such a predominant,
8 distinct land use that it merits its own definition, and
9 it's -- it has its own impacts, its own trip generation, and
10 it needs its own circulation, things of that nature. A gas
11 station is different. The fueling station that we're seeing
12 these days now is like at Safeway or at King Soopers, where
13 you have the little pay kiosk, and then you've got the --
14 the fuel islands. The gas station is different from a
15 convenience store fuel sales. Convenience stores have
16 anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 square feet of floor area.
17 There is a lot of the retail sales going on there, and
18 combined with the gas, it does generate its own kind of
19 unique characteristics. I don't think it's a glitch. I
20 think we recognize that it's a very generously capitalized
21 retail phenomenon.
22 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess, are there any sort of
24 stand-alone gas stations anymore? I mean, even -- I'm
25 thinking of the one that connected with Albertson's, that's
33
1 a convenience shopping center, at least the one on North
2 College.
3 MR. SHEPARD: And you have to remember that
4 different zones have different requirements. The Dunlop
5 Texaco at Prospect and Lemay is a gas station. The fuel
6 islands at Safeway and King Soopers are considered gas
7 stations, and they're accessory uses in a neighborhood
8 center. The is in the industrial zone, and so different
9 zones have different requirements, so it's sort of hard to
10 compare and contrast but --
11 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I was just wondering, because
12 Ms. Ripley said if it was a plain gas station, it would be
13 allowed.
14 MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: So if -- if they wanted to put in a
16 gas station without a convenience store, they could do that.
17 MR. SHEPARD: They could, and it would not have to
18 be part of a convenience shopping center. It is a permitted
19 use by itself in the industrial zone.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: So if they wanted to put it
21 somewhere in this plan that they have here, would that be
22 permissible?
23 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, it would. And just keep in
24 mind that as Linda was reading off some of those uses, that
25 a resale -- a retail store is permitted in the industrial
34
1 zone, but -- and I put this in parentheses -- only if a
2 component of a convenience shopping center. So keep that in
3 mind. The gas station by itself doesn't have to be part of
4 a convenience shopping center in the I zone, but a retail
5 store does, so they're not as easily pushed together as you
6 would think.
7 MR. LINGLE: Other questions at this time? All
8 right. Then we'll open it up for public comment. Does
9 ,anyone want to speak to this item tonight? Okay, sir, if
10 you'd come down to the podium, give us your name and address
11 for the record, and then sign the log, please.
12 MR. DURST: My name's Alan Durst, and I live on
13 2136 Eastwood Drive. It doesn't show on there, I guess, but
14 I'd be close to behind the storage units, I guess. I wasn't
15 able to come to the neighborhood meetings. I can't remember
16 when they were, but which one of these facilities is the
17 tire shop? I didn't catch it when they were pointing to
18 them. I was blocked by the lady that was showing it.
19 MR. SHEPARD: It's that one.
20 MR. DURST: That little one, okay. So that's going
21 to face west?
22 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, the -- the bays will face west.
23 MR. DURST: The only thing I'm a little concerned
24 about is tire shops, they make quite a bit of noise, and I
25 want to make sure that it is pretty far away from our
35
1 neighborhood, but there are trees along the south -- or the
2 east side of our property right now that's part of the
3 easement, I guess, of the railroad. The City has marked a
4 bunch of those trees, and I guess I'm wondering, if they're
5 going to take those out, I'm certainly hoping they're going
6 to put something back in there and not just leave it blank,
7 so does anybody know what's going on with that? No?
8 MR. SHEPARD: No, I don't know.
9 MR. DURST: Okay.
10 MR. SHEPARD: It's not related to this project,
11 I -- that's what I can tell you, but if it's a City project,
12 we can have Tim Buchanan answer that question for you --
13 he's our City Forester -- or Doug Moore from our Natural
14 Resources Department, but I -- I've been in close contact
15 with Doug on this, and he has not indicated to me that trees
16 are slated to be removed out there, but I can't swear to it.
17 MR. DURST: Oh. Because some of them have a white
18 X on them, and there's, like, stakes with orange flags on
19 them, and I'm kind of wondering what's going on out there,
20 so --
21 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Sounds like the Staff can put
22 you in touch with who you need to talk to there.
23 MR. DURST: Okay. That's my only comments, I
24 guess.
25 MR. LINGLE: Okay, thank you. Anyone else want to
36
1 speak to this item? Yes, sir. You can use this podium if
2 you'd like.
3 MR. SHEPARD: And any other citizen that would
4 like to speak, make their way up to the next podium, please.
5 MR. ROONEY: My name is Justin Rooney. I live in
6 the Rigden Farm area. I'd just like to point out the fact
7 that in the King Soopers area, the gas station in question,
8 the crow flies, there is no convenience area. I mean, to
9 get anything like milk or anything like that, you'd have to
10 walk into King Soopers, get your gas, drive and park again,
11 and the other one isn't actually on Timberline, so you have
12 to go off of Timberline onto Prospect. So, I think, overall,
13 it services the neighborhood very well.
14 MR. LINGLE:' Okay, thank you. Anyone else want to
15 speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back
16 to the Board. Comments? Yeah. Sally?
17 MS. CRAIG: I just want to double check with Ted.
18 Ms. Ripley said that they did fix the issue on the
19 modification -- which one is it? -- 3.2.2(h), or is it
20 3.5.3(b)l?
21 MR. SHEPARD: It's the second modification,
22 3.5.3(b)l --
23 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
24 MR. SHEPARD: -- regarding Building E.
25 MS. CRAIG: Uh-huh, and did you get a chance to
37
1 look? Was -- was what they proposed more in line with what
2 Staff would like to see?
3 MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
4 MS. CRAIG: Okay, thank you.
5 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Any comments? Yes.
6 MS. SCHMIDT: I was just going to go move to a
7 motion for the rezoning.
8 MR. LINGLE: Rezoning, okay.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Start with that, I guess.
10 MR. LINGLE: Yeah.
11 MS. SCHMIDT: I move approval of the rezoning for
12 the Timberline Center, number 41.05, from transition to I.
13 MS. CRAIG: I'll second.
14 MR. LINGLE: Based on the findings of fact?
15 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
16 MR. LINGLE: Okay. All right. It's been moved
17 and seconded to recommend approval of the Timberline Center
18 Rezoning number 41.05. Any additional discussion? Okay.
19 Roll call?
20 MS. DEINES: Craig?
21 MS: CRAIG: Yes.
22 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
24 MS. DEINES: Carpenter? She's not here.
25 Stockover?
Ell
1 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
2 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
3 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay, the rezoning has been
4 approved. We can move to the PDP, and Ted has that laid
5 out. The page isn't numbered, but it starts with
6 "Recommendations," and it's very -- yeah, it's very
7 organized, so I don't know if we want -- if people want to
8 make comments, if we want to do them on an individual basis
9 or just in general. They're -- they're not necessarily
10 related, but -- so it looks like we're -- we should deal
11 with the modifications first and then the PDP at the end.
12 MS. CRAIG: I only checked on one of them, Ted. I
13 gather there's quite a few conditions, A, B, C and D. Were
14 all of those met, or do we need to be addressing some of
15 those?
16 MR. SHEPARD: Under number 2?
17 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
18 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah.
19 MS. CRAIG: I'm sorry.
20 MR. SHEPARD: Yes. Let's see. A, met. B, met,
21 except I will recommend that the handicap access stall be
22 located at the terminus of the sidewalk, especially the
23 van -accessible space, so we get the benefit of a
24 16-foot-wide space there for pedestrians to walk
25 through. I don't think that's going to be a problem. Oh,
W
1 wait a minute. I'm on the wrong one. I'm reading Building
2 E. Yes, Building E is the drive -through restaurant on the
3 south property line, and everything there -- yeah, that --
4 yeah, everything there's been met.
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So --
6 MR. SHEPARD: Including the handicap space I was
7 just referring to.
8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So if we recommend approval of
9 that, we do not need to add the following conditions?
10 MR. SHEPARD: I think the document will -- if you
11 reference it in your motion, should suffice.
12 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. LINGLE: Anyone -- do you want to -- pardon?
14 MS. CRAIG: Can we have a motion on each --
15 MR. LINGLE: Yeah.
16 MS. CRAIG: -- modification?
17 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, and then we can discuss each
18 one after we have a motion, if you'd like.
19 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I'll start. I recommend denial
20 of the request for modification to Section 4.23(b)3(c)5
21 regarding the three-quarter mile separation for building K-1
22 as per Staff's recommendation.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Second.
24 MR. LINGLE: Okay. That's been moved and
25 seconded. Any discussion?
40
1 MR. ECKMAN: In these motions, I assume that
2 you're incorporating the findings of fact that are in the --
3 MS. CRAIG: That's why I said --
4 MR. ECKMAN: -- the staff report?
5 MS. CRAIG: -- as Staff recommends, so I assumed
6 that --
7 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah. I'm a little confused.
8 MS. CRAIG: -- covers findings of fact. Okay.
9 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, because there's a page called
10 "Recommendations" and another page called "Findings of
11 Fact."
12 MS. SCHMIDT: This would be on page 3 of the staff
13 report for the first modification, Building K-1, as "Staff
14 Recommendations and Findings of Fact."
15 MR. ECKMAN: Yes.
16 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
17 MR. LINGLE: Yeah. I guess the only thing I'd say
18 is that, you know, I think that this diagram can be kind of
19 compelling in the red one that loops around Prospect as far
20 as some of the arguments, but the one in blue, and I can see
21 how that could just get contorted into all kinds of
22 different circular kind of motions through a parking lot to
23 get there, and it actually takes more than three-quarters of
24 a mile, but the actual separation, visually or otherwise,
25 would be considerably less. So, I -- I understand the
41
1 rationale now why -- why it's recommended the way it is, and
2 I guess I agree with that. I was -- I was kind of hoping
3 that maybe there was a K-3 option because I thought K-2 was
4 sort of worse, and with the hope that maybe we'd go for K-1
5 because it was the lesser of two evils, but -- I don't know
6 if there would be a K-3 option, but in light of all of that,
7 I guess I would support the denial of that modification.
8 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay. Well, I'm going to say my
9 piece. This one, again, is very difficult for me, but the
10 case to be made on the other side is one -trip generation,
11 and with as much other automotive and convenience -type
12 things going on there, I think it would -- I think it works.
13 I think, other than the fact that we're going against a
14 code, I think it works.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: Butch, I agree with you, and since
16 both of us come from the North College area where we have
17 six gas stations in a mile, three on one corner, you know,
18 I -- I think we can see some of that. I guess my feeling is
19 that there are still other options to include a gas station
20 in the development without making it part of a convenience
21 store and having to have the modification, and that's why I
22 feel comfortable going with the denial, because that is what
23 the code says right now, and there are other options
24 available to the developer if they really feel a gas station
25 is important.
42
1 MR. STOCKOVER:
You
know,
there's
a reason there's
2 no gas stations with just
gas.
That's
not
what people use.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: I use it all the time. I never go
4 in. I always just use my credit card. A lot of people do
5 that.
6 MR. STOCKOVER: Yeah, I hear you, but it's
7 still -- if the market demanded just gas stations, we'd have
8 just gas stations, and I just -- I look at this, and I look
9 at it and look at it, and it feels right, but the wording
10 says no, and I just -- I don't -- I just don't agree.
11 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Other comments? Okay. Roll
12 call --
13 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
14 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
15 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
16 MR. STOCKOVER: No.
17 MS. DEINES: Craig?
18 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
19 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
20 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay, second modification --
21 second modification.
22 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the request
23 for modification to section 3.2.2(h) and section 3.5.3(b)l
24 using the findings of fact and conclusions --
25 MS. SCHMIDT: I second.
43
1
MS.
CRAIG:
-- as are put in our staff report.
2
MR.
LINGLE:
And subject to the conditions?
3
MS.
CRAIG:
No.
4
MR.
LINGLE:
No?
5
MS.
CRAIG:
Ted said that we don't need the
6
conditions anymore.
7
MR.
LINGLE:
They're --
8
MS.
CRAIG:
That's why I --
9
MR.
LINGLE:
They're satisfied.
10
MS.
CRAIG:
-- specifically asked him --
11
MR.
LINGLE:
Okay.
12
MS.
CRAIG:
-- previously.
13
MR.
LINGLE:
Okay. It's been moved and seconded
14
for approval of the second request for modification. Any
15
discussion? Okay. Roll call?
16
MS.
DEINES:
Stockover?
17
MR.
STOCKOVER: Yes.
18
MS.
DEINES:
Craig?
19
MS.
CRAIG:
Yes.
20
MS.
DEINES:
Schmidt?
21
MS.
SCHMIDT:
Yes.
22
MS.
DEINES:
Lingle?
23
MR.
LINGLE:
Yes. Okay. That modification has
24
been approved.
25
MS.
SCHMIDT:
You know, David, if I could make a
44
1 point, because Butch wasn't at the work session on Friday,
2 and I think some of the discussion we had there was that on
3 the modification for the gas station, I guess this has come
4 up times before, and they've always upheld the code the way
5 it is. So as far as fairness and consistency, that was part
6 of the reason, I think, that some of us voted that way.
7 MR. STOCKOVER: (Inaudible.)
8 MR. LINGLE: Okay. The third modification is
9 regarding the --
10 MS. SCHMIDT: Screening.
11 MR. LINGLE: -- screening along the west property
12 line.
13 MS. SCHMIDT: Go ahead.
14 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the request
15 for modification to Section 4.23(e)3, using the findings of
16 fact and conclusions stated in the staff report.
17 MS. SCHMIDT: Second.
18 MR. LINGLE: Discussion? Okay. Roll call.
19 MS. DEINES: Craig?
20 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
21 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
22 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
23 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
24 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
25 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
45
1 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay. That modification
2 request is approved. Then the fourth one deals with
3 build -to lines for Buildings B and C.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Go ahead.
5 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the request of
6 modification to Section 3.5.3(b)2 using the facts and
7 conclusions contained in the staff report.
8 MR. STOCKOVER: Second.
9 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Additional comments? No?
10 Okay. Roll call?
11 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
12 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
13 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
14 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
15 MS. DEINES: Craig?
16 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
17 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
18 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay, that modification is
19 approved. And finally, the PDP itself, and the
20 recommendation is for approval of that subject to two
21 conditions. Are -- is the applicant okay with those
22 conditions?
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Just the rezoning?
24 MR. SHEPARD: The first condition is that the
25 rezoning request goes to second reading by City Council
46
1 prior to submittal of Final Compliance. The second
2 condition is sort of a housekeeping in that we did not get
3 elevations sufficient to the level of detail that I'd like
4 to see for a PDP on Building E, and that because it is a
5 drive -through restaurant, we want to pay very close
6 attention to its ultimate design and that it blends in with
7 the center and that it's not too garish, and so that's just
8 a let -the -applicant -beware kind of condition.
9 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely. We're comfortable with
10 both those conditions. I'd just like the Board to be clear
11 you're approving the second option, which is the fast-food.
12 MR. LINGLE: The K-2. Okay. Is there a motion
13 for the PDP?
14 MS. SCHMIDT: Do -- Ted, do we need to put that
15 K-2 part in the motion? No?
16 MR. SHEPARD: No, you do not.
17 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
18 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the Timberline
19 Center PDP subject to the following conditions: (A) At the
20 time of the submittal for Final Plan, the request to rezone
21 16.13 acres of the PDP from T transitional to I industrial
22 must be approved by City Council on second reading; and (B)
23 At the time of submittal for final plan, architectural
24 elevations for building E shall be provided that demonstrate
25 compatibility through cohesive and unified architecture with
47
1 the established architectural character of all buildings
2 within the center with the exception of the enclosed
3 mini -storage.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Second.
5 MR. LINGLE: Yes. It's been moved and seconded
6 for approval. Comments? Go ahead.
7 MS. CRAIG: I'd like to commend the applicant on
8 this particular project. I'm sure, through the years,
9 you've heard me talk about employment in industrial and how
10 I worry about it because constantly, development and then
11 developers come in, and they want to take the industrial and
12 the employment and they want to turn it into residential,
13 and I'm always concerned about that. And so I'm quite
14 pleased to see that you came in, you wanted to keep this
15 industrial, and you want to use it in a way that I think
16 will support industrial as well as some employment as well
17 as some retail. So I'm commending you. Thank you.
18 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, I would -- I would like to
19 second that. Just that I think it's a very good example of
20 what we hope to see more of, which is landowners cooperating
21 through a cooperative design process in master planning
22 larger tracts of land so that they flow cohesively together.
23 I think it's really nice. Okay. Roll call.
24 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
25 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
m
1
MS.
DEINES:
Craig?
2
MS.
CRAIG: Yes.
3
MS.
DEINES:
Schmidt?
4
MS.
SCHMIDT:
Yes.
5
MS.
DEINES:
Lingle?
6
MR.
LINGLE:
Yes. Okay, the PDP is approved. Do
7 we want
to keep
going?
Okay.
8
(End of requested transcript.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
W,
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF WELD )
4
5 I, Linda K. Stevens, a Court Reporter and Notary
6 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing
7 excerpt of the Planning & Zoning Board Meeting recorded on
8 December 8, 2005, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
9 Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and reduced under my
10 supervision to the foregoing 48 pages; that said transcript
it is an accurate and complete record of the excerpt of
12 proceedings so recorded.
13 I further certify that I am not related to,
14 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
15 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
16 the case.
17 Attested to by me this 27th day of January 2006.
m
19
W
Linda K. Stevens
21 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
171 North College Avenue
22 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
23 My Commission Ex
pires:
24
25
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 4
Project: Recommendation to City Council for amendments to
the Land Use Maps in the Harmony Corridor Plan and
Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines
documents to allow for a Regional Shopping Center.
Project Description: Request to amend the Land Use Maps in the
Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony Corridor
Standards and Guidelines and documents, elements
of City Plan to add a 'Regional Shopping Center"
designation, of approximately 94 acres in size,
generally located on the northwest corner of Harmony
Road and Zeigler Road. The existing zoning is
Harmony Corridor District.
Hearin4 Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Carpenter declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the
discussion.
Pete Wray, Senior Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated the request was in
response to a proposed shopping center at the same location as a proposed Lifestyle
Center in 2003 by the same developer. He stated the property was currently
designated on the Harmony Corridor Plan as a Mixed -Use Activity Center. The
proposal also includes 900,000 s.f. of commercial/retail including a discount super store,
home improvement and other supporting mid -size retailers, restaurants and office uses.
Between the proposed retail center and the neighborhood to the north, English Ranch
there is approximately 40 acres of vacant land that is not part of the proposed shopping
center or plan amendment. On the existing corner, also not part of the shopping center
designation, is the existing LSI building, which is about 14 acres. Planner Wray
reviewed site maps of the area for the Board showing designated areas of the plan.
Planner Wray reported that as part of the proposed shopping center the Harmony
Corridor Plan would need to be amended. Staff would look at City Plan for establishing
the criteria to amend an element of City Plan in which the Harmony Corridor Plan is an
element of. There are two criteria in appendix C of City Plan that describes what needs
to be looked at to justify the change.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 5
• Is there a need for the proposed amendment?
Our staff assessment has looked over the past several years with the update of City
Plan and with the proposed Lifestyle Center, including support from the Market Analysis
that was part of the Lifestyle Center assessment, that there is a demand for a new
Regional Shopping Center in Fort Collins and that it preferably be located near
Interstate 25. This site is the only one that is ready for development for a future
Regional Shopping Center within our Growth Management Area in that there is existing
infrastructure and utilities in place, arterial street frontage and an improved interchange
at Harmony Road to support this type of large use. The proposed plan for the shopping
center as described by the tenant mix would include a couple of stores greater than
110,000 s.f. of gross floor area that would necessitate a change in the shopping center
designation. With the previous plan amendment to allow for the Lifestyle Shopping
Center, which had a cap of stores no larger than 110,000 s.f. which would be key in
triggering an amendment to allow for this type of shopping center.
Planner Wray showed a map of existing Regional Shopping Centers in the Harmony
Corridor and their sizes. He also stated that there were some other potential large
acreages currently designated for commercial at Mulberry and Interstate 25 on the east
side and there are some other large parcels that exist on both sides of the Prospect
Interchange that are designated for commercial and zoned. Another potential sight
southeast at Carpenter Road/Highway 392 and Interstate 25, which recently had a
Structure Plan Amendment to look at some land use changes and additional
commercial uses, particularly on the west side. All three locations are not development
ready and would require sufficient infrastructure upgrades, interchange improvements,
in addition to storm drainage and floodplain issues. Outside of the Growth Management
Area there are some other commercial designations associated with the Timnath area,
so there is some potential for a Regional Shopping Center or commercial development
just on the east side of the Interchange.
The other criteria in City Plan looks at promoting the public welfare and is
consistent with the Visions, Goals and Policies of City Plan and the elements
thereof.
Some of the points that staff has assessed is that the site is development ready to
accommodate large retail with the existing street network, infrastructure and
interchange improvements. The Harmony Corridor Plan was amended in 2003 to add a
Mixed -Use Activity Center designation in the Harmony Corridor Plan for this same
location. The new change would allow a change in building size and tenant mix. This
would promote the economic health looking at additional job creation and sales and
property tax revenue. Staff feels that this amendment is in the city's best interest.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 6
The recently adopted City Council Policy Agenda goals, in which one states that, "there
is a need to aggressively pursue activities to enhance the health in our local economy
including business retention and new retail development". This goal is identified as
most urgent. This site is an infill location with close access to existing and future homes
and businesses. Other potential locations including a Timnath site previously
mentioned are not as well located and would force residents in our community to travel
farther for their shopping and business needs. Staff feels that this is consistent with the
existing City Structure Plan and Zoning Maps and there are no changes that are
warranted for those two maps. This reflects a compact development pattern that is
inside our Growth Management Area and efficient use of infrastructure.
Planner Wray displayed the current City Structure Plan Map and explained that along
the Harmony Corridor we have the basic Harmony Corridor designation and a result of
the 2003 Plan amendment, and we have the commercial designation already in place
for this location. Our existing Zoning Map shows the Harmony Corridor zoning
classification so there is no changes that would be needed to our zoning map. Based
on the proposed Front Range Village Retail Center by the developers, Harmony
Corridor Plan and Harmony Corridor Standards and Guideline documents would require
an amendment to allow a Regional Shopping Center within this Mixed -Use Activity
Center designation on the plan for the same location.
Planner Wray displayed the land use Map in the Harmony Corridor Plan, Map 10 in the
Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines which shows the Mixed Use Activity
Center designation already in place and the amendment would include, in addition to
the proposed Lifestyle Shopping Center, the addition of a Regional Shopping Center
designation for that specific location, and that would be the same for both documents.
At the worksession last week, there was a request to provide some background on the
intent of the Harmony Corridor Plan when it was created in 1995. Some of the key
points considered in developing the plan:
• It recognizes this corridor as one of the community's entryways and employment
centers.
• It established the primary employment designation with other limited secondary
uses.
• There was a movement to avoid a typical commercial strip.
• There was a need to focus shopping centers in strategic locations as opposed to
having them along the entire corridor.
• Promote quality design to enhance the appearance of the corridor.
• To create a landscape image along the corridor that set it apart and improve the
aesthetic positive experience as people enter the community.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 7
In looking at the land use concepts for the corridor the key was to establish policy
direction for the corridor prior to the development. Prior to 1995, there was a lot of
projects coming on line and pressure to develop the corridor, which at that time still had
a lot of predominance of vacant property. There was requests for several shopping
centers trying to locate along the corridor before our Land Use Code update in 1997
and with our LDGS requirements, it could allow development of shopping centers all
along the corridor. This would look at promoting the corridor as a high quality business
center, provide prime locations for industry and businesses and provide shopping and
service areas convenient for both residents and employees in the corridor and focus
commercial uses at major street intersections and in particular, related to this item,
Community and Regional commercial activities located in well planned shopping
centers.
The existing underlying zoning in the Harmony Corridor with the Harmony Corridor
zoning allows for 75% primary employment. This would still be true for this site under
the Mixed -Use Activity Center as talked about for the change to the Lifestyle Center. If
that did not take place we would still have the underlying zoning. This would also allow
for 25% of secondary uses. The 40 acres between this designation and the
neighborhood to the north, we would expect to see this type of development
compliance.
In looking at the difference between the Lifestyle Center that was talked about a couple
of years ago and this new Regional Shopping Center, there are some similarities. The
Lifestyle Center has a predominance of specialty retail stores, a pedestrian design
emphasis within the shopping center, open air setting and something he felt was key
was in addition to the small and mid size and larger anchor stores the maximum of 9
stores of 20,000 to 50,000 s.f. and no more than two department stores no larger than
110,000 s.f. If you compare that to a proposed Regional Shopping Center, you can see
some of the similarities, community and regional attraction, wide selection of general
merchandise, but this does allow for larger users than 110,000 s.f. With the current
proposal there are two potential tenants that would be larger than 110,000 s.f.
Staff looked at the impact on the buildable lands inventory and with the market analysis
we had not only with the City Plan Update in 2004 and the City Plan before that, but
also in 2003 the market analysis concluded that there was sufficient supply of
employment lands even if we took out the 90 or 140 acres at that time for this location
and there were ample sites at that time of 10 acres or larger. With the current review of
the buildable lands inventory, staff acknowledges and concludes with the same
recommendations that came out of the 2003 market analysis that we do still continue to
have sufficient supply of employment lands within our Growth Management Area and
within the Harmony Corridor and we have with our new calculations have added the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 8
provision for properties of 5 acres in size in addition to the 10 acres in size analysis that
was done previously.
The estimated Employment on vacant lands within our GMA; staff looked at
Employment, Harmony Corridor and Industrial uses. In the Harmony Corridor there are
approximately 583 acres, which is about 27% of the overall inventory and vacant
parcels greater than 5 acres in size in the Harmony Corridor, there would be 18 acres,
on average of about 28 acres, totaling 496 acres for a comparison in just looking at the
Harmony Corridor. In the Board's packet, there was an additional memo that was
distributed this week that goes into more detail of staffs assessment of the Employment
Lands inventory (Exhibit 1) and staff would be able to answer any additional questions
they have on this.
The summary of public comments; there was a public meeting on November 30th, a
combination neighborhood meeting and open house at the Marriott. There was over
100 people who attended the public meeting. Staffs observation of the comments at
that meeting was overall general support for the plan amendment and the potential new
Regional Shopping Center at this location. Some of the comments from the public
meeting emails and phone calls since then, and from our web site and letters; again
there was general support for the amendment. Those included potentially including a
Branch Library in this center, promoting local businesses located in the center and
another comment was to capture the market for this kind of retail center now as
opposed to waiting for potential large employers locating here in the future. There were
concerns about the immediate impacts on the nearby neighborhoods including traffic
congestion within the general area, particularly along Ziegler and Harmony Corridor and
with the local street network within this area in the neighborhoods, and in particular
English Ranch is concerned with cut -through traffic through the neighborhood, in
addition noise and safety issues. There were also concerns with impacts of the
shopping center with truck loading and potential concerns about impacts on property
values within the area. There were also concerns about loss of employment lands in
general and providing alternatives to additional street connections into the English
Ranch and the possibility of looking at some pedestrian connections.
Planner Wray reported that staff is continuing to maintain a listening log as this item
goes forward and there is a verbatim capture of all public comments that is available
and will be put on Advance Planning's web site shortly.
In looking at the findings of fact for the plan amendment and staff recommendation, staff
feels that this request'meets the criteria of the minor amendment procedures as outlined
in City Plan for the plan amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony
Corridor Standards and Guidelines in that there was a need for this change and does
promote the public welfare and is consistent with City Plan Visions, Goals and Policies.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 9
This request is also consistent with the city Structure Plan Map and our current zoning.
Staff recommendation is approval of this minor plan amendment to amend the Harmony
Corridor Plan and Standards and Guidelines document to allow a Regional Shopping
Center.
David Silverstein, Principal at Bayer Properties Incorporated, located in Birmingham
Alabama gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Silverstein gave a background of
information stating that they first came here four years ago and acknowledged Fort
Collin's quality of life blended with a great cultural base. As they look to invest in
communities throughout the country, those are key ingredients. What led them to Fort
Collins is that they believe that Fort Collins' consumer is somewhat underserved, having
to travel distances to shop and there is a need to capture retail sales tax dollars in Fort
Collins.
Mr. Silverstein addressed why the Lifestyle Center was not built. He stood before the
Planning and Zoning Board four years ago and made the commitment that they were
not speculators, that if they were to turn the first spade of mother earth on this site that it
would be because the project was well designed, well leased and would meet their
expectations as much as the Board's. For a number of reasons, they did not feel
comfortable to begin that project. As everyone well knows, the city of Loveland was
very aggressive with the Centerra project. They rapidly moved through the zoning of
that site and put forth a public/private partnership, which he believes many today still
scrutinize. It took them a little over a year to work with the city of Fort Collins in
amending the Harmony Corridor Plan, approving a development plan, while they were
galloping forward, so retailers were wondering if they would ever get their project off of
the ground.
General Growth buys the Foothills Mall during this whole time, which also had an impact
on decisions of other retailers coming into their project. General Growth is a very large,
publicly traded reat (sp?), they have a huge portfolio and they have a lot of relationships
with retailers and so it impacted their ability to negotiate some transactions with
retailers. Their mission from day one was to not displace the Mall. The Foothills Mall
needs some attention. It has served the community well for a number of years, but
someone needs to come in and invest the dollars needed to upgrade the mall and he
would hope that it would be General Growth. They have always felt that the community
was large enough to support other quality retail.
They were here today because they did not feel like they could pull the rip cord and
open a project that was not fully leased. He has driven by the Loveland project, it is
there and they will deal with that issue, but there remain today a number of retailers that
are not otherwise in Fort Collins that would like to be here. There are a number of
retailers that were in their original plan that have said to them they are still interested in
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 10
being considered for the project. He was not standing there today wasting anyone's
time and asked the Planning and Zoning Board for a positive recommendation to the
Council tonight to allow them to amend the Type 1 aspect of the retail zoning that was
approved a couple of years ago and that was to allow them to bring forward some larger
format retailers to the project. There are sales tax dollars that are leaking from the Fort
Collins community. As late as five years ago, Fort Collins was considered the retail hub
of Northern Colorado, there are now sister city's that are attempting to capture Fort
Collins' sales tax base. Fort Collins is no different from any city throughout the country
today in that a significant portion of your operating budget is represented by sales tax.
He was there tonight because they believe in Fort Collins and also because he feels
there is an opportunity to do a quality retail development that will carryover many of the
same concepts that were set forth in their previous plan being well designed, well
tenanted, pedestrian friendly and would serve as an amenity to the Fort Collins
community. Mr. Silverstein stated that they were not here tonight to share the details of
their plan but would show conceptually that the plan is quite similar to the original plan
that was approved in terms of public infrastructure and layouts of buildings. They do
realize that if they were afforded the opportunity to continue with this project they will be
back before the Board to submit the development plan for review and comment as well
as to the neighborhood and then ultimately to the Council.
Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, 4803 Innovation Drive in Fort Collins also spoke to the
Board on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they have been working through this for
the past four years and they don't have anything to show the Board tonight. What they
would like to share with the Board is the proposal. Mr. Hendee showed a slide of the
proposed location and the surrounding land uses. He stated that when looking at this
site and trying to make a determination if this makes sense or not, consider that Hewlett
Packard and Agilent have at least 2,000 employees; the Harmony Campus for Poudre
Valley Health System has Master Planned for up to 1,000,000 s.f. of medical facilities
and would represent 1,000 employees or more; the Preston Center he was not sure
about but he suspected quite a few and Intel will start with about 300 people. There is a
lot of people right around this area. In addition to that the Fossil Creek Sub Area Plan,
which is a component of City Plan starts here and extends southward and will provide a
major employment base, additionally Fossil Ridge High School is located in the area.
There is English Ranch to the north and the Mobile Home Park and Sunstone. There
are a lot people in this area and so when you think about whether this makes sense as
a location or not you have to look at what is there today and what is going to happen to
the south.
Mr. Hendee spoke about access and stated that Corbett Drive is intended to go through
south to north but they have heard over the last four years from the neighbors a concern
of not having a strong straight connection to the north. There is the buffer land in
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 11
between, so that is a way in which that road could shift. Additionally the access will be
a signalized access and would come straight across from the Hewlett Packard Facility
entrance and that would be a signalized entry point. Mr. Hendee stated that ultimately
Snow Mesa Drive, which aligns with the Harmony Campus for PVH exists and a signal
just went in as part of development of this area, it would ultimately be connected so
there would be access there for multiple locations.
In 2003 the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council adopted a plan that would
allow a Lifestyle Center. Mr. Hendee showed two slides that show the similarities for the
two plans. The Lifestyle Center has a component of community and region, there is a
mix of retail and specialty stores, buildings and sidewalks come together so there is a
common area for people, there is community gathering spaces and the biggest
difference is the maximum size of stores in the Lifestyle Center is 110,000 s.f. whereas
under the proposed amendment for a Regional Shopping Center you could have stores
over that. The plan that they would propose would have two stores that would be in
excess of the 110,000 s.f., but would still contain a number of the same kinds of uses.
In order to make the amendment to City Plan there are two things that have to be met,
one is that City Plan has to have demonstrated a need for an amendment. The second
is that it is going to provide for the public welfare of the city and meet the goals and
policies of City Plan. Mr. Hendee quoted from City Plan "the city will seek to maintain
and enhance its attractiveness as a place to do business in order to maintain its share
of the regions sales and use tax base". That is already a challenge that has been
mentioned.
As you look at the requirements in the land use philosophies in City Plan, it is consistent
with the Visions, Goals, Principles and Policies of City Plan and that the city will have a
compact land use pattern that has a well defined boundary. This proposal helps to
discourage sprawl by having retail happen on the fringe outside of the city. It is an infill
parcel that exists today so it makes sense logically to think about this area keeping this
retail well within the city, which reduces mileage, trip generation and still provides the
economic benefits.
The development here will be guided by the HC Standards and Guidelines which do
have a high level of requirement in terms of image. In addition to that the Land Use
Code covers large footprint users as well as the rest of the retail establishments. This
project would propose to meet or exceed those standards. This project would not have
a negative impact on the downtown businesses because the uses that are proposed
would be different kind of uses than what happens in the downtown area.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 12
Two other points is that the economic health of our community will be sustainable and
Fort Collins will maintain its roll as a regional economic center. These are two points
that they feel reinforce the requested change and the uses allowed.
Mr. Silverstein closed by saying the world of retail is ever changing, department stores
are constricting and there are only a handful of department stores that still exist. Many
of the centers today are including certain kinds of retail that you would never dream to
have in a mix with others. Their goal and objective is to create a project that they can
continue to bring to the city new and exciting retail. They will not do a project that will
preclude, for example, a Banana Republic making a decision to come to this city. They
have not signed any leases and the retail community is watching to see if they can
move forward with a project as they have described.
Mr. Silverstein shared with the Board a slide of the original design, reviewed access,
and the building layout of the buildings. In the new design the layout of the buildings
and road network is essentially the same. He showed the two buildings that they were
seeking approval for in terms of size. They will be designing them so the backs of the
buildings face one another and do not face back to English Ranch. As you enter the
site, their goal and objective, as was with the Lifestyle design is to make this a very
unique and Main Street feel as you come into the project. The frontage is the same as
it was for the Lifestyle Center. They realize they have to come back before the Board
and submit a final design for approval. He was not there tonight to say this is exactly
how it is going to look, but he is here to say that they will be very much in keeping with
the basic format that was previously approved.
Mr. Silverstein stated that this was a fabulous retail location; it is in the growth corridor,
it has ample daytime population around it that retailers look for. Their goal is to design
something that everyone can be proud of. He stated that one change that has taken
place since the last time he was before the Board is that they have purchased a 50 acre
tract of the project. They are vested in this community. When he stood before the
Board before, he was not a landowner. They bought the 50 acres with the hope that if
they were reasonable and they came forward with a plan that makes sense, they could
produce a project like this. He is a property owner and a tax payer and his goals and
objectives are to make this city continue with this quality of life.
Member Schmidt asked if there was a maximum limit on the size of building they could
have.
Planner Wray replied that with a Regional Shopping Center there is not a cap on it.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December S, 2005
Page 13
Mr. Silverstein added that they have to come back with a development plan and the
Board would see footprints of these buildings and their sizes. They do not have any
intention of having any building at 200,000 s.f.
Member Schmidt asked about the number of businesses and the maximum number
allowed is being increased to 15 in the Regional Shopping Center and was there any
regulation about size for those buildings. Also when saying this is what composes a
Regional Shopping Center, does that mean there has to be 15 pad sites in the PDP site
plan when the Board sees it, or do they have to have 15 leases before they can start?
Joe Frank, Director of Advanced Planning replied that they have to have 15 different
businesses so as to distinguish that one Super Target does not make a shopping
center. The code does not say what size of businesses.
Member Schmidt asked in terms of moving forward, do you have to have a commitment
from 15 businesses or does your plan just have to show that there will be eventually
some day 15 businesses as part of this center.
Director Frank replied that they have to show 15 different businesses.
Member Schmidt stated that one large store could be the shopping center for a large
period of time.
Director Frank replied no, we would require as a first phase at least 15 be built as part
of the first phase.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that there might be language in the Development
Agreement that either calls for some kind of phasing where some of the smaller
businesses are phased in before all the big stores get certificates of occupancy or if it is
not a phased project that we would need to make sure there was some protection that
not just the big stores go in and everything else would be forgotten about.
Member Lingle asked on the larger uses beyond 110,000 s.f. in the definition, and is
there a cap permitted on how many there would be. He knows they are showing two,
but if we were to approve this, could we end up with five or six. What he would not want
to see is a PDP that would look like the center at State Highway 7 and 1-25 that is
nothing but eight or ten big boxes with a sea of parking. He would not want to change
the language to allow something to occur if this proposal goes away and we are stuck
with who knows what. ' If there is not these kind of protections, could the Board in their
recommendation add conditions that would satisfy their concerns to protect the intent of
what they are seeing even though the PDP is not here yet.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 14
Planner Wray replied that in the existing definition of a Regional Shopping Center there
is not a cap on the number of large tenants. In the Lifestyle Center definition, we did put
the limitation of no more than two department stores no greater than 110,000 s.f.
Mr. Silverstein added that he would acknowledge that the city should have protection if
they go away and he would be willing to put a cap on it. He would like to say three,
because there are a couple of users that were in the old plan that may be in this new
plan that he does not want to keep out of this project. Mr. Silverstein also committed as
he did before for a satellite Library on the site, but it would be up to the city to fund it.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Les Kaplan, 140 Palmer Drive stated that he has had a long standing involvement with
Harmony Road. He owns the southwest corner of Harmony and Timberline where the
Harmony Village Shopping Center is and he owns 3.7 acres next to this site which is
located to the west between this property to the west and Snow Mesa. He also owns 70
acres on Harmony Road, which is part of the Harmony Technology Park Overall
Development Plan. He has owned it for 7 years and has been paying taxes on it for 7
years. He thinks that the analysis that was done for the Harmony Corridor Plan was a
bit superficial and he had a lengthy presentation as to why but thought that Mr. Wray
made his point for him when he said that this property is the only property in the Growth
Management Area which is suitable for a Regional Retail Center.
Mr. Kaplan showed a slide of the Overall Development Plan for the Harmony
Technology Park. He stated that site A is the location for Celestica and his property is
G, H, K, I and J. He submitted to the city of Fort Collins three days ago a request to
amend the Harmony Corridor Plan to allow for the shaded area for either a Community
or Regional Retail Center. This site is development ready, and is more development
ready than the Bayer site is, although he would prefer not to compare the sites. He
does not know how much money you have to spend on improvements for the city to
realize that you are doing something out there and you exist. There has been two
million dollars spent on improvements on this property do date. You might have noticed
that the intersection of Harmony and Cambridge Avenue is improved and signalized.
Cambridge Avenue is fully improved and eventually Cambridge Avenue will go all the
way out to College Avenue and be a southeast beltway through southeast Fort Collins.
The property is served by water and sewer, all the dry utilities, there is a 40 inch storm
sewer pipe in Rock Creek so the property is all ready to go, For Mr. Wray to say that
the Bayer site is the only site in the Growth Management Area which is ready for a
Regional Shopping Center is wrong. If he could leave the Board with any point this
evening, it is the fact that there are other properties in the Growth Management Area,
there is another property on Harmony Road which is this property which is very close to
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 15
1-25, closer in fact and visible from 1-25 because the east part of the property is on a
ridge. His main message here is that if you start applying the criteria for today's
economic conditions and the need for sales tax, we need to add more retail to the land
uses in Fort Collins that you are going to be getting another one. He would like to think
that if 94 acres is recommended to be added to the inventory tonight, that when he
comes back to the Planning and Zoning Board with another request to change the
Harmony Corridor Plan that the answer is that 94 acres is enough. In fact the 94 acres
being looked at might not even be the best 94 acres. He was not here to speak in favor
or against this amendment, only to say that there is another application that is coming
and he simply wanted to correct the impression made during the staff presentation that
it is this site or no site. He also would have expected that if there would have been a
change made to the Harmony Corridor Plan anyway for this property, that the change
would have taken place in the course of a much more comprehensive analysis of the
Harmony Corridor Plan. The type of analysis that was done when he was on the
Advisory Committee that did the initial Harmony Corridor Plan and on the Advisory
Committee when it experienced its first amendment. The initial Plan took over a year to
do and the amendment took at least six months. This amendment process is less than
two months and for the most part is site specific and did not analyze the potential of
other properties.
Mr. Kaplan begged to differ with the staff conclusions that were this application not
before the Board that the iniative would be taken to change this site because he would
like to think that were the staff to be compelled to change the Harmony Corridor Plan, it
would be as a result of a much more detailed analysis and public input process.
Russ McCahan, managing broker at Stanford Real Estate, 3555 Stanford Road, stated
that he owns property in the Harmony Corridor, but is not located in the Harmony
Corridor Plan. He wanted to speak on the amount of ground that is in the Employment
District. His company went through an exercise with Hewlett Packard in Greeley on the
same situation. They had about 85 acres in the middle of a Golf Course and they
wanted to take that property out of their employment zoning. They hired an analysis
company and they looked at the absorption rate of employment ground in the city of
Greeley over a long period of time and it was extremely low. He thought the city had
about 300 years of inventory in their existing Growth Management Area. He thought
that Fort Collins was in that same situation. If you look at the number of sites that have
been built over 10 acres, even in the immediate area and has not been absorbed.
Mr. McCahan referenced a 70,000 to 80,000 s.f. building that was built spec, next to the
Groups building with four larger users; most of that building is cut up into very small
parcels. He thought that the LSI building would be available for primary employment.
He thought that there was plenty of primary employment ground. He felt that if this site
is not developed now, then another community like Timnath or Windsor will pick it up
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 16
and we will have more retail leakage. He encouraged the Board to take the tax dollars
that are on the table now.
Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview, stated that she owns residential property within 500
feet of this development, has lived in Fort Collins 42 years and thinks of herself as a
Fort Collins cheerleader. Her enthusiasm for Fort Collins is not unqualified and in this
instance it is tempered by her community experience. She spent 15 years in municipal
public service and with a stint in economic development. Also 15 years in real estate
sales and development. She also served on the City Plan revision committee.
This evening she would like to reiterate her opposition to the proposed further
amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan. She has not wavered in her concern for the
loss of land zoned for industrial and employment land uses. She pointed out the loss of
2600 primary jobs in exchange for 1700 retail jobs is not to be taken lightly. She is not
persuaded that this is the last or best effort to rescue sales tax dollars. She is not
persuaded that this is the last or best location for a branch Library and rather than
compound the errors, she asked the Board to not approve any further amendments to
the Corridor, but work to retrieve the original goals and vision of the Corridor Plan.
While there might not be current demand for parcels for industrial users, do not deny
future opportunities by a short sided decision this evening. She thought that the change
in the maximum store size is not a minor amendment by any means. She is quite
certain few neighbors can clearly visualize what 900,000 s.f. of commercial uses looks
like. It is a Foothills Mall 750,000 s.f. combined with another Super Target to make the
900,000. That is really quite a picture in ones mind.
Eric Larsen, 3344 Ledgestone Court stated that they moved to Fort Collins in May and
they moved to Fort Collins because they thought it was a unique city. They liked this
community because it was not really a cookie cutter design and has a lot of diversity.
He was glad to hear that there was some market research done for the initial project.
What he was not clear about is what has really changed after the initial market research
that was done in order to make an additional amendment necessary. It seems like
everything that was done was done correctly, but no action was taken. To say that
Centerra was the cause of that was whistling Dixie. He has looked at the shops at
Centerra and about 80% of them are already within the Fort Collins area. He did not
think that there was any imagination used as far as developing this regional program
that was originally proposed in 2003.
Mr. Larsen asked if it was possible to have a requirement that there be local businesses
into this Regional Center, and local meaning Fort Collins or all of Colorado. The other
thing that has impressed him tonight is that the approval was done in 2003 and nothing
happened and he does not understand that. Will something happen if is approved now?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 17
We have no assurance of it based on past records; it is probably not going to. To him it
is like bait and switch. We have a nice regional program and now we want to have a
Big Box center. He was not sure if it really fits into the work compatibility. He did not
think that the amendment should be changed because it was a good proposal before.
Marty Tharp, 601 Birkey Place stated that she was on City Council when the zoning was
changed to accommodate the Lifestyle Center and at that time it did not include Big Box
stores. The request is now to add larger retail at that site. She supported the Lifestyle
Center while she was on City Council because we were losing retail sales tax to our
neighbors and because the Lifestyle Center would create a special niche of specialty
shops, which would be useful here. While the current plan may not bring in any high
end shops to the area, we are still very much in need of the sales tax that the proposed
center would provide. She supported the request for rezoning.
Originally she had concerns that we were converting valuable lands zoned for
employment and industrial for commercial development, however she feels a more
pressing need to allow this retail development because of the current competition from
our neighboring cities. If we were debating between two offers, one from employment
and one from retail, she would support employment use of the land, but no such offers
are pending. What we have before us now will help increase our sales tax revenue and
without this rezoning additional sales tax revenue will be lost to our neighbors. She
would also like to emphasize that the developer is very much interested in providing
space at the site for a southwest branch Library, something she has encouraged for
several years. The center is an ideal location for a branch Library and will add to the
mix of shops and will bring in traffic to the center and will be conveniently located for
many Fort Collins residents. She has heard that there is no money for a branch Library
because of our tight budget. The city has already collected 4.6 million dollars in impact
fees that can only be used for Library facilities. The funds come from fees charged as
each new home is built. The money can only be used for Libraries and while the budget
does not allow for operating and maintenance costs, we will be able to figure that out in
some creative form. She would very much like to see this plan continue.
Joey Porter, 2613 Bison in English Ranch also has an office directly south of the
proposed site for the new mall that is being proposed. She thought that this
amendment is a big change. The city's letter called it a minor change from an upscale
Lifestyle Center to a Regional Big Box Mall. She did not think that the majority of the
English Ranch homeowners really have an idea what's coming. When talking Super
Wal-Mart and Super Targets, she thinks that it is a whole different ballpark than what we
are talking about with a Lifestyle model and Library, which she supports.
Ms. Porter had concerns with traffic issues for the English Ranch both inside on the
neighborhood streets and with the connectivity to other neighborhoods coming through
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 18
the English Ranch to reach the mall. She thinks that the traffic on Ziegler and
Horsetooth is going to be a major change for the English Ranch neighborhood. No
traffic counts for this type of mall have been given to the neighborhood. We had traffic
estimates when we had a Lifestyle mall, but we are totally talking about a totally
different subject here in a Regional Mall. She knows and understands that the city
needs sales tax dollars, but please don't be short sited. She did not think that no
amount of landscaping or berming is going to make these huge boxes attractive. She
also thinks that City Plan is about predictability and 500 to 700 residents of English
Ranch were told that this land was planned for employment and now it is being changed
in a huge way. The developer that is proposing this is saying that there are no
employers that are looking for land, but if you talk to the NCEDC, they are getting one to
three inquiries a week. She asked if anyone had talked to the Economic Development
Committee or the Chamber of Commerce before talking about amending this piece of
land. She thought that there were a lot of people that were not happy that this land was
being changed to a major mall in the first place. Ms. Porter felt that this was not a
place for a Regional Mall because it is not compatible with the area.
Russ Holdredge, 4057 Harrington Court and new to the English Ranch neighborhood.
He stated that he checked with the city of Fort Collins before purchasing his home and
what was the plan for that area and he was assured that there was no plan for big box
stores there. He was concerned with the change and the number of big box stores that
can be on the property.
Tawnya Yurt, 2721 Stonehave Drive stated that she had concerns with the safety of
their neighborhood and was there representing 20 to 30 other parents in the
neighborhood that could not attend tonight. Their biggest concern was the proposed
connection that is being proposed to make through Kingsley, via Edmonds into the new
regional mall. Ms. Yurt stated that all but one small bus full of kids walk on Kingsley to
school and the kids are out all the time. If you have any clue of the traffic that would be
on the streets that their kids walk on everyday, you would not connect the Regional Mall
with their neighborhood. There was not one parent in the school today that she talked
to that was aware of the plan to back a Super Wal-Mart or Lowe's to their neighborhood
or connect a street. She had concerns with the hours of a Super Wal-Mart and the 24/7
traffic that it would bring to their neighborhood. English Ranch has seven entrances
and exits to the neighborhood already and they don't need another one to a mall.
Dan Bartran, 2602 Southfield Court in English Ranch and is the HOA President said
that he has had a lot of people come by his office concerned about it and a lot of
concern has been with traffic. He took a look at the size of the proposal and he is very
concerned with the amount of traffic the project will generate. It looks like there are
three exits, English Ranch, Ziegler and Harmony Road. There have been a lot of
exemptions around town and he felt there should be one here and he mentioned
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 19
Stoneridge and Miramont as examples of no exits. He has four kids and thought it was
scary the amount of traffic through their neighborhood. He thought this was the best
site in town for employment and he wished the city would look at it and not give it away
too soon.
Iris Wagner, 3007 Carrington Circle in English Ranch is opposed to this amendment as
well as development of the property as far as a shopping center is concerned. In
addition to the other objections that have been raised tonight, she would remind
everyone that the English Ranch is very family oriented. There is a large population of
young children who walk to school; also this is an area that most evenings you will see
a large number of people out walking, bicycling and children out on skate boards so a
traffic issue is a huge concern. Ms. Wagner stated that with Big Box Super Centers you
don't normally see those in nice neighborhoods and certainly do not see people of Fort
Collins beating a path to move next door to the Super Center because they are such
ugly developments. She asked the Board to not support the proposal for a change.
Thomas Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde in Fort Collins stated the he believes that Fort Collins
has prided itself in being a unique place for having culture and character and class. The
people of Fort Collins care about quality of life and care about open space and care
about how our city grows and care about quality employment and care about the future.
The proposed Regional Center does not bring anything to Fort Collins that we don't
already have. We have major retailers and restaurants including the super variety like
Wal-Mart and the Home Depots. The Regional Big Box Center will not contribute
anything unique and will not contribute to our culture and will not contribute to our
character and will not contribute to our class. It in fact will detract from these. You can
dress it up and it will still be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The outside does not change the
character. Fort Collins can be better served by holding the vision of the Harmony
Corridor to help attract quality employment opportunities to Fort Collins. Of the many
cities in Colorado, they chose Fort Collins as a choice location to live and to raise their
children. They did not come here to shop, they came here to live. Amending the
Lifestyle Center to be a location for Superstores will make Fort Collins less livable. It is
a short sided solution being cited for revenues and profit and the sacrifice for quality of
life. Fort Collins does not need this money to be a quality place to live. He asked the
Board to preserve Fort Collins to be a place of culture and character and class and a
place for quality employment and not a line item on an operating budget, but a quality
place to raise families. He asked the Board to deny the amendment.
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
Member Lingle asked if staff has met with the Economic Development Council and
Chamber of Commerce Affairs.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 20
Planner Wray stated they have met with the Chamber of Commerce and staff is going
again tomorrow morning for a second meeting. We are continuing discussions
internally with city staff and continuing our analysis with our Consultants, Economic and
Planning Systems that helped us with the previous decision with the Lifestyle Center so
we are continuing to get information and respond to that to move forward. Staff has not
met with the economic group at this point.
Mr. Silverstein replied to public comment in the fact that he has never been called
incompetent, whistling Dixie and the bait and switch comment. He also has never
spoke about Wal-Mart and did not know where it originated, but he has never
mentioned Wal-Mart in this project. He has not signed any lease and has not even
talked to them. There is a lot of misconception that is being presented tonight. He
respects the debate on primary jobs and this is a debate the community will continue to
go through for years to come as Mr. Kaplan indicated. There are other sites within the
Corridor that may lend themselves to retail development over time if in fact the primary
jobs issue continues to be one that there is no one to absorb all the land that is
available.
Member Schmidt asked if 900,000 s.f. is an accurate number
Mr. Silverstein replied that under the current plan they could build up to 750,000 and
they really have not pegged the number. The plan will have to come before this Board
again when they have a more defined plan and the Board will ultimately decide on how
big this center can be. The connectivity between this center and English Ranch is a city
issue and if that connectivity does not happen they are o.k. with that.
Member Schmidt did not interpret as much of a sense of urgency with this as there was
with the Lifestyle Center. Given that, she was wondering if the whole Harmony Corridor
Plan should be looked at especially with another change request coming forth.
Planner Wray stated that the entire corridor has been looked at and continue to assess
land use decisions within our whole Growth Management Area. We are responding to a
follow up request from a couple of years ago. As you know the Harmony Corridor Plan
was amended and has in place the designation for a mixed use activity center at this
site. We are not starting from scratch and he did not think it was fair to compare Mr.
Kaplan's request for consideration for another retail site because we don't have that in
front of us tonight. Staff is responding to this request. In looking at the demographics
and the distribution of existing and future residential in this southeast part of Fort Collins
and the employment designations, that this is a good site for a retail center.
Planner Wray stated that south of Harmony he wanted to clarify that Mr. Kaplan's
property is part of the Overall Development Plan of the Harmony Technology site and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 21
there was a previous decision to establish the amount of primary employment and
secondary uses on those properties south of Harmony around Cambridge. He has
existing designations for secondary uses on his property. That was determined in
looking at the Overall Development Plan of the Harmony Tech site reserving 75% for
primary employment. We don't have a mixed use activity center designation anywhere
else along the corridor and at this point has supported a couple of years ago with the
addition of a third Mixed -Use Activity Center and designation. If we get other
applications in the future we will have to have a hard look and full assessment of that
when looking at the entire corridor.
Director Frank added that we have known for several years that we were going to get
some new demands for retail and it was going to be at a Regional scale and we have
known for several years that we don't have any good sites except for a few along 1-25
that are not ready for development because of interchange problems. He thought this
was the best site we have and Mr. Kaplan has presented this week another proposal
and we will evaluate that.
Member Craig asked if in all the analysis that was done did the staff come up with a
number of net acres of employment that should be retained that is not already owned by
AB or HP but is owned independently.
Director Frank replied that is the best benchmark that we have is the jobs housing
balance and when we did the update to City Plan we looked at that very carefully and
established the current jobs housing balance as the goal to try and continue the next
few years to maintain that balance for the next 15 to 20 years. Is there a magic number,
no? We do know that we will probably run out of land for employment in the next 12 to
15 years as we will for residential.
Member Craig commented that the jobs housing balance formula concerns her because
she felt it did not set us up for sustainability.
Director Frank replied that in 2003 with the amendment for the Lifestyle Center, there
was quite a bit of analysis done and we updated it with the employment impact analysis.
We updated that just recently and then our consultants told us that we had an ample
supply of sites for basic employment and our analysis at this point is that it really has
not changed and our conclusion would be that we still have ample land for basic
employment land uses in the future. This is not changing from the conclusion in 2003.
Member Craig was concerned that this is the setting of precedents and if we do this
then how do we tell Mr. Kaplan no you cannot have yours and what about someone
else along the Harmony Corridor. We keep saying we have ample employment, but lets
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 22
switch it to retail because that will give us money whereas we don't have an employer
that wants to come in.
Director Frank replied that he was not going to sit here and say that we can prove every
change and he is not going to keep saying that there is ample employment because that
is too obvious that at some point we are going to have to say no there is not ample
employment and we need to maintain these sites.
Member Lingle commented that he has always found that the discussion about sales
tax generation or loss to not be a Planning and Zoning Board issue. That is something
for City Council. This Board needs to think and make decisions that are in the best
interest of the community in 20 to 50 years from now and not is what is potentially going
to fill the coffer in a year and a half. Those are decisions that City Council should make.
Member Schmidt stated that this has already been rezoned to be retail, so then we are
coming down to deciding what kind of retail we want and that is where their questions
were initially. Can we put criteria on how large the big boxes are and other businesses
because in theory we could go another route and not make this a Regional Shopping
Center and change the Lifestyle definition to say you can have two big boxes of 150,000
s.f. That kind of amendment would not change what was already approved two years
ago when we approved this as a Lifestyle Center. Those are the options she is
weighing. In some ways she has more comfort in going with that kind of route,
amending the criteria for a Lifestyle Center and leaving it that way and then when the
next rezoning request comes up to again look at more retail then we are back to the
initial issue of retail versus employment. She thinks that if we open this up to a
Regional Shopping Center then — she has some discomfort with that just because right
now the whole definition and all the impacts is still a little nebulous, we have not seen
that much in writing whereas with the Lifestyle Center there is very specific criteria as to
what is going to take place.
Member Craig stated that what she did like about the amendment that included the
Lifestyle Center is that the land is still left open that if the Lifestyle Center did not go
through and an employer stepped up and said they wanted to use it as employment
then it could be converted back to employment. If we make it a Regional Shopping
Center that cannot happen, it has to be commercial and has to be a Regional Shopping
Center.
Planner Wray stated that was not correct, the underlying zoning is still in place just like
the Lifestyle Center designation. If this amendment is successful or for some reason
decides not to move forward with a development project and leaves town and no one
else ever comes forward, but an employer comes forward, the underlying designation is
still available.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 23
Member Lingle realized that the decision has already been made to allow a Lifestyle
Center and what we would be doing is just adjusting that to allow larger stores. In terms
of the underlying use and the primary job creation, he agreed that the atmosphere and
the environment for large employers have changed significantly and we are probably
not looking at coming in with 2,000 jobs anymore. There are still a lot of other
employers that can bring in 50 to 100 jobs and 20 of those are still the same as
somebody else and he did not what them to lose sight of that and that we have to rush
toward retail as our savior and not at least allow for some long term realization of the
Harmony Corridor Plan as it was originally envisioned. Therefore he was not sure if he
was O.K. with the suggestion of changing what we already have to allow a couple of
larger projects within that scenario.
Member Stockover commented that he was not going to go on and on, he was just in
favor of it. He thought that staff has done a wonderful job and he thought that they were
recommending the right decision and he would support the recommendation. He stated
that as far as setting a precedent, we are a competitive nation and sometimes it is the
first one with the dollar that wins. When we are talking about if this is the best sight, are
there other sites, it is not us what should dictate competition. They are competing for
this site first and he did not think we should penalize them because there would be
something else out there. He thought it was important to attract good retail and he
would be supporting the proposal because it will turn out well for our community.
Member Lingle asked if what Member Schmidt was suggesting was a possibility just to
amend the definition of Lifestyle Center to include an allowance for two or three larger
users.
Planner Wray replied that it is a possibility, but staff felt that they felt comfortable about
keeping the work that was done previously. He thought there could be a limitation set
regarding the number of large retail establishments as part of the shopping center. He
thought that was a better fit for this designation.
Director Frank asked Member Schmidt if she felt that the Standards that are in the
Standards and Guidelines provide more protection and would produce a better
development project.
Member Schmidt felt that we have already made the designation for a Lifestyle Center
and that was water under the bridge whether it is employment or retail. She felt that by
rezoning it to a Regional Shopping Center that is like doing it again. Using your rational
why it is o.k., she felt like when the next site comes in, that same rational would make
each one o.k. Until you come up to the magic number of running out of employment
land, she thought that would be a long time before that happens. Given a time frame, if
these come in rather soon, there is not any chance for any employers to come up and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 24
we need to stick to our guns and say we need to keep a certain supply of employment
land. Given that scenario and applying it to every other piece of property that comes in,
she could not see where she could sit there and be able to deny someone else. She
thought that is one of the things in City Plan that we have tried to promote in this town is
an element of fairness. She also looked in the Harmony Plan and could never find an
exact definition of a Regional Shopping Center.
Planner Wray responded that there were extensive discussions a couple of years ago to
add the mixed use activity center at this location and a potential Lifestyle Center. There
are trade-offs for every decision and we are challenged with two primary things here
and one is to look at a different type of retail center in this location and the other is the
concern about employment lands inventory. With the update of the inventory analysis,
we have 583 acres within the Harmony Corridor designated for employment and we
have 18 sites that are 5 acres or larger. We are pretty comfortable with the future
allowance for future employment uses. A variety of employer types and we have a
variety of lot sizes to accommodate that for approximately 15 to 20 years. That adds to
the inventory of our whole Growth Management Area.
Member Schmidt agreed with that, but she is thinking that as we piece meal and go
through projects, given that information, what would keep us from re -designating them
all into Regional Shopping Centers and then we have changed the whole essence of
the Harmony Corridor.
Planner Wray replied that the other part of this is that we have made a previous
decision to add a Mixed -Use Activity Center for this location. He thought that staff
would have some extensive analysis if there was another proposal, as we have heard
tonight of the potential for another request to consider another larger retail center in the
Harmony Corridor. That is not a guaranteed decision to add a fourth Regional Center
along the Corridor. We have had extensive discussions in this community and with
Council and the Planning and Zoning Board to make that difficult decision a couple of
years ago to have this designation. We basically have the same size and we are
looking for some minor refinements for the types and size of tenants here. To think that
we will easily make a potential decision in the future to consider any other large retail
designation in the corridor will be a challenge and staff will deliberate on that
extensively. We are comfortable adding this third designation in the corridor, but that is
as far as we go at this point. We are dealing with this request tonight that will trigger an
amendment to the plan. Again, we are not starting from scratch, we have deliberated
extensively and we have this designation in place for roughly the same size. In 2003
we were talking about'90 acres and now 94 acres for a shopping center.
Member Stockover moved to recommend to City Council approval of the
amendment to the Land Use Maps in the Harmony Corridor Plan and Harmony
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 25
Corridor Standards and Guidelines based on City Plan is in need of the
amendment and that the amendment will promote the public welfare and will be
consistent with the Vision, Goals and Principles and Policies of City Plan and the
elements there of.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion for reasons of discussion
Member Schmidt found the definition for Regional Shopping Center in the back of the
Harmony Corridor Plan and quoted that "a Regional Shopping Center shall be situated
on 30 to 70 acres." Now we are looking at more than 70 acres. "Multi -Family
Residential as well as non retail employment generating uses may be located amongst
the retail component of the Regional Shopping Center." This is on page 67 of the
Harmony Corridor Plan. This definition is sounding a little different from the Lifestyle
Center. "A Regional Shopping Center continues the city's tradition of having small and
medium size shops supplementing the principle tenants." She was wondering if what
we are approving on this site really meets the definition of Regional Shopping Center
that is in the plan.
Planner Wray replied that the first thing staff looked at in responding to the request was
size of the retail tenants. The site they are looking at is larger than that, it is 94 acres.
Director Frank also replied that the Lifestyle Center definition is on 40 to 80 acres and
the Regional Shopping Center is 30 to 70 acres. He thought when we did this plan
update in 2003, that is what staff thought the size of Regional Shopping Center was 30
to 70, we now know that is different today. He thought there were a couple of options.
The Board could say that the center should follow the definition and be 30 to 70 acres
fitting the definition or maybe we should be amending the Design Guidelines and say
that it could be 30 to 100 acres.
Director Frank also suggested that the Board could make a recommendation to Council
that they investigate that this is outside the size of the Regional Shopping Center
definition and they are proposing 94. If the Board feels that there should be more
analysis, the Board could recommend to City Council that staff investigate whether this
definition of a Community Regional Shopping Center in terms of the acreage is current
or not.
Member Schmidt asked if there was a big reason city planning wise why it is important
to make this a Regional Shopping Center versus tweaking the definition of Lifestyle
Center.
Director Frank replied that when you look at the definition of Lifestyle Shopping Center
and you read it, staff spent a lot of time distinguishing how it is different from a Regional
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 27
Director Frank replied that these definitions are only used in the Harmony Corridor.
Member Schmidt suggested making the basic change to recommend to City
Council that part of the amendment be that the change be situated on 30 to 100
acres and Council could tweak it some more when they have had more time to
consider it.
Member Stockover added to the recommendation that the large buildings be
capped at three and that the maximum size of the Regional Shopping center be
100 acres.
Director Frank suggested that the multi family concern is a good one to and suggested
that the developer be limited to "mixed -use" residential, which would then exclude free
standing phases of multi -family development.
Member Schmidt quoted what was currently in the definition "multi family residential as
well as non retail employment generating uses may be located amongst the retail
component of the Regional Shopping Center."
Director Gloss replied that you can incorporate horizontally separated attached
residential units within a commercial center as an allowed use. You can also have a
vertical mixed use or horizontally separated mixed use within the same building and that
is called mixed use. A mixed use building is where you have multiple uses, residential
and non residential in the same building. It would not have to be vertically mixed
although that is how we would typically see it.
Member Schmidt stated that in addition to the previous motion, adding that the
Regional Center size be limited to 30 to 100 acres, that the number of big box
store be limited to three and that traditional multi family, but would allow mixed
use.
Member Craig would not be supporting the motion because we went through a grueling
process a couple of years ago on a land use level to come up with a Lifestyle Center
and part of that process involved the neighborhood and how they would be impacted
and involved predictability. She felt that when we change this to a Regional Shopping
Center we have gone against what we told the neighbors what we give them with a
Lifestyle Center and that was all of these conditions and control so it would be an up
scaled completely different than a Regional Shopping Center and we are not doing that
anymore and she understands the changes in market, but she also knows that two
years ago we were told that the Lifestyle Center was the up and coming thing and that
was the only way to go and Regional Shopping Centers were out. She does not want
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 8, 2005
Page 28
us to constantly changing because of the market and this is a land use Board and not a
market driven Board. She could not support this at this time.
Member Lingle agreed with Member Craig in a lot of ways and would vote that way to if
we had an option to rescind the Lifestyle designation and go back to primary
employment but he did not see that as a viable alternative to the city right now. He was
willing to support the motion tonight.
Member Schmidt would be supporting the motion because the one thing that was stated
is that the underlying zoning is still employment.
The motion was approved 3-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative
Other Business:
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board 2/16/06.