HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/07/2013SPECIAL HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, February 7, 2013
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan, PDP #120036
Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., February 7, 2013
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant
Kristin Kirkpatrick Courtney Levingston, City Planner
Gino Campana Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director
Gerald Hart
John Hatfield
Emily Elmore
2
1 CHAIRMAN ANDY SMITH: The first item will be the Foothills Mall Redevelopment
2 PDP. And, before we start with the staff report, I just wanted to ask the audience to remember
3 that this is specifically a Land Use Code issue that we’re dealing with tonight. I know that there
4 are other issues related to this topic, specifically eminent domain, that…it would be a waste of
5 time. It’s inappropriate, really, for our discussion this evening because that is nothing that this
6 Board will take into consideration tonight or at any time in the future. And so, I’d just…if you
7 have comments about the eminent domain piece, I would recommend that you do not waste your
8 time on them. Yeah, and you’ll have plenty of opportunity to address the City Council, as I
9 imagine many folks will. So, with that let’s go ahead and get a staff report please.
10 MS. COURTNEY LEVINGSTON: Yes, Mr. Chair. This is a request for a mixed-use
11 redevelopment of the existing Foothills Mall. As proposed, the project contains a commercial
12 component, a retail component, a commercial parking structure, and eight hundred multi-family
13 dwelling units on 76.34 acres. The site is zoned General Commercial and is located within the
14 Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. The site is also located within the Midtown
15 Urban Renewal Plan Area, and City Plan identified this area as a targeted activity center.
16 As proposed, the following needs to be deconstructed: parts of the existing mall, the
17 Youth Activity Center, the Shops at Foothills Mall, the Commons at Foothills Mall, Christy
18 Sports, Corner Bakery, Tres Margaritas, and the Plaza at Foothills Mall. In its place, eight free-
19 standing retail buildings along South College Avenue are proposed. There’ll be five free-
20 standing retail buildings internal to the site and four new restaurants southeast of the enclosed
21 mall. There’ll be a new theater entertainment component, a six-level commercial parking
22 structure. The existing Youth Activity Center will be deconstructed and a new youth activity
23 center called the Foothills Activity Center will be constructed on-site. There’ll be five multi-
24 family buildings, eight hundred units, along Stanford Road. These multi-family buildings will
25 have associated parking structures.
26 In terms of multi-modal connectivity, there’s a twelve-foot wide shared pedestrian and
27 bicycle path along South College Avenue. There’ll be three new Transfort bus stops, one south
28 of East Foothills Parkway, one along East Foothills Parkway, and one north of East Monroe
29 Drive on the west side of Stanford Road. Additionally, Monroe Drive is to be restriped from
30 four lanes down to a two to accommodate new bike lanes. Internally, there’ll be…pavement
31 markings for bicycle connectivity throughout the site.
32 New retail along South College Avenue: the existing Larimer Canal Ditch will be
33 relocated in a box culvert and aligned along South College Avenue. There’s three access points
34 along South College Avenue…this is existing…two are proposed. And there’ll be eight new
35 buildings along South College Avenue and they range from 9,302 square feet in size to 31,715
36 square feet in size. The new internal retail is located on Lot 11, Block 11 and Lot 10, Blocks
37 10A, 10B, 9A and 9B. That’s located northwest of the existing mall site. These retail buildings
38 frame the proposed East Green Amenity. There’ll be four new restaurants proposed. They range
3
1 from 8.088 square feet in size to 14,000 square feet in size. These will be two levels and this on
2 Block 1G and 1H. This is an elevational example of the 14,000 square foot restaurant building.
3 A new Foothills Activity Center is proposed to replace the existing Youth Activity
4 Center. The proposed building is about 22,000 square feet in size, will range about fifty-seven
5 feet tall. And, the City Recreation Department is currently working with the applicant to get
6 more of the details of the operational characteristics nailed down. The theater entertainment
7 component is on Lot 7, Block 7. The theater is two levels and two tenants. Those tenants have
8 not been identified at this time by the applicant. Sixty-four feet is the max height, and the
9 average height is about forty-four feet.
10 The commercial parking structure: it’s about 64,663 square feet total, six parking levels,
11 1,477 spaces. It’s about seventy-five feet in height and it does contain covered bike parking on
12 the ground level.
13 In terms of the multi-family residential, eight hundred units are proposed along Stanford
14 Road, that’s 1,173 bedrooms. There’s four subterranean parking structures on buildings 1A, 1B,
15 2 and 3, and on building 4, Lot 6, the units wrap an above-ground parking structure for a total of
16 1,422 residential parking spaces provided by the development. For multi-family residential, we
17 have these as three stories transitioning down to two stories as they approach the abutting single-
18 and two-family lots to the north. Building 2 is proposed to be four stories, as well as building 3,
19 and building 4 is five stories in height.
20 The applicant also submitted a sign package request with this Project Development Plan
21 and associated modifications. They requested two of the ground signs proposed to be located
22 along South College Avenue for a number of directional signs, and a secondary entry sign is
23 proposed to be located within the interior of the site. The Land Use Code contains regulations
24 that govern the size, height, location and design requirements for signs on private property. All
25 of the other signs that the applicant has proposed comply with the applicable standards of our
26 Code. For a modification of standards, the Board can grant one if they find that A) the
27 modifications are not detrimental to the public good, and B) one of the criteria outlined in the
28 Land Use Code is being met. A summary of those criteria are: it can be…they meet the standard
29 equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard, the modification would
30 substantially alleviate a city-wide concern or result in a substantial benefit to the city, and
31 complying with the Code would render the project practically infeasible. Third is exceptional
32 physical site conditions cause complying with the Code to result in exceptional hardship.
33 Number four, the modification is nominal and inconsequential in context with the larger plan and
34 continues to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code.
35 The first modification request is to allow signs that do not have street frontage. The plan
36 proposes ten directional signs throughout the site, that’s that turquoise color right there, and then
37 two monument ground signs. These signs don’t have street frontage because this…East Monroe
4
1 Drive is vacated, existing. It’s a private drive and so the sign would be right there. And then
2 this…and it’s also located right here on the to-be-vacated Foothills Parkway. So, those wouldn’t
3 have street…public street frontage. The directional signs are located throughout the site and
4 those don’t have street frontage. Staff recommends approval of this modification of standards
5 request because we feel that it is nominal and inconsequential when taken in context of the larger
6 project development plan. They’re also necessary in terms of providing safe and adequate
7 vehicular circulation throughout the site.
8 The second modification request to allow more than one ground sign per lot. So, as we
9 said there are ten 23.5 square foot vehicular directional signs throughout the site. These signs
10 aren’t visible from the street. The Code considers any sign larger than four square feet counting
11 toward the one ground sign per lot regulation. This seventy-six acre redevelopment could be
12 considered unique and not allowing these directional signs can be considered a hardship, because
13 as we explained before, it is necessary for adequate vehicular connectivity.
14 The third modification request is to allow two digital, that’s electronic message center,
15 signs to be displayed in full color. Full color digital signs are allowed as long as the message is
16 displayed one color at a time. The applicant submitted a modification request; however, the
17 modification request cannot be justified based on those specific criteria outlined in the Code.
18 Staff is recommending denial of this modification.
19 The fourth modification to allow digital signs larger than fifty percent of the sign
20 face…so these are these two large digital signs that are along South College Avenue, one north
21 of Foothills Parkway, one north of East Monroe Drive. As proposed, the digital sign is
22 comprised of sixty-four percent of the total sign area. We feel that this promotes the general
23 purpose of the standard equally well or better than a sign that is double in size with the additional
24 graphics, and that this could be considered nominal and inconsequential when considered in
25 context of the entire development plan.
26 The fifth modification request, to allow more than one digital sign per street per
27 development. The Code allows one digital sign per street and/or development, and a minimum
28 of a hundred foot spacing. As proposed, on College Avenue, these two signs are 1,164 feet
29 apart. The College Avenue frontage of the project is approximately 1,850 feet, and that’s greater
30 than most commercial development we see, if not all, in Fort Collins. We consider this…we
31 think that it could be considered nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of
32 the entire development plan. This is a very large site, and it also could be considered a hardship
33 because of the unique situation of the large site.
34 So, we’re recommending that all but one of the modification requests are approved, and
35 they have satisfied the modification criteria justification as outlined in the Code. That would be
36 to allow signs that do not have street frontage, allow more than one ground sign per lot, allow
37 digital signs to exceed fifty-percent of the sign face, and to allow digital signs to be located 1,164
5
1 feet apart along South College Avenue frontage. However, staff does recommend denial of the
2 modification request to allow the two full-color digital signs.
3 Overall, staff recommends approval of the Project Development Plan subject to five
4 conditions. The first condition of approval would be proper vacation of Foothills Parkway.
5 Currently Foothills Parkway is a public street until right about this lightning bolt right here, and
6 that’s Mathews Street. As proposed, Foothills Parkway would be a private drive owned by the
7 applicant. The vacation of a public street is a separate process that can only be approved by City
8 Council and not this Project Development Plan. Therefore, the condition of approval is
9 recommended.
10 The second condition of approval is for off-site wetland mitigation. Currently, the
11 project proposes realigning Larimer Canal No. 2 in a box culvert along South College Avenue.
12 The ECS identified 0.15 acres of wetlands formed at the base of the Larimer Canal No. 2. Per
13 the Code, the wetlands have to be mitigated replacing the ecological value. The Poudre River
14 corridor is the location of the proposed off-site wetland mitigation, and, as a condition of
15 approval, staff recommends that off-site wetland mitigation agreement must be executed with the
16 City, by the developer.
17 The third condition of approval would be to construct a right turn lane on Horsetooth at
18 Stanford Road. Currently, a west-bound right turn lane at Horsetooth and Stanford Road doesn’t
19 exist and the number of turning vehicles identified in the traffic study meets the Larimer County
20 Urban Area Street Standards for criteria for when a right-turn lane must be provided. A
21 condition of approval is recommended ensuring the construction of a west-bound right turn lane
22 on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the
23 project.
24 A condition of approval is regarding the entertainment theater design. The Land Use
25 Code has specific standards in Section 3.5.4 addressing the design of new retail buildings greater
26 than 25,000 square feet in size. As proposed the theater entertainment building is about 86,574
27 square feet. The applicant has indicated to us that the final designs and the tenants are not
28 finalized at this time, so staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to
29 illustrate full compliance with the provisions of the Section 3.5.4 at time of final plan.
30 The final condition of approval is regarding the digital sign, full color. If the proposed
31 electronic message center signs with full color capability are to be installed, then the method of
32 display can only be a single color at a time, per the Code. And that’s a recommendation of
33 approval if we move forward. And, that concludes my staff presentation.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Angelina, I forgot to ask the
35 magic question at the beginning. Have there been any written comments received since our
36 worksession?
6
1 MS. ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes, there’s been several comments…they’re
2 all in a file…I won’t name them by…there were several citizen comments, yes.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Let’s move to the applicant presentation.
4 Please, if you could state your name and address for the record and sign in please. How many
5 folks on your team will be addressing the Board, making your presentation?
6 MS. CAROLYN WHITE: Mr. Chairman, we just have two for the formal presentation,
7 but we do plan to introduce the rest of the team so you know who all’s here for technical
8 questions for later.
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Please proceed.
10 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, City staff, members of the public,
11 my name is Carolyn White, I’m land use counsel for the applicant on the PDP that’s before you
12 tonight. On behalf of Walton Foothills, which you might also hear referred to as Alberta, who is
13 one of the principal partners in Walton Foothills, we respectfully request your approval of the
14 PDP submitted to you tonight. We are in agreement with staff on everything in the staff report
15 and that was presented by Ms. Levingston, with one exception, and that is, of course, the fifth
16 modification on the sign package in which we would request that you approve the modification
17 allowing the two full-color LED signs. Later on in our presentation, we’ll go through that in
18 more detail with you and explain how we think it meets the modification criteria.
19 This project, which we’re pleased to present to you tonight, was designed to meet three
20 different layers of criteria. The first layer of criteria, of course, is Fort Collins City Plan and Fort
21 Collins Land Use Code. At a minimum, anything for you to approve obviously has to meet those
22 criteria, and as you’ll see as we go through the presentation, there are a number of places in the
23 plan where this project specifically achieves some of the goals outlined in the City Plan.
24 Additionally, the project has to meet everything in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, which sets
25 forth specific goals for this particular property and what’s trying to be achieved here. And then,
26 finally, obviously, this project has to meet the standards of quality that this particular developer
27 sets for themselves, and market demand. And so, everything that you’ll see tonight in terms of
28 the vision and how it’s proposed to execute this project, is designed to satisfy all three levels of
29 those criteria.
30 Our presentation tonight is going to be Don Provost, principal of Alberta and in Walton
31 Foothills, outlining for you the vision and a variety of the specific public amenities and
32 community benefits involved in this project. I’m going to come back and talk a little bit about
33 the specific legal criteria and about the City Plan, and then of course we have our entire team
34 here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you
35 tonight, and with that I’d like to introduce Don Provost.
7
1 MR. DON PROVOST: Thanks Carolyn. Good evening and thank you for the
2 opportunity to be before you this evening. As Carolyn mentioned, my name is Don Provost, I’m
3 the founding principal of Alberta Development Partners, founded the company twenty-one years
4 ago down in Denver. Lived down in Denver, raised my family there, I have four young children
5 and a wife who attended Colorado State University. It’s a very exciting time for us to come
6 before you this evening and present what we’re terming the “reimagining of Foothills.” It’s an
7 incredible opportunity and we don’t take it lightly. I’d like to give a big thanks to Courtney for
8 covering the significant issues in great detail, we’ve enjoyed working very much with her and the
9 City staff as we’ve…many, many issues that we’ve had to reach resolution from, and as you
10 see…excuse me…from her conclusion this evening, we’ve only got the one issue out of
11 everything involved in a massive project like this that we want to continue to have dialogue on
12 this evening.
13 You can see on the slide there, we’ve assembled a best-in-class team to execute this
14 project, most of which are here this evening, here to answer any questions that come up that are
15 technical in nature or require an answer from the professional that executed that work product.
16 This is the site plan, I think you saw a brief shot of it in Courtney’s presentation…orient
17 you guys, College Avenue right here, the existing…can you move around on that, Adam, for
18 me? College Avenue…move on with the cursor…the main mall in the center of the site, the
19 residential on the eastern boundary, the cinema right there, the east plaza with the restaurants
20 right there, the west plaza on the other side as you go. The reimagined Foothills is driven by
21 what we’re terming “sophisticated Colorado contemporary architecture,” which, along with
22 pedestrian-friendly shops, restaurants, and community gathering spaces, will transform this
23 property into the dominant retail destination in Northern Colorado. Next slide.
24 That’s the existing mall, and I’ll get to that in a minute when we talk about what’s staying
25 and what’s going. Courtney did a good job of that, but I want to elaborate a little further. This is
26 a slide that represents College Avenue and the urban edge shops that get established and create a
27 whole different character and edge, and feel and presentation along College Avenue. Very, very
28 important to set a new direction and set a new approach and vibrancy for this asset.
29 This is a rendering of the new entrance to the Foothills Mall. The existing entry is
30 geographically located where you see it there, so it doesn’t physically move. What changes is, as
31 you can see, the architecture. Big, bold moves in height and glass, colors, materials. We wanted
32 the project to take on a very…you know, again, sophisticated Colorado progressive architecture.
33 But, at the same time, balance it and measure it with, you know, stones and woods and very
34 warm and comfortable materials that are reflective of the Colorado character and nature of this
35 project. This would be a summer evening at, you know, probably 7:30, 8:00 in the evening,
36 fountains, plazas, retail on both sides. We’ve got a restaurant commitment on what would be the
37 right side of this drawing. Other retailers, best-in-class retailers on either side. And, as you see,
38 what we’ve done, is we’ve flanked either side of the mall…you can start to see, with retailers
8
1 who will have exterior entrances as well as interior entrances from the outside. So, very much
2 activating the outside of the mall. Typically, you’ll see a mall and it’ll just be a big wall and you
3 won’t have any activation from the outside, so we’ve taken great care to activate the outside of
4 this space, what we’re calling the west lawn. And, on the other side, you’ll see in a minute, the
5 east lawn.
6 Here’s the east lawn with the entertainment cinema complex in the background. In the
7 foreground, again, same, you know, warm summer Colorado evening, restaurants flanking both
8 side. A lot will be two-story, some with patios and rooftop decks. And then this is a very large
9 lawn space that’ll accommodate everything from concerts in the park to street fairs, art fairs, an
10 ice skating pond that’ll be put in place in the winter time. Not an ice skating rink, but more of a
11 free-form pond you’d see up in Canada…and, wanted to do something different than a rink with
12 boards on it. It’ll be very large and have an ice skate rental hut, and hot chocolate and all that
13 good stuff, again, just to create a great community gathering spot. The theater will be a premium
14 screen theater serving, you know, food and beverage, and first run movies. Next slide.
15 This is a vision of the interior of the mall. That’s the existing Macy’s entrance…if you
16 stood in the mall today and stood in the same spot and looked down at the Macy’s, you’d see that
17 but you wouldn’t see everything else around, so Macy’s entrance gets redone. The entire inside
18 of the mall gets redone, for all intents and purposes, it will appear as if we have torn down the
19 mall and rebuilt it, although we’re leaving the mall up while we do this construction. All new
20 clear story glass along the side, new ceiling treatments with natural wood, custom light fixtures,
21 stone tile flooring treatments, soft seating areas with carpet and plants and there’ll be a raised-
22 platform coffee bar at center court, free wi-fi throughout the project, a lot of great amenities.
23 This is basically at center court of the mall, so where you just were, you were looking
24 down to the left, now you’re looking out and you can see in the background the east lawn, the
25 theater out there. So, you’re peering through a big wall…a big window wall of glass to let in the
26 natural light. It’s also a fireplace that transitions both the indoor and outdoor space there. Again,
27 large soft seating areas, raised the height of the structure significantly, very strong use of wood,
28 very light, very airy, very warm. Again, introducing glass, clear story glass so we have a lot of
29 natural light which minimizes the need for, at least during the daytime hours, for incandescent
30 lighting.
31 We are a big believe in all of our projects of distinctive amenities. In this project, we’ll
32 have a variety of those amenities, including grand fountains which will be located on the west
33 lawn, dancing fountains on the east lawn, the great lawn, the skating pond, the peer-though
34 fireplace, several pavilions throughout the project, parks and concierge services…will also be
35 multiple valet parking service locations throughout the project, both on the east lawn and the
36 west lawn areas of the project.
9
1 Some detail on the community improvements, the bike path, the MAX BRT, working
2 with staff with respect to underpass and CDOT, and a lot of other folks are involved, but I think
3 we’re getting pretty good consensus there on executing that. Pedestrian connectivity throughout
4 the site, we’ve got a slide here in a minute that we can go through on that. Foothills Activity
5 Center, I think it’s important to note that, right now, there’s a Youth Activity Center on the site,
6 in the far corner of the site, that’s in an old building that’s more of a re-use situation. What we
7 said is, what can we do to not only make that a much better experience for the youth, that they’re
8 using is now, and expand those programs, but let’s just not stop there, let’s do, and let’s change
9 the name from Youth Activity Center to Foothills Activity Center, and create that space within
10 our campus at twenty…what is it, 22,000 square feet?...23,000 square feet, it’s significantly
11 larger than the existing facility and will be programmed and run by the Parks and Recreation so
12 we want to, you know, let them…so imagine a, you know, kind of a best-in-class health club
13 with meeting rooms and flex spaces and so forth to accommodate those type of events, as well as
14 providing a, you know, a great resource for the community at a much greater scale than exists
15 today.
16 The east and west lawns are very important, because those are large spaces that are
17 essentially dedicated public spaces that have a lot of flexibility, streets that can be shut down to
18 accommodate street fairs, 5K runs, a lot of other events that are very, very important for creating
19 an iconic, you know, Northern Colorado asset here that’ll be a legacy asset for many, many,
20 many years.
21 This is a graphic that reflects, and it’s in your package…look at the bike path, the MAX
22 BRT…next. The pedestrian connectivity, we’ve taken great care to have pedestrian connectivity
23 as well as bike connectivity. I think Courtney went through some of the, you know, some of the
24 connectivity along College Avenue with the twelve-foot wide sidewalk, bike/ped walk, as well
25 as the restriping and narrowing of certain streets and roads both external and internal to the
26 project. There’s also some three hundred bike rack spaces contained within the commercial…a
27 hundred and…how many are covered? One forty are actually covered in the parking structure,
28 so they’re underneath so if it’s a, you know, if it happens to be a cool day or you think it’s going
29 to snow or rain, you can lock your bike up underneath, or…be a more protected conditioned
30 environment. And then the residential has, again, all meeting your Code, has, I think 1,100 or so
31 additional bike racks. The pedestrian connectivity along College Avenue, again, the twelve-foot
32 bike path, shared bike lanes on Foothills Parkway, and the dedicated bike paths on Monroe, as
33 well as new pedestrian count-down timers and so forth. Again, taking great care along our
34 frontage to execute all, kind of best practices today when it comes to bike/ped and crossings and
35 pedestrian and bike safety interacting with vehicles.
36 Sustainability…our friends had a long-term commitment to sustainability, having infused
37 it in many of our projects from LEED certified buildings and LEED certified parking structures,
38 and so on and so forth, clearly we appreciate the leadership position Fort Collins has taken along
39 those lines and want to not only comply with…I think a great, kind of leadership position as I
10
1 said, but also enhance that. For example, here are some of the….a list of a few of the things
2 we’re doing with, you know, obviously natural light, low wattage long-life LED down lights,
3 reuse of demolition materials, significant water quality control devices that don’t exist, including
4 bioswales, electric car charging stations…you know, planning for the future. I know some
5 people do have electric cars now, but more will have them as time goes on, so providing that as
6 an amenity. Work with staff on tree mitigation, wetlands mitigation, expansive green spaces, as
7 well as others.
8 Okay, so this is…and Courtney did a good job with this with her graphic, but, what’s
9 staying, what’s going, what are we rebuilding. This is the existing mall right here, and on the
10 rear here, you’ve got Mervyn’s, which comes down, the east concourse comes down, and then
11 you’ve got a bunch of perimeter buildings that also come down to create the site plan that we
12 showed earlier. There’ll be material enhancements to all of the entries of Macy’s, so Macy’s will
13 essentially look like a new department store anchor, they’ll have new entries, new landscaping,
14 new sidewalk, everything gets reconditioned here. Macy’s is also going to invest significant
15 money on the inside of their store. Part of the negotiations with them and the trade is we’re
16 going to make some exterior improvements; they’re going to make some interior improvements
17 to enhance their offering to the public. We think that’s very important to get department store
18 anchors to commit on both ends, not just us, you know, cleaning up the outside of their stores.
19 Traffic…Courtney didn’t have any issues with traffic. We submitted a traffic study that
20 staff has reviewed and approved. I think this is an important graphic that shows current mall
21 conditions and then, the current mall as stabilized in the center there, if the mall was stabilized at
22 least like it was fifteen years ago, that was the traffic that was being generated in the heyday, and
23 then our proposed redevelopment’s traffic generation. So, in the heyday, the mall generated
24 traffic pretty close to exactly where the traffic is going to be when we complete our project.
25 Talk about a few other things…the graphic on the screen is not necessarily referenced
26 here, but ditch realignment…we’ve reached an agreement, I think, with the City and the ditch
27 company on a design for what’s called the existing Larimer No. 2 ditch. The ditch will be placed
28 in a box culvert as Courtney said, and we’re working on a document to memorialize that
29 agreement. Water quality and drainage, this is a 1972 era mall, and back in that time, there was
30 no such thing really as detention or water quality control, so we’re obviously bringing that up,
31 you know, to 2013 standards and retrofitting the entire site to modern standards for water quality
32 control and detention.
33 Construction phasing, we’ve worked out a phasing plan with Macy’s and existing tenants
34 that are going to remain operating in the mall to minimize disruption as much as we can. It’s
35 going to be an active construction site with a lot of things going on, but we do plan on keeping
36 the mall open. Macy’s wants to stay open, several retailers in the mall want to stay open that are
37 there right now and are being relocated in the merchandising plan, so we’re very anxious to keep
38 it open and will encourage tours of…by the public, elementary schools, whoever wants to tour to
11
1 do hardhat tours as we’re building it to kind of have the community involvement as its going
2 through its regeneration.
3 Finally, signage, and as you heard from Carolyn, we’re…again, we’ve had a great
4 working relationship with staff. We believe, obviously, that signage is a critical component of a
5 project of this scale and scope, and economic significance. And, at seventy-five acres, we’re not
6 a one-acre Walgreens on the corner, this is…you know, a major regional economic driver and we
7 believe the site is very deep, tenants on the east side have no visibility from College Avenue,
8 very difficult without extensive signage, and particularly LED signage that we believe, if
9 programmed correctly and at the highest level of design standards and best practices that exist
10 today, is something that this project should receive a variance on, and we appreciate your
11 consideration and dialogue associated with the signage on this project.
12 With that, I’m finished, I’m going to turn it back to Carolyn, she’s going to go over a lot
13 of criteria and modifications that are more Code-based. Thank you very much, look forward to
14 speaking to you later.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
16 MS. WHITE: Good evening, Carolyn White again, land use counsel for the applicant.
17 So, I’m just going to briefly cover how this project complies with the standards that are your
18 measuring guideline for considering this project. Obviously, it has to comply with all of the
19 applicable general development standards in Chapter 3 of the Code, except with any
20 modifications as noted, and we’re going to talk about the sign modification, and then it also has
21 to comply with all the relevant standards in the zone district and, as Courtney mentioned, this is
22 in the General Commercial zone district and so it has to comply with those in Chapter 4, Section
23 20 related to General Commercial. Next slide please.
24 Our submittal illustrates and the staff report indicates, and we concur with the staff
25 report, that it does in fact comply with all of the applicable standards. I’m not going to go
26 through all of them; I just want to highlight a couple of key ones for you. Next slide please.
27 So, I’m going to talk briefly about the modifications relative to signage. I’m going to
28 briefly mention the alternative compliance we have submitted relative to lighting, and talk about
29 the special height review that we have requested. I’m going to go a little bit out of order, if I
30 may, and talk about the special height review on this slide because I don’t have a separate slide
31 illustrating that. We do have several structures included in the project that are greater than forty
32 feet, and therefore it is subject to special height review under 3.5.1 in the Code. We did conduct
33 that special height review with staff, we submitted graphics illustrating perspectives from the
34 surrounding buildings, architectural renderings, and also comparisons showing the shadow study
35 as required in 3.5.1 on special height review. Staff report concluded, and we agree, that there
36 really is no negative impact as a result of several of the structures being slightly higher than forty
37 feet. And, it has to do in part with the fact there are already several very large mass and bulk
12
1 structures in, on, and around the site, including the mall itself, the nearby Marriott hotel, and so
2 forth. And, it also has to do with the articulation and the architectural enhancements that were
3 provided relative to the individual residential buildings. And so, if you have questions about that
4 and you want to go into further detail, we certainly are prepared to do that, I just wanted to
5 mention it briefly that we do have a special height review here. Next slide.
6 So, there are five separate modifications requested relative to the sign package. Four of
7 them we are in agreement with staff on, I’m not going to spend a lot of time detailing those. I
8 want to focus mostly on the fifth one, where we do have a disagreement with staff and we’d like
9 to ask you to approve the two full-color LED signs. I just want to mention the only area where
10 we disagree is the full-color part. The presence of the signs, the fact that there are two of them,
11 the size of them, all of those are things that we have requested modifications for and that staff
12 has concurred that the modifications are justified under the provisions of the Code.
13 So, these are the five different types of modifications requested relative to signage. We
14 do have a few signs that are located on lots that do not have street frontage. Really, they do not
15 have public street frontage, they have street-like drive frontage because the drives internal to the
16 site will be private drives, but they will otherwise be just like a regular street. For that reason,
17 and also for the other reasons I’m going to articulate in a minute about the overall modifications,
18 we feel that this is a very nominal and inconsequential deviation from the provisions of the Code.
19 We also have several lots that have more than one ground sign, and the reason for that has a lot
20 to do with the fact that this is a seventy-seven acre site, it’s very deep from College Avenue to
21 the east side, and there are going to be tenants located on this site that are going to be on the far
22 side of the site away from College Avenue. And, ensuring visibility and way-finding for this site
23 is going to be a really critical component of its success overall.
24 And then, finally, the two single-sided LED signs. Your Code says only one per lot. As
25 was mentioned by Courtney, this lot is eighteen hundred feet long along its street frontage, and
26 since the sign spacing requirement is a hundred feet, and we have the two signs eleven hundred
27 feet apart, we and staff are in agreement that having more than one sign is justified given those
28 circumstances.
29 And then, finally, the signage size. We could meet this criteria by making those signs
30 larger, and that, as pointed out by staff, would not make them more effective or more attractive,
31 or really meet the intent here, and so the slight deviation from the fifty percent rule is also
32 appropriate as to those signs.
33 And then, finally, we have the issue of full color instead of monochromed. Next slide
34 please. So, this slide, and I know it’s small and hard to read so I’m going to summarize for you
35 what it says. This is trying to explain how these sign modifications meet the criteria in your
36 Code. As was presented earlier, in order to approve a modification, you have to show that it’s
37 not detrimental to the public good, plus one of the other four criteria. We believe it meets
13
1 actually three of those criteria, for some of the reasons that I already mentioned. Namely that
2 this is a really unique site, there are not that many infill sites of this size in Fort Collins, and in
3 particular, it is a retail site which is exceedingly deep. It’s seventy-seven acres, it’s a long
4 distance from the College Avenue, which is the principal entrance and the principal visibility, to
5 the eastern side of the site. And, as Don Provost mentioned, one of the goals here is to attract
6 some of the best in class retailers, and many of those retailers are not going to consider this site
7 unless they can be assured that they have adequate visibility from College Avenue, and that
8 they’re going to be able to communicate with their potential customers who are travelling up and
9 down College Avenue. That’s one of the reasons this is such a great site, is because of the traffic
10 on College Avenue, but it doesn’t work if you can’t communicate with that travelling public
11 that’s going up and down on College Avenue.
12 Another issue relative to this signage is, as identified in the Midtown Urban Renewal
13 Survey…Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Conditions Survey, one of the fundamental problems of
14 the site as it presently exists, is way-finding and pedestrian connectivity and traffic flow. Right
15 now, as designed, it doesn’t really flow properly, it doesn’t work the way a large site like this
16 should work. One of the things we’re doing is totally redesigning how the streets and the
17 pedestrian access works, putting better sidewalks, more sidewalks. But another way we’re
18 addressing that is with a very complete program of way-finding signage that is integrated into the
19 overall signage program. So, the idea is to make sure that wherever you are on the site, you can
20 recognize where you are and how to get to where you want to be. And, in order to do that, we
21 need to deviate from some of these requirements in the Code, like having the no street frontage,
22 having more than one sign, and having several signs that are located on streets that aren’t really
23 streets.
24 I want to assure you that, overall, this sign package has no compromises whatsoever in
25 aesthetics or quality, and the complete sign package was submitted in your packet. We also, if
26 you want to look specifically at any of the signs, we can put those slides up there for you. In
27 particular, with respect to the full color LED, there are many tenants for whom, you know, this is
28 sort of the…this is the wave of the future, this is the trend of communicating digitally. And, in
29 order to describe their offerings to the public, particularly as they may change over time, these
30 full color LED signs are incredible important to certain tenants in the marketplace. It also
31 provides an opportunity to advertise community events, communicate with the public about
32 what’s happening on the east lawn and the west lawn, farmer’s markets, tree lighting, et cetera.
33 Limiting these signs to only one color, as required by the Code, really doesn’t take advantage of
34 all the opportunities provided by this technology and really limits the ability to communicate
35 those offerings appropriately to the public. So, we would ask you to approve that fifth
36 modification as well. Next slide.
37 This is…Courtney already showed you this slide, this is a blow-up indicating where each
38 of those signs is located, and as I said, if you want to go into more detail about any of the
39 particular signs, we can certainly do that for you. Next slide.
14
1 Our alternative compliance regarding lighting wasn’t mentioned earlier in the staff report.
2 Your Code requires full cut-off for all the lighting. In lieu of full cut-off, what we propose to do
3 is provide these glowing luminaires that are enclosed and glow in a different way. And, the idea
4 is to meet the intent of the requirement in the Code by having lighting that doesn’t spill over and
5 doesn’t create a negative impact on adjacent properties, doesn’t create dark sky problems, but
6 still provides sufficient light for safety and way-finding in and throughout the site. So, the
7 lighting that has been designed for this project is a very subtle, very aesthetically pleasing
8 lighting. It’s not specifically full cut-off, it’s really just an alternative way of meeting the same
9 intent. And, again, if you want more detail than that, we can certainly go into it and provide it.
10 Finally, I just want to mention briefly all of the different ways in which this project
11 complies with and furthers the goals set forth in City Plan. This is just a summary of some of
12 them. If you pull up City Plan on your computer and you just search on the term Foothills Mall,
13 you will be going and clicking for days. This is a property that is prominently featured
14 throughout City Plan because it’s so central to the midtown corridor. There are a number of
15 goals set forth in City Plan that talk about how critical it is to, number one, ensure that this
16 property redevelops, and number two, ensure that when it does redevelop, it does so in a way that
17 achieves some of these overall goals for the City, like providing pedestrian connectivity along
18 College Avenue, providing connectivity to the MAX BRT station on the Mason corridor, and
19 otherwise upgrading the site to meet what the current standards are. We didn’t get into a lot of
20 the details, but, you know, this project was built at a time when there were not requirements in
21 the Code for on-site water quality and detention. All of those things are going to be upgraded
22 with this project to meet the current Code requirements for water quality and detention. That’s
23 part of the goal of City Plan is to overall, over time, have all the properties in the City retrofitted
24 to meet the current Code and standards in terms of environmental quality, aesthetic design, and
25 so on.
26 A couple that I just want to highlight on here, incorporating public spaces and community
27 facilities. This project takes great pains to incorporate the public spaces, the east and west lawn,
28 the Foothills Activity Center, some of the other public features that Don Provost mentioned
29 earlier in his talk. Next slide please.
30 And then, finally, I’ll just mention the number of times that City Plan talks about this
31 property as being a priority project, a catalyst property in a targeted infill and redevelopment
32 area. This project is an opportunity to meet all of those goals set forth in City Plan. So, for that
33 reason, we ask you to approve our PDP and we ask for your specific approval of the fifth
34 modification relative to the full color LED signs. With that, our entire team stands ready to
35 answer any questions you may have and thank you for your time and attention tonight. We
36 appreciate the opportunity to present this project to you.
15
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Alright, Courtney? Courtney and colleagues…let’s
2 see here, wanted to probably see if there was anything that you would have in response to what
3 we just heard from the applicant. Anything specific?
4 MS. LEVINGSTON: I believe Peter Barnes, our Zoning Administrator, would like to
5 provide a response to the applicant’s presentation as it relates to the LED full color signs.
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Perfect, thank you. Peter?
7 MR. PETER BARNES: Thank you. With regards to formulating a recommendation on
8 the modification request for the full color digital display, the electronic message center signs,
9 staff believed that the applicant hadn’t shown that they satisfied the criteria, the four criteria
10 necessary for modifications…the equal to or better than, nominal and inconsequential, the
11 hardship standard, or the community benefit. The applicant in their narrative had stated that
12 these signs would…the design of their signs would create a precedent for other developments
13 and that these events…and they indicated that they have destinations and events going on in the
14 site that the public would not be able to adequately be informed of with the constraints of
15 monochrome displays. In 2011, City staff conducted extensive public outreach, public meetings
16 regarding the issue of updating our digital sign regulations. There was a lot of discussion about,
17 do we restrict signage to what previously was allowed, where you could only use yellow, blue,
18 green, or amber, or white as colors, and you could only use one at a time, or should we open it up
19 to the whole range of colors available, and if we do that, should it be full color where you can
20 display multiple colors at any one time. The determination was made by City Council that the
21 Code should be changed to allow people to use multi-color, or full-color display capable signs,
22 but only, again, display your message one color at a time. Therefore, they were no longer
23 restricted to the four or five colors previously, they could use any color they wanted, but the
24 background had to be displayed in one single color and the message in a different single color at
25 a time. We believe that it would be detrimental to the public good given the outreach and the
26 effort that was put forth in 2011 with regards to digital signs. And this application involves
27 balancing established values, aesthetics, the built environment, and economics with the
28 provisions that one should not be at the expense of the other. One of the purposes of the Land
29 Use Code is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing
30 neighborhoods and allowing full color displays when there aren’t any others allowed within the
31 community, and there certainly aren’t any allowed in this particular neighborhood, we feel would
32 be insensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood, and would be detrimental to the
33 public good in that it could be setting a precedent for other developments to come in and seek
34 similar modifications.
35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. Does the Board…any Boardmembers have questions for
36 Peter? No?
16
1 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: I do. Peter, could you give us a little bit
2 of background about why Council made that determination in 2011?
3 MR. BARNES: There were a lot of factors that were taken into consideration throughout
4 the course of that study. You have issues of how often messages can change, the design of signs.
5 The sign code is…and community survey after community survey over the course of the years,
6 the sign code is recognized as one of the top three components of the City Code that
7 enhances…contributes to the enhancement of the city streetscapes. And, as these signs become
8 more popular, and they proliferate along College Avenue and on the other arterial streets…as
9 you’re driving down the street, you’ll have multiple signs on all sides of the street competing for
10 the motorists’ attention. And, if they’re all in different colors, multiple colors at the same
11 time…one over here is changing, and then five seconds later another one over here is
12 changing…so the, part of the reasoning for not allowing the multi-color displays was because of
13 that potential for signs to be changing as you’re driving down the street and you have these signs
14 more often in the future. And, so we were taking one step at a time as we amended our Code
15 with regards to digital signs.
16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you, and can I ask one more? Have we
17 received additional requests for modification of this sign standard for full color in the past?
18 MR. BARNES: No, the Code change has only been in…the new Codes have only been in
19 place for fourteen months. Part of that, they were…we had the monochrome only in just those
20 four or five colors, and at that time, too, during that period of six or seven years, we did not have
21 any modification requests.
22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any questions for Peter? Specific? Peter, one last thing. We
24 have a couple new Boardmembers that weren’t present when we did that whole exercise on sign
25 code changes. And, if you can, can you maybe be specific in describing to everybody here what
26 the outreach process was. I mean, kind of the time, how many folks, and just talk a little bit
27 more specific about the outreach process, how often you met with us, how often you went to
28 Council. Just be a little more specific, if you don’t mind.
29 MR. BARNES: Okay, I’ll try and do that. The…as I mentioned, we did this study in
30 2011, and it took almost the entire year. We started early in the year, we had an on-line survey,
31 we had good participation in that, we had it on our website, on Facebook, and other electronic
32 media. We had numerous public meetings, we had other meetings with the sign industry, with
33 the business community, with the Chamber of Commerce, I don’t know how many worksessions
34 we had with the Planning and Zoning Board, we had a worksession with the City Council…at
35 least one worksession with the City Council, and then of course there was the Planning and
36 Zoning Board hearing where the Planning and Zoning Board considered the Code changes and
37 made a recommendation to City Council, and then two readings at City Council.
17
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Board before we
2 get to public testimony? Doesn’t have to be specific to Peter about sign code change, it could be
3 anything for staff. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
4 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: I’m curious…we’re working on the
5 underpass over to the Mason corridor. Courtney, where are we in that process, when are we
6 looking at that going in? Just more detail.
7 MS. LEVINGSTON: Last week we met with the ditch company and the applicant to talk
8 about alignment. The ditch company was very much in favor of a west alignment, that is the one
9 that would have the underpass. But, they are also in favor of realigning on the east of College
10 Avenue in a box culvert. So, they are okay with both situations. They would prefer the west
11 alignment which is west of South College Avenue. We met with the ditch company…Rick
12 Richter, our City Engineer, is in conversations with CDOT right now discussing the frontage
13 road and aligning the ditch in a box culvert under the frontage road. It’s a very complicated
14 process with a lot of different entities involved, and it’s taking a significant amount of staff time
15 to assist in facilitating this process.
16 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, would that be going in…I mean are you
17 anticipating that it would be going in with the reopening of the mall, or?... Do you have any way
18 to know that?
19 MS. LEVINGSTON: If it is to move forward, I would…I’m not sure exactly what the
20 timeline, the construction timeline, of that would be. Marc, do you have any…no.
21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Emily?
23 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Courtney, regarding the Youth Activity Center,
24 during the worksession, I thought that that was going to remain like the same use, for the youth
25 specifically. But then during the applicant presentation, it sounded like it was going to become a
26 general community center…maybe I misheard it, could you clarify that for me?
27 MS. LEVINGSTON: The applicant is working with our Recreation Department; we have
28 Bob Adams and Marty Heffernan here from the Recreation Department. They are currently in
29 discussion about operations, programming, specifics relating to the Youth Activity Center, or the
30 Foothills Activity Center as it would be called. Once again, we’re still working at nailing down
31 those details with the applicant. I think the programming would be, from what I understand from
32 Bob, it would be similar to the existing programs and would have youth programs.
33 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I guess a head nod isn’t enough, thank you.
18
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let’s do this then, if there’s no real pressing issues, more
2 questions, we’ll come back to asking a lot more questions I think of staff. Let’s make sure we
3 give the public an opportunity to address the Board on this issue. Again, raise your hand, if you
4 don’t mind, if you are going to address the Board on this issue. Okay, so here’s how we’ll do
5 it…is, we have two microphones, if you would line up at the microphones and please…I’m
6 going to give each person three minutes to speak to the Board. Please state your name and
7 address for the record and sign in. I’m going to have to remind you again…we’re not talking
8 about eminent domain tonight. I would save those comments for the appropriate venue and time,
9 and that would be City Council at some point soon I imagine. So, please go ahead and step on
10 up, three minutes, and then we’ll alternate. Please, there should be a sign in right there. So, if
11 you would, sign in your name and address. I’m not sure, is it on the clipboard by chance, or is it
12 just a free floating sheet? Okay, alright, yeah, so go ahead, and if you don’t mind is…make your
13 comments, when you’re done making your comments, then go ahead and sign in and then we’ll
14 jump to the other side and they’ll do the same thing and we’ll go back and forth and we’ll get
15 through all this. So, go ahead, sir, please.
16 MR. TOM CLEVINGER: Thank you. My name is Tom Clevinger, my address is 712
17 Oxford Lane, Fort Collins. I’m speaking in favor of the proposal. The reason I’m speaking in
18 favor…I believe the economic impact for the City of Fort Collins would be very significant, and
19 increased revenue for the City is always necessary, and this project looks like it would certainly
20 help add to that. My major issue with this is to provide, possibly, if it is feasible in the plan, to
21 ensure that there’s an opportunity for some shuttle service between the rapid MAX bus service
22 and the mall development. I saw that there was plenty of provision for traffic of automobiles,
23 traffic for pedestrians, but I didn’t hear any discussion with respect to a shuttle service. With an
24 increasingly aged population, I think taking advantage of what we have coming with the rapid
25 MAX bus service and the mall development, some provision ultimately for shuttle service to the
26 development of the mall would be very significant and help ensure the mall’s success. Thank
27 you very much.
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Did he sign in? Mr. Clevinger, sir? Very good, we
29 run a tight ship around here and we’ve had people steal the sign in sheet and everything. We
30 can’t have that. Please go ahead.
31 MS. ANN HUTCHISON: Good evening, my name is Ann Hutchison, 402 Riddle Drive
32 in Fort Collins. I’m also the Executive Vice-President of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of
33 Commerce. I’m here this evening to speak in favor of the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. The
34 vision shared by Alberta is pretty fantastic for Fort Collins and will absolutely make sure that we
35 return to being a leader in retail in northern Colorado. As well, we’re pleased to see that this
36 becomes a kick-starter project that will also solidify the redevelopment of the entire midtown
37 corridor. There’s tremendous value in the fifteen hundred construction jobs as well as the
38 thousand permanent jobs, and will absolutely add to the economic vitality of our community.
39 We especially appreciate the fact that Alberta is willing to invest their money and their effort
19
1 here in Fort Collins and are very much looking forward to the return of Foothills as a destination.
2 Last comment would be on digital signs, as a reminder, one of the threats during that
3 conversation was elimination versus full color. We landed at one color, full color is not a
4 horrible thing, and in fact the Chamber was in favor of full color digital signs during that
5 conversation, but negotiated back to single color of any kind in order to move that conversation
6 ahead. So, I’m hopeful that you’ll be thoughtful in considering that full color request.
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. And Ann, you signed in, right? Alright, perfect. Sir,
8 go ahead.
9 MR. TOM TUCKER: I signed in. Good evening, my name is Tom Tucker, I live at 3019
10 Stanford, which is just the north side of the mall, and I’m speaking against the proposal as it
11 stands now. And the main reason, it deals with the eight hundred units of residential
12 development which is going to have eleven hundred and seventy-three bedrooms, which on
13 average is going to have one car per bedroom. So you’re going to have, approximately, four plus
14 trips per day per car…say five thousand additional trips, automobile trips, per day, from those
15 eight hundred units. And, as we…look at the proposal as it stands, there’s not a through…easy
16 through traffic motion from those developments to College Avenue. And, what appears to me is
17 going to happen is there’s going to be a lot of traffic going onto Stanford and Swallow, and my
18 concern is that we’re just across, north of Swallow on Stanford, we’re going to see a big increase
19 in traffic. That’s a four-way stop now, at a minimum it needs a traffic…traffic signal. But, my
20 main concern is I think we need some sort of plan where those eight hundred units can travel
21 across their seventy-three acres to College Avenue, which is the main thoroughfare through that
22 area. So, I would urge you to table or postpone this proposal until they can address better traffic
23 flow. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam?
25 MS. ROXANA (NO LAST NAME PROVIDED) Hi, I’m Roxana, 512 East Monroe
26 Drive, D-414, and I’m opposed to the development as it stands also, and again because of the
27 eight hundred apartments. And I think, originally it was four hundred, which isn’t quite as much
28 congestion, but with eight hundred, it changes the face of the development resulting in the traffic,
29 noise, effect on the surrounding property values, and the elevation of the buildings. I live just
30 east of where they’re going to be building the apartment buildings, and it’s essentially going to
31 block out our view of the mountains. So, that’s my thoughts. Thank you.
32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
33 MS. ROXANA: And I’m signed in.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks, appreciate it. Mam, please, go ahead.
20
1 MS. ELLEN EDWARDS: Hi, my name is Ellen Edwards, my address is 3121 Swallow
2 Place, and I live just to the east of Stanford. I too am opposed to the residential units, mainly
3 because of the traffic. I think they’re talking about this being a huge activity hub, and adding
4 fourteen hundred, maybe more, cars…it just kind of takes it over the top. There was also
5 mention about possibly races going on, and road closures, and that just adds to my argument of
6 the residential units. I too…I assume that I’ll be losing my view of Horsetooth, but I also assume
7 that as long as they’re abiding by the Land Use Code, that’s not an argument for me to go to.
8 But, I am opposed of that many residential units, and I think it’d be best if that wasn’t a piece of
9 the component that we’re talking about. Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Ms. Edwards, I want to make sure I understood.
11 You specifically mentioned races, meaning vehicle races? Running races?
12 MS. EDWARDS: I think that’s what he was talking about…he mentioned that there
13 could be road closures.
14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, well, we’ll make sure that gets addressed from staff, I just
15 wanted to clarify. When you said races, I was thinking like Grand Prix, and…very different.
16 MS. EDWARDS: No, my argument is residential units will just take it way over the top.
17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. Sir, go ahead.
18 MR. JASON SPECINER: My name is Jason Speciner, I live at 3008 Phoenix Drive here
19 in Fort Collins. I, too, like the last three speakers, live literally a stone’s throw away from the
20 mall as it currently stands, but I stand here in favor of the development plan. Having lived here
21 for thirteen years, in my current house for the last seven, I honestly have watched this mall kind
22 of just dwindle down, and I think we’re all realizing that it is a great opportunity that the
23 development presenter has given us to revitalize the area. As far as the signs go, this is a new
24 issue that I learned about tonight, but in reality, I just don’t think that a single color sign is
25 something that’s necessary, given the fact that, you know, we look at our signs here, even in the
26 presentation, we have three or four shades of blue as one example. And, on the street, you know,
27 presenting a message that a retailer might, that might go into that space and help this
28 development, I think something that is full color seems worthwhile and seems like something
29 that could be done. So, thank you.
30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, mam?
31 MS. JULIA SENESAC: Good evening, Julia Senesac, 1520 Hearthfire Drive. Members
32 of the Board, I am a thirty-three year resident of Fort Collins, property owner, business owner,
33 parent, and former director of Board of Education. I bring that up because I want to recognize
34 how important it is to hear the voices in the room; everyone deserves to have their opinion heard.
35 Ultimately though, we have to make a decision that’s based on the public good. And this plan is
21
1 on the public good. This plan is key to the economic future of Fort Collins, it’s key to
2 redevelopment and revitalization of midtown, and we’re losing revenue, tax revenue, every day
3 that this mall is not operating up to capacity. And, we saw from the traffic studies how things
4 have dropped off. Also, I have actually done events as a promoter, in the mall, for many years,
5 and I will tell you that the signage issue is very important, as people cannot find Foothills Mall.
6 Now, I understand we’re going to get new signs, but I don’t believe that the difference in the
7 single color or the multi-color is going to be an issue that is a detriment to the community. We
8 need to let people know what we’ve got there. And, you know, having tried to put on a couple of
9 events recently in the community, I will also say that public space is at a premium, especially in
10 the summer months, so I think that the lawn and open space area will be highly used. I’m very
11 excited about a revitalized Youth Activity Center, and gosh, I’d love a new movie theater too.
12 So, you know, I think that the plan brings a lot to the table for the community and benefits that
13 we will all receive, and I can only state categorically that I am very much in support of it, and I
14 think that it is integral to the economy and health of our community.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, sir, go ahead please.
16 MR. CASEY LIPOK: Hello, my name is Casey Lipok, I live at 3407 Stover Street, just
17 east of the mall. I’m in favor of this proposal and the development, and the multi-use of the units
18 for residential don’t really bother me that much because it’s going to increase, I think, property
19 values in that whole area. You know, the traffic might be the only issue in that regards. But, in
20 terms of signage, I’ve been a business owner, had retail business, and fifty percent off main
21 street is fifty percent of your business. Now, in this digital age, overstimulation is an
22 understatement. I mean, we’ve…if you look at the images, imagery, that we have to deal with
23 on a daily basis, you have a fraction of a second to catch a customer’s eye. I understand you
24 don’t want it to look like Vegas, or College to start looking like the Vegas strip, but if these
25 things...signage is done tastefully, being a retailer especially if you’re a larger retailer, will
26 probably be more apt to come in there if they have a way to present their message or their
27 store…how to be able to get the people to come in on that back side of the mall, because it is a
28 huge complex. So, those are the only things I really wanted to address. Thanks.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please.
30 MR. CURT BEAR: My name is Curt Bear, and I live at 611 Laporte Ave, and I’m also
31 the Vice-President of the South Fort Collins Business Association right now. And, I guess I
32 would say, as a representative of the SFCBA, in general, we’re very much in favor of a
33 redevelopment. We’ve seen the plan and I would say that I, and most of the members…I’m not
34 going to say it’s unanimous, but most everybody thinks that this is the right plan for the job. The
35 community benefit is large, and especially the revitalization of the corridor, south of Prospect
36 and all the way down to Harmony. That’s part of our mission indeed. A couple of things I
37 would say, just as a citizen, because I haven’t bounced these other ideas off…but, as far as the
38 signage is concerned, I would agree with the sentiments expressed previously. We’ve all seen
22
1 nice full color LED signs and we’ve seen them directly, and I would disagree actually with
2 staff’s assessment that that wouldn’t be a hardship in what is very much a competitive
3 environment to get world-class retailers to come to your world-class mall. I think that could be
4 considered a hardship. And, also there’s a community benefit to having very well-lit signage. Is
5 it a competitive advantage against the other stores around? Perhaps, but they’re not really
6 competing in the same fashion anyway. This is a…it’s a one in a town kind of a project, and I
7 think if the Code isn’t changed, I think a variance should be granted. Lastly, on the health club,
8 just as an economist by training, if it’s a youth activity center I think that’s great. I would not
9 speak in favor of a use that competes directly with for-profit, privately run health clubs, per se,
10 and receives a subsidized ability to do so, because I think that is harmful, generally speaking, to
11 do those kinds of things. So…those are a few of my comments. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
13 MR. SEAN CARLSON: Sean Carlson, 6326 Richland Avenue in Timnath, and I just
14 wanted to show my support as a manager who’s been at the Foothills Mall for the past six years.
15 I think that the revitalization is essential to growth in Fort Collins. I wish it would have
16 happened a long time ago, personally. I think that we’ve lost a lot of business south of our
17 borders here in Fort Collins, this is a way to get it back and it’s crucial that we go with the
18 redevelopment that they’re pointing towards us. There again, some of the other people have
19 touched on the sign. As a business operator, the signage would be very important for me to
20 move into this type of mall. There is a very much lack of signage in the existing situation. I’ve
21 had numerous customers have to call me to find out where the mall is, which is not saying much,
22 being as they were driving past it on College Avenue. So, other than that, I just thank you for
23 your time.
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, mam, please go ahead.
25 MS. DONNA CLARK: Yes, I’m Donna Clark and the address is 350 East Horsetooth,
26 and I am here representing the Fort Collins Marriott, Director of Sales and Marketing, and we are
27 definitely in favor of the new mall. Currently, the Fort Collins Marriott is undergoing a full
28 renovation. Our owners have chosen to put twelve million dollars into that property to revitalize
29 it, and having the mall as another project to revitalize would thrill us to death. We work on large
30 conferences coming into Fort Collins, and right now we don’t even mention the mall. It’s
31 actually a negative to be sitting next to it. On the issue of signage, we actually have people that
32 stay at our property and can’t find the mall right now. So, as far as signage going in, I think you
33 need to do it well. The full color I think would be an enhancement to the area. And, economic
34 development…we are actually losing tax dollars right now because of conferences and tourism
35 looking at the center of Fort Collins saying, great hotel, great you guys are putting a lot of money
36 into it, but shopping and restaurants around it are in bad shape. So, we are definitely in favor.
37 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, sir, please go ahead.
23
1 MR. TOM BALCHAK: Good evening Chairman Smith and the rest of the Planning and
2 Zoning Board, thank you for your continued service. I’m Tom Balchak, I live at 2925 Clay
3 Basket Court in Fort Collins. I’ve been a resident of the city since 1980 and I’ve seen a lot of
4 development and I’ve seen a lot of redevelopment, and I’m in favor of this particular
5 development. The mall, like Old Town, is not only a center of commerce, but as a community
6 gathering place, and a place to celebrate culture. My experience has been in education for a
7 number of years, and at one time I was the Poudre School District fine arts coordinator. We have
8 a tremendous relationship with the mall in terms of displaying schools’ art from fifty-two
9 different schools. And so, for me, this is not only about bricks and mortar, but continuing a
10 value and an ethic in the community that brings parts of the community together and has a
11 physical space in order to do it. Maybe uniquely, during the holiday season I have…during the
12 last two years spent seventy-four days at the mall, and looking at things from a unique
13 perspective, and so I have noticed very closely, physically, what’s happening in the mall. Being
14 located in an area that was, this year, closed, and moving to a different area, and it’s not just the
15 physical structure of the mall, but the people that are attracted to the mall. And, there’s a great
16 deal of excitement in this community that I was able to discern from that experience, about
17 possible redevelopment. And so, for me, this is about the future. And I had an opportunity to
18 look and to see the future of Fort Collins in many children’s eyes, and the fact that a youth center
19 is going to continue to be part of this speaks volumes about the values not only of the folks at the
20 current mall, but it looks like the people who would like to continue to see the development.
21 And, so, in conclusion, I’m in support of a venue that will enhance both commerce and culture.
22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead.
23 MS. LAURIE RADCLIFF: My name is Laurie Radcliff, I live at 830 Benthaven Street in
24 Fort Collins, and a lot of what I was going to say has been said, so I’ll try not to talk too long,
25 but…I grew up here and I love Fort Collins, I’m proud to be from Fort Collins. I went to
26 California to go to school, lived there for about twenty years, and just recently moved back about
27 five years ago. I’m very glad to be here, but this mall project, even living, you know, away for
28 many years and visiting, you know, constantly. This mall project has been a thorn in my side,
29 personally, for like twenty years, because, you know, I have memories of my mom and I driving
30 to Denver to shop, and you can multiply that by about a thousand now. I mean, I know people
31 that are constantly driving to Denver so that they can go to Anthropologie and J. Crew and Ann
32 Taylor and Williams Sonoma and Pottery Barn, and all these things that are in most modern
33 malls now. And, like other people have said here, that is a giant missed opportunity for this
34 town. And, just as a lot of people were kind of upset when, you know, Centerra opened, and a
35 lot of people were kind of like, you know, saying…well, I’m not going to shop out there because
36 that revenue is going to Loveland and it should be coming to Fort Collins, so I’m going to shop
37 in Fort Collins. I think that this is sort of a similar situation. I’m kind of tired of, you know, so
38 many dollars going to, you know, being infused in Denver’s economy that could be kept right
39 here in town, and you know, the revitalization aspect of it is just, you know painfully obvious to
24
1 me. So, I think that there’s a lot of details, you know, that maybe need to be worked out to make
2 this happen, but I’m absolutely in favor of this project. I think the city needs it. I think that
3 there’s a lot of cities around the country that might like to say, you know, gosh, I wish we had
4 better shopping here, I wish we had a big, beautiful, amazing mall. That’s not an uncommon
5 thought of a lot of people around the country. It’s just that what makes Fort Collins unique is not
6 a lot of cities around the country could necessarily sustain a mall of that nature, but Fort Collins
7 can, I’m absolutely a thousand percent convinced of that, and, you know, having lived in Los
8 Angeles and seen, you know that’s the land of the big, beautiful mall. I feel like there’s a hole in
9 our community that we don’t have a mall of better standard in this town and, you k now, like I
10 said, I’m very happy to be back here. I’m so proud to be a resident of Fort Collins, and I want to
11 be proud of the mall too. I mean, that’s a huge part of our community and our economy, and I
12 think that, you know, it’s time for this missed opportunity to be done away with. It’s time to
13 make some changes and bring us the mall that we need. So, that’s it, thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate your comments. Mam, please go ahead.
15 MS. AMY OLSON: Good evening, my name is Amy Olson, and I live at 3015 Cortez
16 Street, which is kiddy-corner to the mall. My kids and I, and my husband frequently walk over
17 to the mall just to see what’s going on and then I get them out, let them run around a bit.
18 My…well, I can recognize that a lot of time and a lot of attention has been paid to the actual
19 retail and business aspect of the mall, it seems as though not quite as much attention has been
20 paid to the residential. And, my concern with that is that, it seems as though as many units as
21 possible are trying to be put onto the site. Which, for the long term doesn’t have an impact so
22 much on the people who are coming to the mall, spending their money, and going away. But, for
23 those of us who live in the area and who walk and who look out our windows, especially the
24 elderly who live directly to the east of that, it may pose more of an impact. So, I would actually
25 request that this be approved but with the condition that they follow plan B as their option, which
26 they submitted as part of their planning objectives, which was four hundred and forty-six units as
27 opposed to the eight hundred. That gives them the element of a transition between the business
28 and the residential that exists, but it doesn’t have as great an impact on the surrounding existing
29 residential units. Also on Stanford, that has been transitioned into a major bus drop-off and pick-
30 up area and there are quite a few people who park in that now languishing parking lot and use the
31 bus services, and so one thing to keep in mind is where is that parking going to occur once we
32 have several individuals parking along Stanford, because there isn’t enough on-site parking for
33 an average of 1.26 spots per unit, even though we have three-bedroom units being planned. One
34 last observation is that the apartments…their elevations are gorgeous, they’re absolutely
35 beautiful, they’re something that we hope to see, and that, you know, emulates a lot of what we
36 appreciate about Denver. But, in looking at the character that exists within the neighborhood,
37 they don’t really tie in, it’s not really a transition, it’s more of a…this is the mall, this is the mall
38 property, you have met the edge. So, I would almost ask that some more effort go into the
39 architectural aspects of those elevations so that they do incorporate a bit more of the
25
1 development in the surrounding area. The ‘70’s, while they are definitely characteristic, are not
2 completely awful. There’s a lot of stuff coming back, very retro, and I would actually encourage
3 the architects to kind of incorporate some of that so that the apartments are actually more of a
4 transitional element. Thank you very much for your time.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments, mam, please go ahead.
6 MS. CYNTHIA EICHLER: Good evening, we appreciate your time with all of us this
7 evening. My name is Cynthia Eichler, my residence is 1520 Alcott Street in Fort Collins. For
8 full disclosure, I should also let you know, I am the General Manager of the shopping center. So,
9 I come with a dual hat on this evening. I’ve live in our community for seventeen years. Every
10 day, I have gone to the mall…you know, worked hard for our community. We recognize the
11 impact, daily, that we provide and influence in our community. On the flip side of that, every
12 soccer game I go to, every basketball game I go to, church, or grocery store for the last six or
13 seven years, people approach me and say, when are we going to do something about the mall?
14 Well, today is that day. We’re very, very fortunate that we are able to be here with you all today.
15 I want to note that this really is the right project at the right time with the right developer. We
16 are looking at an infill project that has a wonderful balance of residential and retail,
17 entertainment and dining. As I’ve sat through meetings for years now, I get feedback based on
18 what people would like to do at the center, how they would like to gather, and how they would
19 like to interact. We want to compliment what is the fabric of Fort Collins and there is no bigger
20 champion, I would tell you, on College Avenue, for that particular statement. Visibility is key.
21 We often, as some of the other folks mentioned, have folks who call us from their cell phone
22 going, where is the mall? I just went by Horsetooth…well, better signage will help us
23 accomplish that. We are really looking to elevate the way-finding mechanisms on property. We
24 do think that the color signage is important, we don’t think…as some of our other folks have
25 mentioned, that it’s too far of a stretch. We’d like to provide best class, best in service, and feel
26 that is one way to help deliver that. As a community, I just think that we’re very fortunate to
27 have a private entity who is willing to invest in our community. I think you all have probably
28 had several opportunities, as I have, to just be out and about in town and have those same
29 requests, and we think now is the time really to do that. We ask for your consideration, we ask
30 for the approval on the signage, we welcome the considered…the additional input, we think
31 that’s very important, too, and we appreciate everyone that has come to provide input,
32 perspective, and we ask them to continue that too. So, we appreciate your time this evening.
33 Thank you so very much.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
35 MS. LAURIE BORTHWICK: Hello, my name is Laurie Borthwick. I live at 212 Linda
36 Lane, which is one block north of ARC, the ARC. My concern is, listening to everyone talking
37 about the glowing reports they have about what a mall would bring, I agree with a lot of those
38 statements. I think that the mall is long overdue for an overhaul. And, the added retail value is
26
1 wonderful; however, I think the thing that everybody has talked about, how great the mall is, and
2 how much that needs to be revamped, and very few people are talking about the portion of the
3 proposal that involves the eight hundred plus units of apartments. So, I have a huge concern, as
4 several of the others have, that, yeah, the mall is great, but what’s the impact of eight hundred
5 apartments. I think the original proposal of two to four hundred units is much more reasonable.
6 As it is, I have a sister who worked as a paramedic for many years, and she talked about how
7 difficult it is for emergency vehicles to even get down College to attend to people who are
8 needing emergency aid. And adding in the extra traffic that would be involved with eight
9 hundred apartments, I think is endangering lives of the elderly in that community across from the
10 mall, because of the added impact of the traffic. So, I would urge you to not just consider the
11 mall as a great proposal…yes, we need to do something with the mall, but the portion of the
12 proposal that talks about the apartment units is really critical, and the traffic and the emergency
13 response crews. Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Sir, please go ahead. Ms.
15 Borthwick, did you sign in? Excellent, thank you.
16 MR. DAVID SILVERSTEIN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning
17 Commission, I’m David Silverstein, principal with Bayer Properties. It’s always nice to be in
18 Fort Collins, and this is certainly not the first time that I’ve appeared before your Board. On
19 many occasions, going back to 2005 and 2006, I had the opportunity to come to you to discuss
20 our plans for Front Range Village. My company owns and develops Front Range Village. I
21 stand before you tonight with full appreciation of the City’s desire, the City’s need to address the
22 situation at Foothills Mall. I agree with you, Carolyn, it’s critical for redevelopment. It’s also,
23 no doubt…however, I do come before you tonight respectfully requesting that you take a pause
24 to examine more closely whether this is truly the appropriate redevelopment plan for the mall,
25 taking into account certain facts and circumstances which exist today in your city and region. I
26 also stand before you tonight as your partner. The development of Front Range Village would
27 not have been possible without our establishment of a public-private partnership, a partnership
28 which included my commitment to build a beautifully-designed project with wonderful
29 architecture and landscaping, our commitment to bring new retail to your city, to curb the
30 outflow of sales tax revenue to your sister cities, to increase employment in your city, and to
31 stabilize and improve the long-term tax base for the city. Our commitment also included the
32 donation of land for a new library facility. This partnership resulted in our investing over a
33 hundred million dollars in the development, and millions in public infrastructure improvements.
34 Results of such investment include generating over seven million in property taxes during the
35 last six years, and seventeen million in sales tax revenue for your city during the last five years.
36 We invested millions in public improvements with the hopes of recouping such investment
37 through the establishment of a public improvement fee. Under the present plan that’s being
38 presented to you tonight, you the City actually becomes our competitor. I’ve heard the term best
39 in class used a lot tonight. I stood before you in 2005, 2006, 2007 trying to tell you that we were
27
1 coming here to bring best in class, and that is what we’ve worked diligently to do over the last
2 six years. Recognize, though, that we have, and you have an issue in northern Colorado. It’s a
3 shallow retail market. You have Centerra, you have Front Range Village, and now you have a
4 proposal that’s come before you…may I ask for a little more time, I’ve come 2,000 miles, so can
5 I speak for a few more minutes?
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You may. How long do you think?
7 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Two to three minutes, no more.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’ll give you two minutes, is that okay?
9 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Two and a half?
10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Two and a quarter…go ahead.
11 MR. SILVERSTEIN: We have an interesting retail climate here, let’s face it. That’s
12 what we’ve been working on doing at Front Range Village for the last six years, is bringing best
13 in class. There’s a reason malls haven’t been built in the last five, six years. There’s a reason
14 infill malls haven’t been built in the last five or six years. We, too, are trying to curb the outflow
15 of sales tax revenue. We, too, are trying to bring best in class to your city. So, I ask for you to
16 consider the impact of trying to support that amount of new retails on what it has to a
17 development that came to your city and invested the kind of dollars that we have. We are a
18 partnership, and we’ve had very little discussion about how we relate with one another. I can tell
19 you there’s already a conflict…Alberta is talking to our retail, our leasing agents are talking to
20 their retail. We’re going after the same retailers. How do we co-exist? It’s a question that I
21 can’t answer tonight, but I know this…you know, it’s a difficult one to proceed with, knowing
22 that we have put our faith into your community. We’ve invested in your community and we
23 enjoy being here. So, I ask you just to take a minute to reflect on what we have done, what
24 we’ve tried to do, what we continue to try to do. And, we’re about to embark on bringing
25 seventy thousand square feet of new retail to your city as part of the Main Street. The Main
26 Street was constructed with the eye towards bringing the lifestyle retailer to Fort Collins.
27 Williams Sonoma, Nordstrom Rack, I’ve heard these names mentioned. They’re only going to
28 bring one store. We’d like for them to be at Front Range Village. I’m sure Don would like them
29 to be at the mall. How do we resolve the conflict without dialogue? Without dialogue? So, I
30 ask you take that into account as you move forward. Thank you.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Mam, please go ahead.
32 MS. JUDY VIGIL: Yes, I’m Judy Vigil, at 2804 Tulane. I just wanted to say that I think
33 this is wonderful because it was really sad watching the Foothills East mall kind of just go down,
34 down, down, and I’ve got to say, is, of course I’m thrilled because I’m from the generation of a
35 century mall. And how thrilled Fort Collins was to get that little mall…you know with the King
28
1 Soopers and….Montgomery Wards and the little tiny theater that was in there. So, this is great.
2 So, thank you very much.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Mam, please go
4 ahead.
5 MS. CARRIE GILLIS: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my
6 name is Carrie Gillis, I live at 8020 Park Hill Drive, Fort Collins. A couple of stores you left
7 out: Hestead’s, Music Land, the turtles in the middle…used to climb on those too. I was born at
8 Larimer County hospital, pre-PVH. I’m not going to tell you how old I am, but I’m older than
9 dirt. I remember when Foothills Mall went in and my grandma would take me there. I can’t
10 wait for this project to come back. In speaking about different retailers as the gentleman spoke
11 before, I love capitalism, that’s why I live in United States of America. Bring it on. I fully
12 support the new mall, I’m excited for it. I run five different businesses here in the city of Fort
13 Collins alone, one is retail. I’m clambering for tenants as well. I think capitalism is alive and
14 well. Thank you very much.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Mam, please go ahead when
16 you’re ready.
17 MS. MELISSA MORAN: Hello, good evening everyone. My name is Melissa Moran
18 and I live at 5640 Hummel Lane in Fort Collins. I’ve been here since 1995 I believe, and I
19 would have to say that, arguably, I hold the most interesting position of all the speakers tonight.
20 I have worked for the City of Fort Collins, I have worked for Foothills Mall, and for the past five
21 years, I have had the distinct pleasure of working for Bayer Properties as the General Manager of
22 Front Range Village. And, I wasn’t going to speak tonight, but I just couldn’t help myself I
23 suppose. What I would be opposed to is the variance for the signage. Agreeably, Foothills Mall
24 would be an asset to the community. As a community member, I can say that. But I believe that
25 there are many other businesses in Fort Collins that are also a very, very strong asset to this
26 community, that contribute to the sales tax that is generated in this community. And, you know,
27 our development is also a hundred acres that’s located on Harmony Road, and there are many
28 others like us who, you know, would certainly benefit from enhanced signage. So, I suppose
29 tonight, what I’m requesting, and I know I’m probably not using all of the correct technical
30 language that you guys use, but I would suggest not a variance to the Code, but perhaps an
31 alternate to the Code. Thank you.
32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, thanks for your comments. Mam?
33 MS. DEBBY TAMLIN: Good evening, I’m Debby Tamlin, I live at 1210 Kirkwood,
34 which is not a neighbor to the project. However, I’m a real estate broker here that specializes in
35 retail, and I was the one that stripped out the old mall, Century Mall, and brought Whole Foods
36 and the retailers that are new to Fort Collins in that project about…I don’t know, probably
37 twenty years ago now. And, I’m speaking in favor of the project. I know we’re going after a lot
29
1 of the same retailers, but you know what? Fort Collins retail is on the map. When I make my
2 phone calls to lease my space, the big box guys know who we are, know that we’ve got great
3 projects. They’re looking for the best competitive deal and, the more we all talk, the better our
4 retail gets, the more successful we have in Fort Collins for keeping our dollars here at home.
5 And, I wholeheartedly would love to see the mall redone. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? This will be your
7 last opportunity to address the Board on this issue. So, if you think you might even possibly at
8 some point want to address the Board about the mall issue, now would be that time. Anyone?
9 Alright, alright. Real quick, I’ve got one question from a Boardmember…so we’re closing the
10 public testimony section. Just so it’s on the record. But, got one question from a Boardmember
11 from one of the residents. Do you want to go ahead?
12 BOARDMEMBER GINO CAMPANA: Actually it was for you, Melissa. At the end,
13 your statement was, you prefer an alternate rather than a modification, I’m not quite sure I
14 understand that. But, if you wouldn’t mind, just going to the mic when you respond please. This
15 is not typical, us asking questions. I just want to make sure I capture your comment.
16 MS. MORAN: And, forgive me if I don’t fully understand the process. That is quite
17 possible. What I heard tonight is that there is…that what Foothills is requesting is a variance to
18 the sign code for their specific project, and what I am suggesting is that, if there is simply a
19 variance to their specific project that is not provided to other retail developments in the area, I
20 would prefer that other retail developments of that same size and magnitude also be offered the
21 opportunity to have enhanced signage on their property to draw additional customers into their
22 development.
23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: So, a signage code is what you’d prefer?
24 MS. MORAN: Yes, I suppose that…that is probably correct.
25 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: And, signs such as what they’re asking for, is that
26 something that you think has prevented you from getting retailers because you don’t have it?
27 MS. MORAN: I think that, if you ask very many businesses in this community whether
28 or not the signage is comparable to other communities in Fort Collins…and, while, as a
29 community member I do appreciate the beauty of Fort Collins, so please note that. But, if you
30 look at other communities within Colorado, and as well as outside of Colorado, there is
31 significantly more signage that can enhance retail signs, or enhance retail sales, excuse me. So, I
32 would argue that, yes, the sign code as it currently exists in this manner, is very much prohibitive
33 to doing business in Fort Collins.
34 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, thanks a lot.
30
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, with that, we’re going to take a quick intermission, or
2 recess, if you will. And we will come back at five minutes after.
3 (**Secretary’s note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, welcome back to the February 7
th
4 , 2013 Special Hearing
5 of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board. Right now, we are in the middle of
6 consideration of the Foothills Mall redevelopment project, development plan, PDP #120036, and
7 we had just finished with the public testimony component of our hearing tonight and, at this
8 point, the next part of our hearing will be hearing from the applicant…a response to the public
9 testimony. Is the applicant team ready to respond? Alright, please step forward…and, again, if
10 you would state your name for the record and for our reminder.
11 MR. PROVOST: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and council members. My name is
12 Don Provost with Alberta Development Partners and we certainly appreciate the public input that
13 occurred this evening and we heard the concerns regarding, what we perceive the two biggest
14 issues, and they’re interrelated…the multi-family and some concerns about the density of the
15 multi-family, and traffic related issues around that. Certainly there was a lot of other issues, and
16 signage being one them which Carolyn will finish up with here, but thought it’d be important for
17 me to address those two issues.
18 We spent as much time, and have spent as much time, and will continue to spend a
19 significant amount of time, on the residential component of this project, as we did the
20 commercial. As you can see from the project, it is a significant amount of residential with a
21 variety and diversity of housing types. We’re going to have everything from a four- and five-
22 story wrap product, which is very dense, but encloses the parking within the structure…we’re
23 going to have three-story, you know walk-up product, we’re going to have what would be
24 traditionally considered brownstone, or townhome type product, all for rent product. So, we’re
25 going to have a variety of housing types, and it also provides a great transition, we believe, from
26 the existing neighborhood to the commercial property. So, we think that’s a very, very strong
27 design tenant of our project. We spent significant time evaluating the traffic, I’m going to have
28 Chris Foshing come up in a minute and give a more technical explanation on the traffic, but the
29 residential traffic is only sixteen percent of total new traffic on Stanford, so it’s not as big of
30 impact as people think when you look at the raw data. And, the current infrastructure is more
31 than adequate to support the traffic that gets added by our project. So, again, just to summarize
32 and reiterate, we spent a lot of time, had three public meetings that we set out on our own to
33 have, and took the input and looked at different product types and sizing of the residential, and
34 again, will continue to work on making that residential component the best it can be within this
35 project. With that, I’m going to turn it over to Chris Foshing and he’s going to speak more
36 specifically about the residential traffic impact.
37 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
31
1 MR. CHRIS FOSHING: Good evening, for the record, I’m Chris Foshing with the firm
2 of Felsburg Holt and Ullevig, we’re located at 6300 South Syracuse Way in Centennial. I want
3 to shed a little light on the residential, and the traffic, and Stanford Road…that was a comment
4 that came up a number of times. You know, first of all, I want to point out that the residential
5 component, as it relates to the entire project and trip-making of the entire project, it’s only
6 sixteen percent. So, the non-residential uses are clearly generating, you know, much more than
7 the eight hundred units of the residential. Another point here that I want to make…when you
8 look at the site plan that’s on the screen, the residential uses…each of those blocks are inward
9 facing, I’ll say…access to the parking for the residential is all served by an internal spine road,
10 the same spine road that the retail uses are going to use as well. There’s not access directly onto
11 Stanford. So, when you look at the site plan and you…might imagine the routing of some of the
12 trips that the residential would generate, and where they might go, and how they might get to
13 College…Monroe is one attractive route to get to College, especially for those who live maybe in
14 the southern blocks of the residential area. For those living in the northern blocks, potentially a
15 route to College is, you know, the east-west, sort of the extension of Foothills Parkway that ties
16 into Mathew and Swallow. So, you know, to think that all of this traffic is just automatically
17 going to dump onto Stanford is not correct; however, I’m not here to say its zero either, I mean
18 Stanford is a road that’s going to come into play in terms of serving the development.
19 And, just trying to keep it general, you know, the traffic studies get into a lot of detail, I
20 want to try to keep this a little more general. You know, Stanford serves on the order of three to
21 four thousand vehicles per day, currently, and we’re estimating that with the demolition of the
22 mall, and the implementation of this project, that it could increase up to about fifty-five hundred,
23 plus or minus depending on where you are. So, there’s increases…Stanford will feel some
24 increases in traffic as a result. But, even at fifty-five hundred vehicles per day, that’s a volume
25 that’s still within the realm of a two-lane, collector kind of road, like Stanford. And, that’s still
26 less traffic that what Swallow serves today. Swallow serves around the order of seven thousand
27 vehicles per day. So, we’re not seeing this as an issue. And, maybe one other point…just maybe
28 a correction on what Mr. Provost had said here just previously, the residential traffic component,
29 as part of that fifty-five hundred, plus or minus, we’re projecting onto Stanford Road, the
30 residential makes up a little over twenty percent of that, or so. Just to give you some perspective
31 on what we’re talking about with the residential. So, hopefully that sheds a little more light on
32 the whole residential questions that have come up.
33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Got a question for you.
34 BOARDMEMBER GERALD HART: I don’t understand that at all. It looks, from the
35 site plan, that each one of the residential blocks has a major access, with the possible exception
36 of 1A and 1B, onto Stanford Road. That’s the vast majority of the residential. Now, total
37 residential generation is what…just under five thousand trips a day. Are you assuming that the
38 people in lots 4, 5, and 6 would go through the mall to get to College as opposed to go up to
39 Swallow and go up Monroe?
32
1 MR. FOSHING: We’re assuming they’re going to spread out. They are still going to use
2 Stanford. And, when I talk about access onto the internal spine road, when they’re coming out of
3 their parking area, out of the parking structure, they are on that internal spine road.
4 BOARDMEMBER HART: That’s correct, and the shortest distance between two points
5 is to Stanford Road…Stanford Road…from what I can see from the site plan here.
6 MR. FOSHING: Well, if one wants to get to College…let’s go with the southern block,
7 just to kind of, you know, help explain what I’m trying to get across.
8 BOARDMEMBER HART: I think they would go to Monroe, they would turn onto
9 Monroe.
10 MR. FOSHING: They would go onto Monroe, yes.
11 BOARDMEMBER HART: But there’s the remaining lots 3, 4 and 5…yeah 3, 4, and 5.
12 They’re going to more than likely head north and go to Swallow and go up to College that way, I
13 mean that seems to be the path of least resistance.
14 MR. FOSHING: I agree with you, but not all of them. You know, and that’s why I’m
15 trying to make the point that not everybody is going to turn onto Stanford, but I’m not here to say
16 nobody’s going to turn onto Stanford. Stanford is definitely going to see an increase in traffic as
17 a result of the overall development. And, again, the residential piece, collectively the eight
18 hundred units, could comprise over twenty percent of the total traffic that Stanford serves.
19 BOARDMEMBER HART: In your traffic impact study, what did you indicate the traffic
20 volumes…ADTs, not peak hours, ADTs would be at Stanford and Swallow?
21 MR. FOSHING: Yeah, the traffic study did not get into a whole lot of the ADTs…the
22 traffic study focused very much on peak hour numbers, primarily because when we calculate our
23 little functional measure called level of service, it’s based on peak hour traffic. But,
24 what…again, I’ll kind of, you know, the numbers with respect to Stanford…today were in the
25 three to four thousand vehicle per day range. We’re projecting it could increase to about fifty-
26 five hundred, plus or minus.
27 BOARDMEMBER HART: I guess I’d like to check with staff later on that and see what
28 their response is. Thank you.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gerry, do you want to do that right now?
30 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yeah, has staff got any comment on that?
31 MR. WARD STANFORD: Good evening, Ward Stanford with the City of Fort Collins
32 Traffic Operations. Yes, we do believe that traffic will go to Stanford, no doubt. We do believe
33 it will also disperse throughout the location. There’s five signalized intersections around the
33
1 mall…certainly to get onto the larger roadways, which is going to carry most of the people away
2 from the area, that’s going to be some of the prime points to go. There’s also five non-signalized
3 accesses to the surrounding roadways, not including Stanford…five others that do not intersect
4 Stanford. And so, there’s going to be two new right-in, right-outs onto College. There’s two
5 unsignalized accesses onto Swallow, there’s Monroe and others. Do we believe people will use
6 it? Yes, because we see distribution of traffic based on convenience, also, as a part of traffic
7 stream. As the difficulty to access roadways grows, they will look for other alternatives, and in
8 that we do believe that Stanford will get somewhat regulated on that. Plus, as we look at the
9 overall volumes of that increase…if you somewhat break them down by time; they were saying
10 that the residential is going to add about four hundred and fifty additional trips in the hour. Take
11 that as two locations. Say it all goes to Stanford, and they where does it go? Fifty percent goes
12 north, fifty percent goes south. So, about two hundred and twenty-five trips during that hour.
13 Now that’s…take that, divide that by sixty minutes, that’s seven and half cars a minute. Let’s
14 say they all come out in the half-hour, okay, that’s fifteen cars a minute. And, if you want to put
15 all four hundred and fifty…say they all come out in the last fifteen minutes, that’s thirty cars a
16 minute. Now, will that be a problem at some of those unsignalized intersections? Yes. Will that
17 create the desire by people to disburse to other locations? Yes. And, certainly in the morning
18 traffic, probably much more than the evening from the standpoint of…there’s no other traffic in
19 the mall. The roads are pretty much to their use. So, we do see a distribution taking place and a
20 lot of good opportunities to make access to the main roads easier than going to…all the traffic
21 going to Stanford.
22 BOARDMEMBER HART: So, fundamentally…on looking at the traffic impact
23 study…both…level of service is B at both Swallow and, I guess it’s…and Monroe, right? I
24 guess that’s…
25 MR. STANFORD: Yeah, hardly anything was less than a C.
26 BOARDMEMBER HART: And, that’s acceptable?
27 MR. STANFORD: Yes, yeah, that’s quite good.
28 BOARDMEMBER HART: And, the current level of service is probably A?
29 MR. STANFORD: They were…they didn’t change much, they were good level of B,
30 some of them had a movement that changed to a C. But, that’s pretty minor and quite good.
31 BOARDMEMBER HART: Okay, thank you.
32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks. Does any Boardmember want to continue in this vein of
33 discussion, about the…we can come back to it. Okay, let’s continue with the applicant’s
34 response. Ms. White, please.
34
1 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, once again, Carolyn White, land use counsel for
2 the applicant. I’m going to address the principal issue of signage, which was a big topic of
3 conversation. But, first I want to just answer three specific questions that were asked during the
4 public comment that we want to make sure you have the answer to. One of the questions was
5 about when will the underpass be built. And, Ms. Levingston did allude to the fact that we have
6 two alternative configurations we’re looking at. Both are acceptable to staff, both are acceptable
7 to the applicant, both are acceptable to the ditch company, it’s just a question of whether the
8 third party approval, such as CDOT, that are required will allow one versus the other. As soon
9 as that’s resolved, whichever one is chosen…whichever route is chosen, will be built at the same
10 time as the mall. So, I just want to make that clear.
11 There was a question about the programming at the Foothills Activity Center, and what’s
12 going to go on there. By and large, the programming for that is going to principally be dictated
13 by Fort Collins Parks and Rec because they are the ones who’ve expressed the desire to work. It
14 will be expanded from what it is today, certainly, but one of the principal expansions is going to
15 be the availability of community meeting rooms for things like Boy Scout meetings, counseling,
16 events and so on. There’s really not an intent to dramatically change it or to compete with
17 private health clubs or anything like that, but just to provide some additional, more modern
18 facilities for the community. And then the last question was about car races. Just to be clear,
19 what was being referred to was 5K foot races…that there might be the opportunity to do things
20 like that on the property, not…you know, Nascar racing or anything like that.
21 So, then back to the issue of signage, and I’m going to speak just specifically right now to
22 the full color signage versus…the full color digital versus single color digital, because I think
23 that’s where the issue really boils down to. I personally participated in that process in 2011. I
24 attended all but one of the public meetings, all of the public hearings in front of this body and in
25 front of City Council. During that time, I never heard any public testimony from a member of
26 the public saying that they had a concern that full color signage would create negative visual
27 impact in the community, and I didn’t see any written comments to that effect either. Now, it’s
28 been a long time since I looked at that stuff, maybe there’s something in there. But, by and
29 large, it wasn’t about the public having an uprising of concern about full color. And, I think you
30 heard that loud and clear tonight in the public testimony that the difference between full color
31 and monochrome, as it relates to digital, is not a big issue for the public, and it is really more and
32 more common when you talk about this high quality, high resolution LED technology. It looks
33 much better in full color than it does in monochrome. So, I want to mention that there was a
34 comment suggesting that this type of signage should be made available to other projects. And,
35 certainly on behalf of this applicant, they would have no objection to that. And, if planning
36 commission wants to revisit the sign code and look at the issue of carving out an exception for
37 full color for similarly situated projects over a certain size, there would be no objection on the
38 part of this applicant.
35
1 However, what’s before you tonight is specifically the modification that was requested
2 for this project for this particular sign package. And, with respect to that, we believe that we
3 have demonstrated that it meets the criteria for a modification. It is not detrimental to the
4 public good, I think you heard that loud and clear from the public testimony tonight, and it meets
5 several of the factors when all you need is one, to approve a modification; namely, that the site
6 constraints require it, there is a unique physical consideration of the site, that’s the criteria that
7 staff refers to as the hardship criterion, and there’s also the issue of, it addresses a significant
8 community need. We’ve talked a lot about how the redevelopment of this project is going to
9 accomplish some significant community goals, and, in order to accomplish those goals, we need
10 to ensure that this project has the best chance for success in the marketplace. And, one of the
11 ways to do that is to try to address the concerns about visibility and communicating with the
12 market, with the general public, and the passersby on College Avenue. So, we would ask you to
13 approve that modification and, certainly if you subsequently wanted to address a carve out, you
14 would find us testifying in support of that. So, with that, we thank you very much for your
15 attention to this issue and to the details of this project, and of course we still have all our
16 consultant team available to answer any additional questions you may have.
17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. I know we’ll have some questions from the
18 Board for the applicant team, and also for staff. So, does anybody have any questions they want
19 to start off on…I’ve got a few, but go ahead and fire away. Emily?
20 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I did have just a couple questions. The first
21 was…the notion to change the name from the Youth Activity Center to the Fort Collins Activity
22 Center…was that…whose idea was that I guess?
23 MR. PROVOST: Good evening, Mr. Provost again. The name that we’re proposing is
24 the Foothills Activity Center, not Fort Collins Activity Center…but, again, to tie in with the
25 project. And, we just thought that would reflect the greater breadth of the services we’re going
26 to be able to offer. As we said, more community gathering rooms, and…as we mentioned as
27 well, there’s still dialogue going on with Parks and Rec on exactly how that’s going to get
28 programmed, and obviously the scale is much larger, and it’s still being designed. But, it’s not
29 going to be a youth activity center, right? We think there’s a broader use, a broader community
30 outreach that’s associated with that. So, we thought that name change was more in keeping with
31 what the end product is going to be.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, was Parks and Rec on board with that as
33 well?
34 MR. PROVOST: I don’t know, I haven’t had that specific discussion with Parks and Rec.
35 Is Parks and Rec here somewhere?
36 MR. MARTY HEFFERNAN: Hello, I’m Marty Heffernan with Community Services,
37 City of Fort Collins, which includes Parks and Recreation. So, we are fine with the name
36
1 change. We’re actually very pleased with the facility that’s being offered, much nicer, larger
2 facility than the one that’s going away. We do intend for it to serve the youth of Fort Collins, as
3 it has…the current facility does. But, actually given the size and the components that we think
4 are going to be in the facility, it will be more of a full-service recreation center that will have a
5 focus on youth. But, with the gymnasium being replaced, and actually probably being larger, the
6 programming that that allows, plus the meeting rooms and the other spaces that we have for early
7 childhood classes and a variety of other classes to serve the whole community, it’s going to be
8 sort of like…just a scaled down full-service recreation center. But, it will not be a health club
9 and it will not compete against the full service health clubs that are in town. It‘s really just
10 another place for us to offer the same programs that we currently do, and so we don’t have a
11 problem with the name, we just need a…we’ll have conversations with the developer in the
12 future to work out the details.
13 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you for that. The next one is for Peter
14 Barnes. The applicant made a comment about being involved with the process to do the…with
15 the signage, and she said that there wasn’t a lot of citizen input against it. But, it seemed as if,
16 when you presented, that there was a lot of citizen input against multi-color signs, so can you
17 clarify that?
18 MR. BARNES: There was a lot of citizen input in the process. It certainly was not
19 unanimous, it was pretty evenly split as to…when you look at all of the aspects of the code that
20 we were proposing, the brightness, the frequency of change, the color range…we did hear from
21 people who thought we shouldn’t have any digital signs at all. There were a lot of those. And
22 then there were others who thought what we had currently was fine, and shouldn’t mess with it.
23 And then there was a lot that thought we should open it up to full color, and all of the other
24 things that…more frequent changes rather than once every sixty seconds, thing like that. So,
25 there were a lot of comments on all sides.
26 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I want to…
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Can I follow down the sign path, while we’re on it?
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Certainly.
30 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I don’t know much about digital signs, other than I
31 think they are quite expensive. Is the kind that you would purchase if it was to be one color at a
32 time the same that would be able to allow a full color display if our code were to change in the
33 future?
34 MR. PROVOST: Thank you for the question. Yes, I mean…I think they are very
35 expensive. We’ve done them in other projects and certainly we would probably, you know,
37
1 make an election at that time on what we envision. We don’t want to put it in and it’s twenty
2 years from now, that’s not a very good return on your investment to spend fifty thousand dollars
3 on digital signage you never get to use, when we could just have a single color board there and
4 spend five thousand dollars. We haven’t made that election. I just want to add maybe one
5 caveat to what Carolyn said…add that, you know, I’m a big believer that projects of economic
6 significance, like our project, like Bayer’s project, should have a different dispensation when it
7 comes to this issue, and that’s why we’re here advocating for this position. And, as Carolyn
8 said, we’d support, if you wanted to evaluate it in a…separate forum with respect to an overall
9 change…projects of X hundred thousand square feet could have that type of signage. Because, I
10 don’t believe it’s appropriate to have every retail establishment along College to have a digital
11 sign. Then you will have that issue, right, of just…sign pollution. But, projects of economic
12 significant, certainly ours, certainly Bayer’s…but as Carolyn mentioned, what’s before you
13 tonight is our submittal and our request for a variance, and we would support a change to the
14 code of projects of economic significance as well.
15 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: So, just to clarify, you…it would be two different
16 signs that you would purchase, if we only allowed you to do the one color?
17 MR. PROVOST: Yes, we probably would.
18 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I want to ask a question, if I can, about the connection…oh, go
20 ahead, we’re staying on signs.
21 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: It’s funny how this sign has become a very popular
22 topic tonight when there’s such a huge project before us with so many details, but…I sat through
23 all the discussions as you brought up to the Board in 2011, and certainly saw the pictures from
24 the ‘70’s and what College Avenue looked like with the signs all over, and Zoning and Peter,
25 you guys have done a phenomenal job cleaning that up and establishing a great sign code. And,
26 we supported not having multiple color and the frequency, and the code we have today. Having
27 said that, there was a couple full color signs that I think were installed and were grandfathered in,
28 that now that I’ve had some time to look at it and drive by it, they aren’t as bad as I thought they
29 were going to be…that’s one point. And, the second point is, having leased properties myself,
30 signage is a huge condition of tenants. And, when you have a property like Bayer’s or like the
31 Foothills Mall redevelopment, and you have tenants that could potentially be in the project and
32 don’t have that frontage, some additional signage along College probably makes a little more
33 sense than allowing every single retailer along College Avenue have a full color sign. So, I just
34 want to share a little bit of my thoughts on that with you guys as we’re pondering this project.
35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any more questions right now regarding signs, for staff or the
36 applicant? Alright, I want to shift gears just a little bit. I wanted to talk about the rendering we
37 have, I guess, of the bike path to the MAX BRT. And, I want to get a better understanding,
38
1 perhaps, of the capacity and the connections from the mall, through the underpass, out to
2 McClelland. One thing, before I even get into some of that, is just…there was one citizen that
3 asked about shuttle. Could the applicant speak to whether or not a direct shuttle has been
4 considered between the mall and, say, the BRT station?
5 MR. PROVOST: Sure, yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. We have not considered a shuttle.
6 We’ve worked tirelessly with the City staff to provide the pedestrian connection from the
7 corridor. It’s a great comment, we should probably look into that and look into the viability of a
8 shuttle, the cost of a shuttle, and whether, you know, what the ridership would be. There are
9 studies we can do, clearly, if we want to, you know, spend a half a million dollars to move ten
10 people, that’s probably not a very good investment. You know, it’s a capital investment up front
11 as well as an operating investment as you can appreciate. But, if the ridership would show, you
12 know, five hundred people an hour, or whatever it would show, that would be a good investment
13 to bring people into our shopping center and it would be something to consider. So, based on
14 that comment, I’ve made a note. We’re going to look into that and talk to staff and see what the
15 viability of that is or isn’t, because it’s running a short distance…more of a capital cost than an
16 operating cost, but we’ll definitely look into that.
17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. You know, along those lines, I don’t know if there
18 would be some opportunity to be creative with some type of a partnership perhaps with
19 Transfort, you know, where, you know, using their equipment, and subsidizing, or if just, you
20 know, the greater numbers would necessitate. But, you know, I think that the citizen raised a
21 good point.
22 MR. PROVOST: It’s a great point, and definitely perhaps there’s vehicles that are, maybe
23 beyond their useful life in Transfort’s world, right, in the distances they have to travel, but
24 they’re still well-maintained vehicles and new vehicles are being brought on line, that we could
25 use some of those vehicles that would reduce capital cost and work out some type of partnership
26 there.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. And, now to…I think, talking about this
28 connection, this bike path to the MAX BRT. Want to get a better sense, and if this was
29 addressed in the presentation and I didn’t catch it, I apologize, but I just want to get a better
30 sense of how certain that it, as far as it being acquired, and also just the dimensions of that. Is it
31 supposed to be bike, ped…how wide, and just some of the character of that path.
32 MS. LEVINGSTON: From staff or the applicant?
33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Whoever knows the answer.
34 MS. LEVINGSTON: Well, I’ll take a stab at it. The…it’s a multi-use path. It is twelve
35 feet wide. I know in the worksession, I said a ten foot…I misspoke. It is twelve feet in width.
39
1 And, it runs along the South College Avenue frontage. It would be a multi-use shared path.
2 That is…what was the second part of your question, I’m sorry.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I was trying…I mean, the access has been established. I mean,
4 it’s certain that this will…you know, whether it’s acquisition of right-of-way or some agreement,
5 but that is certain that this is kind of the alignment?
6 MS. LEVINGSTON: Oh, yes, for the multi-use path? Yes, that is certain that this is an
7 aspect of the project development plan approval.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, and then the…and then at its western terminus, how does it
9 connect with McClelland? Would it just touch McClelland, does it actually go under
10 McClelland? Just to get a sense of…because the bike trail, as I understand it is on the west side
11 of McClelland. And so, I wanted to see how direct, safe, and I forgot what the third criteria that
12 we use for those type of connections, but…how it would connect with the bike trail.
13 MS. LEVINGSTON: If I may, can I punt that…
14 MR. CLIFF POINTER: Good evening, my name is Cliff Pointer, I am the project civil
15 engineer. The…what you’re looking at on the screen…does this work? There we go…College
16 Avenue runs along this area right here. What you’re seeing in red here is the relocation of the
17 irrigation ditch. The pedestrian path that we’re currently, you know, working hard with CDOT,
18 other property owners…you know, the City is being instrumental in this too, is the existing
19 underpass that is here, we’re going to convert it into a…you know, a well, presentable, attractive
20 pedestrian underpass along with a direct connection to the mall property which would…this is
21 Foothills Parkway right here, so it basically would be just south of Foothills Parkway. This land,
22 this strip of land here which is currently controlled by several other property owners, but the…it
23 contains the irrigation ditch, would become fully boxed. The irrigation ditch would stay there
24 but be underneath of it. The walk would be on top of it at grade. It would be somewhere in the
25 neighborhood of ten to twelve foot wide based on the results of the structural engineering and
26 stuff that we have to do with the existing underpass. It connects to the BRT route along
27 McClelland right at the bridge to an existing sidewalk system that it being improved, I believe, as
28 part of the BRT project. There’s one already there, but I believe it’s actually getting a little
29 wider. And then it’s…the distances are shown to the next closest station. I believe we’re like
30 nine hundred feet to the Swallow station up. So, it would be a direct east-west connection to the
31 BRT.
32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, I lost you a little bit on how it actually would perform at
33 McClelland. There is…I mean is it…did I hear you say it goes under?
34 MR. POINTER: The ditch would be completely enclosed under an existing bridge that
35 runs under McClelland and then go right into a box culvert. So, what you would see is actually
40
1 nothing, you would be at grade. You wouldn’t even see the ditch. So, it would be a sidewalk
2 connection, as like a T connection.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, so at McClelland, that trail would…would there be any
4 signalization? I’m most interested in how folks on that trail would get across McClelland to
5 access the north-south BRT system. And, I’m still not clear on that.
6 MR. POINTER: The best way to do it would be to either decide which way you wanted
7 to go…which station you wanted to go to, and then you would turn. Because there is no stop
8 proposed here on McClelland. So, the best way to do it would be to come up, turn either right or
9 left. Most people, I’m assuming, are going to go to the Swallow station, which is roughly nine
10 hundred feet to the north. And then, if they have to cross, they’ll cross there at the station, at the
11 Swallow intersection, at the existing pedestrian connections that are there.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, okay, now…maybe you don’t know this, maybe staff
13 would. What type of…what is the connection or the crossing look like? So, if somebody were
14 to go north on the east side of McClelland to try to get to the Swallow BRT station, how safe is
15 that crossing across McClelland? Does anybody know?
16 MR. STANFORD: I’ll take a stab at this. I’ve dealt with the BRT project in the stations,
17 and their operation. The station at Swallow is, as he was saying, the only station between
18 Horsetooth and Drake. There isn’t sidewalk facilities and stuff on the west side of McClelland
19 through that area, because it’s adjacent to the ditch, and quite a distance away from the adjacent
20 neighborhoods. There is sidewalk on the east side of McClelland, but at this point, I couldn’t tell
21 you if that was continuous. There’s businesses along there, and other building and facilities. I
22 know there’s various areas of sidewalk, just because of being out there, but I won’t say I’ve
23 walked the whole area between these two points…between Swallow and Foothills, to know if
24 there is a continuous sidewalk. And, actually, what width and stuff it is…that I don’t know. The
25 crossings, when they go to and from the bus, would be done at Swallow. That’s where our ped
26 crossings and our signals will be to move from the east side, or the west side, excuse me, of
27 McClelland over to the east side. There won’t be other places to do that as, one, there’s no
28 sidewalk on the west side to take people.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
30 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Can I follow up on that? Ward, to follow in that
31 same vein, if you were a pedestrian who chose to stay on the twelve-foot multi-use path that goes
32 north along College, at the end of the property line, it looks on the aerial like there is a sidewalk
33 in between where the mall’s property line ends and where Swallow starts, is that correct? So, if
34 you were a pedestrian and you chose, instead of taking the underpass to keep on College and
35 then take a left at Swallow, is there a continuous infrastructure to be able to safely get there?
41
1 MR. STANFORD: There is…yes, there is. There’s sidewalks on both sides of Swallow,
2 as I recall, from College westward to McClelland. They go along the Ed Carroll, and then the
3 facilities, the businesses there on the south side of Swallow also.
4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, Kristin thanks. Any other questions in this vein we want to
6 ask of the applicant or staff? Yeah, yeah, okay, thank you, appreciate it.
7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I’ve got one more related to pedestrian
8 connectivity. Last week when you came to us at worksession, there was the modification for a
9 five-foot sidewalk and there has been a new rendering I understand for an eight-foot sidewalk
10 instead?
11 MS. LEVINGSTON: The applicant did provide us with an exhibit after the Planning and
12 Zoning Board worksession, and that was included in your packet, and that has an eight-foot
13 sidewalk around the perimeter of the theater building, so it is meeting the standard. And, it
14 eliminated the need for the modification of standard.
15 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, were we able…I apologize if I didn’t catch
16 that in our update that we just got, but were they able to keep the landscaping that they had
17 originally proposed in that rendering as well?
18 MS. LEVINGSTON: It appears as though they will be able to keep the landscaping as
19 proposed.
20 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I’m really excited about that because I walked
21 around all week with a stroller thinking five feet is not going to work.
22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I know we’ve got a
23 bunch so who wants to go next. Anything, Jennifer, go ahead.
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, I’m going to switch a little bit to part of the
25 residential. And, I think it may be in here somewhere Courtney, but if you can explain it a little
26 bit better to me, what’s going on. I’m concerned about lot three and the parking that is going to
27 be…where you’re going to be parking, and with lights going towards the residences that are
28 there. Is that…am I reading this right?
29 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yes, as proposed, there is a six-foot wood cedar fence and then
30 evergreen trees, and those will be transplanted from other locations on the site so they’ll be
31 mature evergreen trees, evergreen landscaping, and a six-foot cedar fence to block at least
32 seventy-five percent of the car lights on to the adjacent properties.
33 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you.
42
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Who else has questions? Emily, you have some questions you
2 want to hit?
3 BOARDMEMBER EMILY ELMORE: Someone referred to a plan for less residential,
4 do we have a…is there like an example of that?
5 MS. LEVINGSTON: That plan was not submitted with the project development plan.
6 That previous plan was part of a preliminary design review, and that was prior to the formal
7 project development plan submittal.
8 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: So, does staff have…the one that came forward, is that
9 because staff recommended that amount of residential, or was it just because that’s what the
10 applicant wanted?
11 MS. LEVINGSTON: That is what the applicant chose to submit.
12 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Does staff have an opinion about scale, or number of
13 units? I’m new here, I don’t know if you’re allowed to have an opinion…
14 MS. LEVINGSTON: In terms of…they both comply with the Land Use Code.
15 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay.
16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Courtney, just for the record, would you be willing
17 to talk about some of the transition elements between the existing residential and the newly
18 proposed residential?
19 MS. LEVINGSTON: As proposed, the project is three stories on the lot…I believe lot
20 three, units 1A, 1B, and then it transitions down to two stories right as it curves, in that area,
21 when it approaches the single-family and two-family units. And, that setback is about twenty-
22 five feet from the closest point of the building to the property line. And then you have that two-
23 story transition and then it goes to three story.
24 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And my understanding is that they’re transplanting
25 mature trees as well?
26 MS. LEVINGSTON: Correct.
27 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And then, do you mind talking about the ones that
28 are off of Stanford Road. Just because I think that was a concern that people have.
29 MS. LEVINGSTON: Building…lot four, building two is four stories, it’s about fifty-
30 three and a half feet tall, two hundred and twenty-two units, three hundred and five bedrooms,
31 and the subterranean parking will have three hundred and fifty-four spaces. This is the east
32 elevation. The applicant did submit a special height review as part of the project development
43
1 plan, and as proposed, the views…the staff finds that the views aren’t significantly impacted due
2 to the existing grade, and the existing structures in the area already blocking some of the views
3 of foothills. Lot five, building three, four stories, that’s fifty-four feet tall, two hundred and
4 sixteen units, two hundred and ninety-nine bedrooms, and that has three hundred and sixty-six
5 subterranean parking spaces. That’s a character elevation below as well. And, lot six, building
6 four, that’s on the corner of Stanford and Monroe, that’s five stores, about sixty-five and a half
7 feet tall, two hundred and twenty-four units, that’s three hundred and thirty-nine bedrooms. And,
8 the parking structure that the units are wrapped around is three hundred and eighty-five parking
9 spaces.
10 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, we do have a visual that illustrates a bit of the
11 perspective as viewed from the existing residential, if the commission would like to see that.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Please.
13 MS. WHITE: If you’d like, I can get one of the consultants who’s better able to speak to
14 this than I am to tell you what you’re looking at.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Please, yeah, if you don’t mind. And, we should note that
16 someday we ought to invest in a much larger screen, and a couple of them.
17 MR. BRIAN MCFARLAND: Hi, I’m Brian McFarland with Alberta Development.
18 What you see here is the perspective behind the existing two-story office building, I believe
19 that’s the Plaza building, and then below that is from the same point of view…the rendering of
20 what you’ll see with the current site plan building configuration.
21 BOARDMEMBER HART: What block is that?
22 MR. MCFARLAND: Three.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Jennifer?
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How many stories are the apartments that are across
25 Stanford from this? Do you know Courtney?
26 MS. LEVINGSTON: They’re four stories.
27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Do you have any renderings of blocks four, five, or
29 six? Or, sorry, I meant perspectives, not renderings, I know that we just went through those.
30 MS. LEVINGSTON: They were provided in the packet.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, yeah…but you don’t have a slide? Okay, so we’ll dig a
32 little bit here if you don’t mind the shuffling. In the meantime, Gerry?
44
1 BOARDMEMBER HART: I just have…I just want to get an answer. So, fundamentally,
2 the mass and the height of these buildings comply with the code and the staff is comfortable with
3 the articulation and the changes in elevations, even though they’re only conceptual, that they’ll
4 comply with the code?
5 MS. LEVINGSTON: We feel that the project development plan, as proposed,
6 demonstrates significant…or sufficient compliance with the Land Use Code.
7 BOARDMEMBER HART: Okay, thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gino?
9 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: When we…when we sit up here and we review a
10 project that is one building, last month we did Discount Tire, and we scrutinized every bush and
11 brick and window and…everything on it, and spend hours going back and forth, and then we get
12 a project that’s larger like this and, based on just sheer volume, there’s no way we could ever
13 drill down to that level. Understanding that a developer may not have elevations completed on
14 all the buildings on a project of this size, usually you try to capture general character of the
15 buildings in the PDP. And then as buildings are being submitted for permit, is there a
16 mechanism in place that you guys then doublecheck against Chapter 3 on the detail and the
17 elevations of those buildings? I know, from my experience, we usually submit, again,
18 conceptual elevations, what we think these buildings are going to look like, but you might get a
19 unique tenant that wants it to be different, and then we would do minor amendment after minor
20 amendment on every building. Help…maybe I think it would help the entire Board if we
21 understood that process a little bit better, and give us some comfort in dealing with just the sheer
22 volume of buildings and the lack of the ability to really drill down on that detail on every
23 building.
24 MS. LEVINGSTON: Once the project is approved, typically the applicant will submit for
25 final plan. From the time that the applicant submits for final plan to the first round of final plan
26 review, that’s a month, because the engineering, the elevations, everything, the details, are
27 submitted and we go over it with a fine-toothed comb, so to speak, in ensuring that, if there is a
28 minor amendment, that that minor amendment still is complying with the Land Use Code.
29 After…it’s typical for applicants to go through two or three rounds of final review prior to
30 recording the mylars. Once they’re ready to record their mylars, the Director of Community
31 Development and Neighborhood Services signs off saying that these plans to comply with the
32 Land Use Code as proposed on the mylars, and they’re recorded.
33 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: So, again, just process-wise, we have a project
34 development plan here tonight. We obviously have some elevations presented…by the time it
35 goes to the final development plan and it approved, it’ll have some refined renderings and
36 buildings on it, and then once they submit for building permit on each one of those buildings,
45
1 there’s one last check then to see if that building elevation is in compliance with the final
2 development plan, is that right?
3 MS. LEVINSGSTON: That is correct.
4 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: And, if it isn’t, then it would go through a minor
5 amendment process?
6 MS. LEVINGSTON: Correct, it would be a major or minor amendment. The difference
7 is, basically, is it a major change in character or a minor change in character than the approved
8 development plan.
9 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: This is a pretty typical process for larger projects. You
10 kind of have two options, one would be an overall development plan, then coming back in with a
11 project development plan on each building, or a project development plan like this and then
12 having to deal with, potentially, minor amendments at a later date.
13 MS. LEVINGSTON: That is correct.
14 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, just wanted to share that with everybody.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Good point, thanks. What other questions, Gino?
16 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Well, as long as I’m being long-winded here, along
17 those same lines, typically, a developer would come in and phase a project of this size and not
18 deliver hundreds of thousands, half a million square feet of commercial all at one time…or eight
19 hundred DUs of apartments at one time. Is there a phasing plan conceptualized? I realize you
20 probably don’t have anything formalized yet, but…that might also help deal with…as a
21 community, as a Board we can’t really take into consideration economics. We’re held to our
22 Land Use Code at this level, but we heard comments tonight about economics. And, as a city,
23 having two large destination retail locations competing, which they obviously would, and
24 question of whether or not the market is substantial enough for two centers. It might help if you
25 explain, you know, philosophy on phasing and delivering product, so everyone understood that a
26 little bit better.
27 MR. PROVOST: Sure, there will only be one phase on the commercial side. Everything
28 you see that’s commercial will get built at one time and will open at one time. We believe the
29 market is vibrant, we believe the market is deep, we believe that we can lease every square foot
30 that we have on this plan. We’ve had incredible initial interest from tenants that have always
31 wanted to be in Fort Collins, but haven’t had a compelling enough project for them to locate in,
32 and the fact that we’re delivering this project at this location with the unique nature of…still a
33 large commitment to a traditional interior mall, you know, nearly two hundred thousand square
34 feet of traditional interior mall space, represented and reimagined for 2013, and combined with
35 the outdoor lifestyle components that, nowhere on this site, are you further than a block away
46
1 from the interior of the mall. Wherever you’re at on this site, you’re a block away from being in
2 a conditioned environment. Whether it’s a very warm day, or a very chilly day, or all of a
3 sudden a storm rolls in and it’s raining, it’s a very unique opportunity for us to deliver a project
4 that covers both the indoor and outdoor component in such a very strong fashion and probably
5 weights it equally…doesn’t go all outdoor air or go all indoor, you know, given this climate
6 where we’ve got nine to ten months of great sunshine and weather in the shoulder seasons, we
7 wanted to be able to take advantage of that. So, the commercial will be built in a single phase.
8 The residential will be built in multiple phases. You know, we’ll probably build two
9 product types at once, so say that could be two hundred and fifty to three hundred and fifty units,
10 lease that up, start construction, so you’ll probably have two or three phases of residential. One
11 quick comment on the density and some initial plans that we were evaluating. Early on, in any
12 project, you start going through a variety of analysis and studies and cycles of plans, and we’ve
13 probably had, you know, thirty or forty different plans on this site as we tried to fine-tune it and
14 craft the greatest optimal plan. The reason the residential density has increased from what
15 maybe some early discussions represented, was because of the demand. There’s a huge demand
16 in this market. There’s a story that we heard from a friend who has a veterinary student up here
17 in the graduate program, and relocated here from California to attend the veterinary school.
18 Couldn’t find a place to rent, had the capacity to pay, could not find, you know, a good place to
19 rent. That’s great because this market is very healthy from a jobs perspective. But, as we did our
20 studies, and you see the variety of product types that you saw up there, we think there’s very,
21 very deep demand. This site doesn’t accommodate it, but there’s probably, in this corridor,
22 demand for two or three thousand units of residential to satisfy the demand. New best in class
23 product, you know, these units will range, you know, we’re not going to have any student
24 housing per se, unless it’s, you know, graduate students or professors, but clearly, there’s thirty
25 thousand students two miles from here and all the support that goes with that. But, there’s also a
26 very active adult community, so we’re not going to have retirement housing or senior housing,
27 per se, but every product that we deliver will have full floor elevators. So, whether it’s a three-
28 story product, four-story product, two-story product, full floor elevators to provide for that
29 transition in case somebody, you know, wants to have an elevator component to their building,
30 versus a traditional garden-level walk up. So, we see the demand spreading across a variety of
31 renter pool types. On our project we did in Denver at Southglen, two hundred and two luxury
32 apartments, I could have never guessed the level of demand we had across the spectrum from
33 civil engineers who are single who wanted to live there, to folks renovating their house who are
34 living in a short period of time, to active adults who decided to sell their home, downsize, wanted
35 to stay in the community, you know, wanted to stay active, have access to their social groups,
36 their churches, and so on and so forth. So, we see the demand being very wide ranging and
37 we’re going to deliver a variety of different product types, so that’s why the units count has gone
38 up, because we think the demand is there. We also think it’s a great element of mixed-use.
39 Clearly, to sit there and say, we’re not making a shallow commitment to the residential
40 component here, we’re making a deep commitment to the residential component. And, when
47
1 you talk about traffic, when you put this amount of residential here, you come back at the end of
2 the day and you park in your garage here, and if you were…if it’s a nice day and you rode your
3 bike to work and you get back, you don’t have to ever get back in your car. You can walk right
4 across the parking lot and go grab something to eat, go to a movie, go walk around the mall, go
5 pick something up. So, it’s a very unique environment, we’d rather, I think, encourage
6 that…encourage the density, maximize the opportunity we’re creating. Because this is a
7 situation, too, where you have a one-time opportunity to impact this real estate and create a
8 legacy, and we think it would be a shame to have the impact be two hundred and fifty or three
9 hundred units, when long term, twenty, thirty years from now, people look back and go, man,
10 that was really smart to put that density there in the core of the city…the proximity to the
11 University, the proximity to the transportation infrastructure, the new BRT that’s going in…it all
12 lines up really well with a lot of the things you guys have been doing here in your long-range
13 planning for this to come in and sit there, and take advantage of all this other infrastructure.
14 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I agree with you that it’s a very sincere attempt at
15 bringing residential component to your project, and I think it’s a great idea, and I support that
16 aspect of it. I’m a little surprised that you would go and build out the entire…I mean you didn’t
17 respond the way I thought you would. I thought you would pad it out and build buildings as you
18 could secure leases, like most developers do.
19 MR. PROVOST: You’ve got a couple unique sets of circumstances here, right. You’ve
20 got an interior mall, and you can’t really renovate half of a mall, or seventy-five percent of a
21 mall, it’s kind of an all or nothing bet. So, you make the all or nothing bet up front on that, and
22 we have significant demand in that space, you know, there’s existing retailers that we’re going to
23 preserve their tenancy there, and they do very well despite, you know, the condition of the mall
24 and it’s co-tenancy. Be very additive to that with new retailers to the market, then, you know,
25 we have a theater commitment, so you build the theater. We have, you know, very deep
26 restaurant commitments right now, so that, you know, the east lawn is shaping up and is leased.
27 Clearly, I’m not in the business of building vacant retail space and hoping I lease it. Then you
28 go to the west lawn, the front, we have nearly all of that space engaged in active discussions and
29 negotiations. Then you go along College Avenue, and very deep demand there, in fact we’ve
30 kind of held off on aggressively pushing the leasing there because that’s the easy space to lease,
31 versus let’s go back and do this…and those buildings also are, you know, six to eight month
32 construction durations versus, you know, fifteen to eighteen month full construction duration
33 when you have asbestos remediation and new structural components, as well as all the
34 architectural finishes that need to go into the interior mall. And, all of the surrounding horizontal
35 infrastructure, which is massive and significant, that needs to go on. So, it’s not, you know, in a
36 developer’s world, would you love to be able to phase and have things eighty, ninety percent pre-
37 leased…but, given the nature of the beast, here, you’re pretty much stuck with this all in
38 commitment. Now, we wouldn’t be making that commitment, our capital partners wouldn’t be
48
1 making that commitment, if we didn’t have significant leasing activity, right, because we’re not
2 going to make the all-in bet if we didn’t think we could lease the mall.
3 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, thanks.
4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Emily, go ahead.
5 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: I have a few questions, you might not want to sit down. I
6 guess, regarding the residential, had you guys thought about doing a vertical mixed-use and
7 maybe doing like restaurant on the main floor, at all?
8 MR. PROVOST: We did, excuse me, we did, and have some initial studies, have
9 elevations, very pretty pictures of doing that, but it involved de-malling the property, so we tore
10 down the mall. Left Macy’s, drove a street through, introduced a grid, starting building, you
11 know, vertical blocks with retail, first level with podiums to put residential above. That’s going
12 very far out on the risk spectrum, that’s about as far out as you can go, because there’s your all-
13 in bet, day one on not only the retail but the residential. When we came back and started talking
14 to the market, doing our consumer survey research, and talking to residents, it became very
15 apparent that there was a huge, huge affinity for the enclosed mall. And, we heard it from the
16 retailers we were talking to as well. So, when we did that, we were, you know, you’re essentially
17 leaving that structure there, so it became much harder to introduce on the project some true
18 vertical mixed-use. So then we said, how do we still kind of infuse that urban character, that
19 urban nature, and so that’s why we went and upsized the residential and created more…as you
20 saw from those elevations, more of an urban feel, urban grid, you know, less surface street
21 parking, put the parking subterranean, put the parking within the structure, so kind of get that
22 feel without having to go vertical above the retail.
23 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay, thank you. Also, is the project feasible if it is only
24 four hundred units?
25 MR. PROVOST: Is the project feasible?
26 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Financially feasible, does it work for you guys?
27 MR. PROVOST: I haven’t studied it, to be honest. I would say that it…you know,
28 what’s the yield perspective on the change, is it fifty basis points, a hundred basis points
29 different? It would be significant…it would be significant, would we still do it? I couldn’t
30 answer that, I think there’s a compelling reason to keep our zoning request where it’s at.
31 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay. Also, had you guys considered any community
32 gardens in the residential component?
33 MR. PROVOST: We haven’t, but we’d be happy to. We have a big vision book, we
34 didn’t go through it, I didn’t want to turn this into a four-hour hearing, but it’s turning into one,
49
1 but we have a big vision book where we have dog parks and we have a lot of other elements that
2 are introduced on the project, but we’d love to talk about community gardens, particularly up
3 here. I think there’d be a huge adoption of that.
4 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay, and then last question is regarding green building.
5 Had you…are you going to do any, like, green building implements, low-flow toilets or anything
6 like that?
7 MR. PROVOST: Yeah, all of that’s…you know, obviously we’ll meet all of your
8 standards, and we’ll also explore a lot of other items, low-flow toilets and so on and so
9 forth…are very beneficial to us from an operating cost standpoint and a water standpoint, water
10 reuse standpoint in all of our retail. Another unique thing that you don’t see in a lot of these
11 projects, and I was just at our trustee meeting at ICSC, and there was a big debate going on
12 among all of us, among some great, great guys in the industry…you know, from Don Wood at
13 Federal, and the guys at Acadia, and they’ve all, for the most part, sold off their residential or
14 partnered with somebody to execute the residential. We’ll execute this residential, we’re not
15 going to sell off this residential. We’re not residential developers in the context…I’m not going
16 to show up here, you know, next year, with a twenty-acre site somewhere I’m just doing
17 residential. We believe in retail-dominated mixed-use, retail-dominated residential as a part of
18 that. We’ve gotten very good at it, and we look forward to executing it ourselves and owning it.
19 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing I wanted to…and this may not be for you, I’m going to
21 make a comment for staff. Or, maybe actually you could answer a question, Mr. Provost,
22 regarding the handicap parking. The code requires forty-six handicap parking spaces, and that is
23 for the commercial I believe. You guys are doing seventy-six, and I’m wondering, did the
24 market push you that way…I mean was it…because here’s the loaded question in this…it maybe
25 is something for our staff to think about going forward, is that if their market study determined
26 that this type of a project required seventy-six, quite a bit more than the minimum, maybe we
27 need to go back and look at the standard. Maybe times have changed, and I’m just seeing what
28 they know that we don’t know.
29 MR. PROVOST: Sure, I don’t think we know anything more than you know, or the staff
30 knows. I think it’s a distribution issue. When you look at a project of this unique character and
31 nature where you’ve got a lot of different entry points, to provide convenient access for
32 handicap, you end up, you know, distributing it around. And, when you look at all the different
33 retail buildings out along College, out front, east lawn, west lawn, theater, within the parking
34 structure, Macy’s, new anchors, right, when you distribute it all around and you end up with a
35 count. Were we trying to solve to seventy-six because the market was telling us something? Not
36 necessarily, but we also, I think, had a belief that we wanted to make sure there was adequate
50
1 handicap parking distributed evenly around the project so you didn’t get somebody stuck having
2 to park over there when they really wanted to go there.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. And, this is probably for staff, actually,
4 truly. This…in the residential buildings…want to talk about size. The largest one, building
5 three, is five hundred and fifty-four feet long. And, I want to try to…I mean it’s…what other
6 buildings in town are comparable? Just to get an idea.
7 MS. LEVINGSTON: In terms of length?
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I mean, could you think of any off-hand? Capstone?
9 MS. LEVINGSTON: I didn’t do that analysis, in terms of comparative buildings, so I
10 could get back with you, but I’m unsure of that analysis of a comparative building in length in
11 Fort Collins.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No, I just thought…I mean, maybe…and a lot of time, we…and I
13 should have asked that last Friday so I didn’t put you on the spot, I apologize. Any other
14 questions from the Board? Any other questions at all. Do you guys want to move into
15 deliberation and move forward? Alright. Go ahead, anyone.
16 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I think…I’m ready to make some motions, so if you
17 guys want to deliberate, I’m happy to do that, otherwise, I think we can move on to motions.
18 Yeah, if you’ve got comments, we should hear that first, John.
19 BOARDMEMBER JOHN HATFIELD: The only comment I have is, we’ve read a lot of
20 stuff here, we’ve got a lot of information we’ve absorbed, and I’m agreeable with what staff says
21 about this. I’m in favor of the development and the overall development plan as such. I’m also
22 in favor of approving all five of the modifications.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks, anyone else? Who else has comments before we get a
24 motion?
25 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Mr. Chair? As you think about your motions,
26 I think you should take each modification as a separate motion, and then after you’ve gone
27 through all the modifications, take the plan itself as another motion.
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. I want to make one comment, just because we had
29 one gentleman fly out here, two thousand miles, to come talk to us. And, I don’t want your
30 comments…for you to think that your comments were ignored. We have a very specific and
31 narrow criteria upon which this Board must evaluate proposals. Competitive nature is, and
32 existing business relationships with the City, are not in our purview. And, so, you know, we
33 can’t even say there’s merit to it or not. But, simply that there are, like I said, just very strict
34 considerations that we must adhere to, and competitive nature is just not one of them. So, I just
51
1 want to make sure that…thanks for coming out and thanks for your project and for coming out
2 two thousand miles to talk to us. And, I hope that you get some time to talk with the folks who
3 really would have some impact on that, being City Council. Any other comments, anybody?
4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I would just say that I think you guys did a great
5 job being really sensitive to the values of our city and to the vision that we’ve set, both with the
6 midtown corridor study, our upcoming BRT, and our City Plan overall. I think that your efforts
7 with bike and pedestrian connectivity in the greet spaces and the sharrows…I think that they’re
8 all really great and speak to our character, so that you for doing so.
9 BOARDMEMBER HART: And I guess I’ll add mine, I think this project is key to the
10 mid-corridor development, and I think that it’s put together very well, and I think the city will
11 benefit greatly from it.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Who else?
13 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, well, I’m going to second what Andy said, thank
14 you for coming out and telling us your thoughts, and I agree with Andy, we can’t really take it
15 into consideration, but I do want to thank you for your investment that you made in our
16 community, and you’ve got a fantastic project. I also would like to thank your team, and what
17 you guys have pulled together here. I’m shocked that a project with this complexity only has
18 five modifications being requested, because it’s a very large, complex project, and the only thing
19 I’ve been hearing is how willing you guys have been to work with our City staff and trying to
20 converge on a great project. And, I’m looking forward to seeing what takes place there. I joked
21 about it because I live with three women, four women, three daughters…so you could cost me a
22 tremendous amount of money, right, by having this great mall. But, with that being said,
23 normally we would take the modifications first, and we would review each one of those, and then
24 once that it done, we would look at the project development plan. And, so, I would make a
25 motion that we approve the first modification for PDP #120036, based on the modification not
26 being detrimental to the public good and that it is nominal and inconsequential.
27 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: I second.
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Discussion?
29 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: One of the things you need to do in your
30 motion, besides the motion needs to contain the allegation it’s not detrimental to the public good,
31 and then you pick one of the four, which you did, but there also needs to be a statement of how
32 come it’s nominal and inconsequential, and you can use the logic of the staff report for that if
33 you wish, I think you just should make that a part of your motion.
34 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: May I suggest that…we would support that
35 modification with 3D of the staff report. Will that work? Who seconded that?
52
1 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Do I need to re-second? So seconded.
2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay…I think a few of us are digging in. Any discussion in the
3 meantime?
4 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Just to help out everyone else on the Board here, while
5 I’ve got you all lost, there’s a staff report that was specific just to the modifications…I think that
6 came out today, that I’m using, is that alright…and I’m…first modification is section three of
7 that on page three.
8 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: And 3D, that you were referring to, is on page
9 five of that staff report…
10 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: It’s one page five in staff’s evaluation of the first
11 modification request. We received a huge volume of paper, and so it doesn’t surprise me that
12 we’re…
13 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And some of it this morning…
14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Seventy-five pages today.
15 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: But, staff did a great job on separating the
16 modifications…thank you for doing that.
17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, any discussion? Roll call, please.
18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore?
19 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes.
20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
21 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
22 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart?
23 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes.
24 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
26 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
27 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
28 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
53
1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
2 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, the first request for a modification has passed.
4 Another motion?
5 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, so I’m going to move on to section four of the
6 same staff report, page five, which refers to the second modification. Again, this is for PDP
7 #120036, with regards to no more than one ground sign per lot. And, I make a motion that we
8 approve that modification as well…go back to my notes here…based on the fact that the
9 modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that, again, it’s nominal and
10 inconsequential and we could use the reasoning for that…the how come, as Paul says, would be
11 4D of the staff report on page seven.
12 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Second.
13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Discussion? Roll call,
14 please.
15 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
16 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart?
18 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes.
19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
20 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
22 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore?
26 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes.
27 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, anybody else?
54
1 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Well, we were rolling pretty good, but this next one is
2 probably one we’re going to have some dialogue on, and so…I might make a suggestion that we
3 skip modification number three for right now, if that’s okay with everyone, and go to the fourth
4 modification. So, with regards to the fourth modification, which is on page ten of the staff
5 report, section six, and it is the size of the electronic message center being limited to not more
6 than fifty percent of the sign face, I would like to make a motion that we approve that
7 modification as well, because it would not be detrimental to the public good and, again, it’s
8 nominal and inconsequential and justify it with the staff evaluation on page eleven, which is 6D.
9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Second.
10 CHARIMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Any discussion? Roll call
11 please.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart?
13 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes.
14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
15 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
17 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore?
21 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes.
22 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
24 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes.
26 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Does anyone else want to try one of these? I’m going
27 to be spent by the time we get through these modifications. Okay, fifth modification…page
28 twelve of the staff report, section seven, has to do with no more than one electronic message
29 center or sign per street…development. And, again, this is PDP #120036. I’d like to make a
30 motion that we approve that as well. The modification would not be detrimental to the public
55
1 good. It’s nominal and inconsequential, and the reason would be the staff evaluation, which
2 would be on page fourteen, 7D on page fourteen.
3 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Second.
4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we have a first and a second on that. Any discussion? Roll
5 call, please.
6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
9 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
11 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore?
13 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes.
14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
15 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart?
17 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes.
18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright.
20 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Now we get to do a little work. Some discussion on
21 this. I think this is a unique situation, I think, ultimately we want someone to have a vision, step
22 up, make an investment, and then be successful. And, if we’re hindering that success by not
23 allowing them to be competitive throughout other markets via signage, I think that would be
24 silly. And, I think this is a unique situation because it’s such a large project. I think there’s
25 others in town that are large projects, and although I supported our sign code…tonight, I had to
26 reevaluate that, and I think this is a situation where we may want to see that take place. I don’t
27 want to see those types of signs all the way down College Avenue and Harmony, I don’t want to
28 see the Vegas strip, but I think to be competitive, and to gain the attention of somebody driving
29 by, of businesses that are interior of the project, it probably makes sense.
56
1 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Well, I agree, Gino. The situation is, you know, every
2 project is appraised and approved on its own merits, and if there’s other businesses that want a
3 variance for their sign codes, they can come before the Board and request it also, I would
4 presume, or the City Council, whoever they have to do. So, they’ve requested this modification
5 in their overall plan, and I think it’s…I agree with the principal behind it that it would be good,
6 and certainly would be in favor of the public good.
7 BOARDMEMBER HART: I see this somewhat similar. These are large-scale projects,
8 they have multiple businesses. This is not a single lot with a single, or just a few businesses in it.
9 And, in order to get the message out to the public, I think it’s important to have those tools
10 available for the commercial enterprise. I don’t really want to see these things flashing off and
11 on and that kind of thing…so, is there any ability to control how they actually operate?
12 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Actually, a lot of our dialogue on the sign code
13 was...revolved around timing, and, Peter maybe you want to elaborate a little bit, or can
14 we…involve….?
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Absolutely, I think it’s useful.
16 MR. BARNES: Yes, as I mentioned earlier, when we proposed changes to the digital sign
17 regulations, many components went into that. Intensity of illumination, the duration that a
18 message could stay prior to it changing…there were all kinds of time intervals looked at. The
19 code that was in place previously was once every sixty seconds, and we felt that was pretty good,
20 and City Council and others agreed so the code that’s currently in place says that a message can’t
21 change more often than once every sixty seconds, so it has to remain static for at least sixty
22 seconds. Some businesses who use these signs do change every sixty seconds. Others elect to
23 maybe change it less frequently. Once a half hour, once an hour, or even longer. So, it’s
24 possible to adjust that time.
25 BOARDMEMBER HART: Would that be dependent upon the message the business was
26 trying to get out? Does that change…
27 MR. BARNES: No, no matter what image they want to display or what their message is,
28 the code says it cannot change more frequently than once every sixty seconds. So, you’re not
29 going to see these flashing and changing and blinking very often, it’s when you get a lot of them
30 up and down the streets of the city that you can see them changing at different times, even
31 though one sign might not change more often.
32 BOARDMEMBER HART: I think it’s critical that we limit the size…or….make sure
33 there’s large scale projects and multiple businesses, if these things are approved.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And so, Peter, there would also…I mean, all the other restrictions
35 on lit signs, brightness, for instance, those would all remain.
57
1 MR. BARNES: Yes, we have pixel spacings, to try and get as sharp an image as possible,
2 minimum pixel spacing requirements. They’re not proposing to vary any of those requirements.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, nothing changes but the colors, from our sign
5 code.
6 MR. BARNES: That’s correct, well…
7 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: If we grant this variance.
8 MR. BARNES: The other modification, well there are two other modifications that you
9 just approved, one is to allow the two signs as opposed to one, and then the other is to allow each
10 of those two signs to be larger…to take up more than fifty percent of the area of the side of that
11 sign.
12 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: But, as far as each of the signs that we’re talking
13 about on this modification, the only thing we’re changing is the colors, the number of colors that
14 they can have?
15 MR. BARNES: That’s correct.
16 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, and I would agree with Gerry that we probably
17 ought to just send this to staff, that we maybe need to look at changing the code in such a way
18 that we…that this doesn’t proliferate all the way up and down College, but that we’re talking
19 about just large scale projects like these that have stores inside the mall…that kind of thing,
20 rather than…it doesn’t make sense to me to have people asking for modifications every ten
21 minutes.
22 MR. BARNES: Well, as part of…when City Council adopted the current Ordinance in
23 December of 2011, one of the conditions on that is that we…staff…present to them at the end of
24 this year, a report on how those code changes…how effective they’ve been. So, we could
25 certainly include a statement to that effect.
26 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, great.
27 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I would agree and I think that it would be really
28 important for us to identify the criteria of what makes for a large project, because every shopping
29 center also has businesses that are hidden off of the roadway. And I think that we would want to
30 be really careful about making sure that it is an exception, but an equitable exception.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? I’m going to disagree on this. I do believe that,
32 after we went through that big process, that it was so fresh that…I’m not sure if I can be
33 totally…I think the burden of proof is pretty high when we talk about whether or not something
58
1 is detrimental to the public good. And so, I think that we’re talking about something that’s not
2 necessarily unique to the site. And so…I can read through some of these, the secondary criteria
3 where we’re talking about substantially alleviating existing defined problems, and the project
4 does that…the sign pack…getting into some of these…you know, or actually looking at whether
5 or not the proposed modification is truly minimal when considering the overall context of the
6 proposed project…probably. But, detrimental to the public good, after we just went through this
7 process, I’m not convinced that it’s not, especially when we weren’t willing to do it at that point,
8 and the City Council certainly wasn’t willing to do it at that point, because of what they viewed
9 to be community character and just the best interest of the community aesthetics. I, personally,
10 would feel comfortable doing this. I wasn’t real comfortable with some of the things we were
11 talking about when we were doing the sign code, and this is one piece of it. But, I think that I
12 like to have that burden of proof, when it comes to the public good, be pretty high. And so,
13 there’s some time between now and when we’d actually be putting shovels in the ground, and I
14 would prefer to recommend that we not approve this request, and that we do go and create a level
15 playing field and establish what those criteria are for larger shopping centers or larger projects, to
16 be able to have color signs. And, so that perhaps at that point, there’d be a minor or major
17 amendment…or maybe not even necessary…well, they would have to, but, at that point, to then
18 to be able to have the opportunity to do that the right way at the same time competitors might
19 also, about the same time, be able to go back through and do that. I just think that it’s more of a
20 level playing field and that it is more of a public good. And, to be honest, this was a piece that
21 kind of came in late…and, so that I’m not sure if the whole lot of the public had an opportunity
22 to respond to this. So, it’s hard to say that this doesn’t…you know, this doesn’t harm the public
23 good. So, just to be safe I think that we…you know, I would be okay with it, but I think a
24 different process.
25 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, how would you propose we do that, Andy? I
26 mean, would you want to continue this piece, do you want to put it in as a….?
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No, I think that…I mean…it’s…I’m okay being the sole
28 dissenting vote on it. I think we vote it, and we give them their approval, for sure, but I’m…you
29 know…it doesn’t have to be unanimous for them to get it, and so, I’m just saying that that’s
30 where I’m saying, you know, no, I’m not comfortable with it being presented in the timing that it
31 was and stand alone, and I think the public good is not being served well, and I’d like to see
32 us…quickly, knowing how this is going to go tonight, revisit this, perhaps, if staff is agreeable,
33 with Council direction, to open up that discussion, again, about full color, because now there will
34 be, probably a sign that’s going to be full color. And, so that opportunity should be afforded to
35 other projects that have…you know…similar criteria that we don’t know about. So, there’s my
36 piece. Anyone else?
37 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yeah, so is the thought that…well, I guess you’re
38 thinking that it still might get approved whether you vote for it or not, but, like, if, yeah, so the
39 good chance is it would still get approved. I’m thinking out loud…thank you. I would tend to
59
1 agree, I feel like there was a lot of input from the citizens regarding signage, so I don’t feel super
2 great about the colored sign on my own. I probably don’t really have an opinion on it, but given
3 that information, I feel inclined to not approve it…so…
4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Andy, I think that I would prefer your approach as
5 well.
6 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: So, are we going to have a motion and the affirmative
7 and take a vote on it?
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, we got one. Any other discussion?
9 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: We don’t have a motion on this yet. No, I haven’t
10 made a motion on this yet…we’re still dialogueing (sic) on it, and I respect your opinion, and I
11 think we would end up at the same point, I mean we could go through that process. I mean,
12 obviously we are going to have to reevaluate our thoughts on the sign code for these colored
13 signs, especially with larger projects. I’m just trying to think of, process-wise…probably the
14 project has enough time, if the code was going to change, and then a modification wouldn’t even
15 be necessary. But, there’s no guarantee…these guys…I’m seeing heads nod and they want a
16 vote. So, I’ll make a motion. Let’s see if I can get this correct here. I’ll make a motion that we
17 approve the third modification, to Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(c) to allow a full color electronic message
18 center for PDP #120036. This modification is five on page seven, and I’ll support that
19 modification based on…I do not believe it is detrimental to the public good, and I believe it is a
20 unique…it is unique situation, unique property. Now, the how come.
21 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Are you using the hardship standard,
22 then…the uniqueness of the property and the imposition…the Code imposes an undue hardship?
23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. The reason why is, when you have 73.6 acres, or
24 75 acres, or 77…I’ve heard a couple tonight, and you have these street-like private drives
25 throughout your entire project, you don’t have the luxury of getting the same visibility in signage
26 as if this was all street frontage along, say, College Avenue. So, although these guys are
27 investing their own private money in the horizontal infrastructure, their tenants really are at a
28 disadvantage and they are at a disadvantage of getting visibility to those tenants. So, I do
29 believe, due to the shape of the property and the size of the property, there is a unique hardship.
30 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I’ll second that.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, first and a second. Any further discussion.
32 BOARDMEMBER HART: I think what Andy has proposed would be a cleaner system,
33 but I think these people make a valuable case for their particular project, which leads me to
34 conclude that our sign code needs to be changed.
60
1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Agreed.
2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other comments? Roll call, please.
3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
4 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
7 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore?
8 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: No.
9 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
10 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
11 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart?
12 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes.
13 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
15 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No. Alright, so we’ve got the request…actually all the requests
17 approved…modifications. So, let’s move on to the entrée, right? Gino, you’re on a roll.
18 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Now, I can suggest that you have…I’m
19 looking at the wrong staff report because it’s got this redline and strikeout in it, but there are five
20 conditions, I think the fifth condition goes off, does it not? Because the modification was
21 approved.
22 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I make a motion that we approve the Foothills Mall
23 Redevelopment Project Development Plan PDP #120036, based on the findings and facts
24 included in our staff report on page twenty-two, section eight, and, based on the conditions that
25 are also included in our staff report, one through four, on page twenty-three.
26 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Seconded.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, any discussion? I just want to say that it’s exciting to be
28 able to take part in this process and, you know, to have, you know, we’ve had a lot of votes in
61
1 eight years, and none were bigger than this, you know, I mean, really, this is as big as it gets.
2 And, there is…you know, there’s something exciting about a mall, I mean, you know, I worked
3 in that mall back in college twenty years ago, and it was, you know, Christmas time, very lively.
4 And, so, I can just, you know, this project has done very well, it’s presented very well, it’s
5 emphasized pedestrian and bike connectivity very well, it makes MAX something, you know,
6 very viable, and so, you know, I’m going to like the fully colored sign package, you know, I
7 just…I’m very, very intense about the process, as much as I am about the product, and I think
8 that’s kind of my responsibility sometimes as the Chair. So, I’m just excited to be able to see
9 this thing get going and I’m very excited for the future of our community here pretty quick,
10 seeing some neat things happening, and some legacy projects. So…any other comments?
11 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I agree, I can’t even remember the last time I was in the
12 mall, frankly, and I’m really excited to see what you guys do and bring this vision forward. And,
13 I lost a lot of sleep over the last couple of days pouring through this design, trying to see if I
14 could find a soft spot, and I think it’s a well-designed project. I look forward to seeing it more
15 forward and get built out, and taking part in it. Maybe I’ll run in that 5K race, too, that you guys
16 are going to have.
17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? Emily?
18 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Maybe you could get Nascar just to sponsor…just for fun.
19 I’m excited that it feels like more than a shopping experience, it feels like the ability to
20 congregate and hang out and…I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Europe, and I love that about
21 Europe, that there’s places to just go and just be, so I really, really am looking forward to that
22 about this, in addition to the residential. So, thank you for it.
23 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Well, I was going to hold out and see if I couldn’t do
24 some extortion for which stores I want in there, but…I’m hoping it’ll go our way, and I’m very
25 excited about it too, it’s really time, we need it for the midtown corridor as well. Thanks.
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else?
27 BOARDMEMBER HART: Other than saying I think this is really going to be the catalyst
28 to restore midtown, and I’m really looking forward to it, and, knock on wood, hope works.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else?
30 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I just wish you good luck.
31 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: I also thought, if you do do a shuttle, you could put a
32 colored sign on it.
33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further discussion? First and second on the floor. Roll call
34 please.
62
1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
2 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore?
4 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes.
5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
6 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
7 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart?
8 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes.
9 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
10 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
11 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
12 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
13 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
14 BOARDMEMBER SMITH: Yes. Alright, so we just passed the Foothills Mall PDP.