Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/07/2006 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 044, 2006 AMENDING ITEM NUMBER: 33 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 7, Zoos FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2006 Amending Section 3.5.4(c)(3)(A) of The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified a revision to Section 3.5.4(C)(3)(a)that would strengthen the existing standard for large retail establishments that requires multiple entrances. The proposed revision would require secondary entrances to be operational. In addition, the change clarifies that such second side entrances may serve the anchor store or, instead, serve only attached small retail store(s) with individual entrance(s). The existing standard and revisions are intended to work in conjunction with the standard for distributed parking so that the impacts associated with large,single-use,single-entry retail stores are mitigated. BACKGROUND During the consideration of amending the Harmony Corridor Plan to allow a regional shopping center at the northwest corner of Harmony and Ziegler Roads, City Council directed staff to strengthen the existing standards governing large retail establishments. A key feature of the existing standard is to promote pedestrian connectivity and human scale by requiring a second entrance along a side elevation. Single-use retailers,however,are reluctant to provide such an entrance for reasons explained in the background report. The revised standard prioritizes a true second entrance into the big box but allows attaching independent liner store(s)in lieu of such an entrance. At the February 16,2006 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board,the Board voted 6—0 to recommend approval of the proposed revision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Code Change Report 2. Summary of Citizen Input 3. Presentation Slides 4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes ATTACHMENT Item 716 Amend 3.5.4— Large Retail Establishments — to strengthen the requirement for multiple building entries and provisions for small liner shops. Works in conjunction with distributed parking. Problem Statement In evaluating the standards relating to large retail establishments (retail buildings and supermarkets containing more than 25,000 square feet, a.k.a. "big boxes"), Staff would like to enhance the existing standard that requires multiple building entrances. The proposed changes are intended to place added emphasis on the relationship between multiple entrances and distributed parking. Experience with the standard has shown that the single-use big box retailer is very reluctant to provide a true second entrance that would ideally be placed conveniently along a side elevation that does not feature the main entrance but is expected to have parking or other pedestrian activity. The resistance to the standard is due to store layout ("racetrack") shop-lifting control ("shrinkage") and product display ("fixturing"). Based on national formulaic standards, the typical result is single- use buildings with single entrances with all the congestion concentrated at one point. A true side entrance works in tandem with the requirement that no more than 50% of the parking be placed between the front door and the street. Both multiple entrances and distributed parking are key standards that effectively mitigate the impacts related to large buildings and their associated parking, and enhance human scale aspects of urban development. Without these two standards, our award-winning big box standards would be significantly minimized. The purpose of this proposed revision offers the following clarifications: • Side entrances must now be operational. The standard clearly states that keeping an entrance closed or attaching a faux entrance would not be permitted. • Site planning is improved by offering a broader range of parking options. The "front' parking field would not be perceived as the only available parking. A side entrance served by a side parking lot mitigates the single large "sea of parking." • The combination of multiple entrances and distributed parking brings the building closer to the street and public sidewalks and thereby reduces long walking distances. • The standard helps reduce vehicle and pedestrian congestion at one concentrated point. Architecture is improved by creating more visual interest and articulation with an enhanced second entrance compared to a side wall with a faux or closed entrance. The mass, scale and bulk of the large building is further mitigated with a human scale element. The revised standard places added emphasis on providing operational entrances that are open during general hours of the operation (not just seasonal garden shop entries), and encouraging the use of smaller retail liner shops as an approach towards compliance with the standard. Staff emphasizes that neither the existing standard nor the proposed revision attempt to regulate internal store operations. Rather, the intent is to acknowledge retail development tendencies and simply mitigate the impact on the urban design within our commercial centers. The south elevation of Harmony Village Shopping Center at College and Harmony is our best example of big box mitigation using small liner shops as satisfying the multiple entrance requirement. The Safeway downtown has liner shops along College Avenue. Circuit City is also pointed to as another example of how to meet the standard with two entrances divided between two different building elevations. The Super Wal-Mart, with a closed side entrance, is an example of a loophole in the existing standard. Proposed Solution Overview (new language in bold) Section 3.5.4(C)(3)(a) (a) Entrances. At least two (2) sides of a large retail establishment shall feature operational customer entrances. The two (2) required sides shall be those that are planned to have the highest level of public pedestrian activity, and one (1` of the sides one of which shall also be tl;at wl;ieh the side that most directly faces a street with pedestrian access. The other of the two (2) sides having an operational customer entrance may face a second street with pedestrian access, and/or a main parking lot area. If the large retail establishment does not include a second side entrance that is fully operational and open to the public, then this standard shall be met by attaching smaller retail store(s) ("liner stores") to the side of the large retail establishment which is expected to generate the most pedestrian activity or which faces a public street. Such liner store(s) shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, occupy no less than thirty three (33) percent of the building elevation on which they are located and shall feature distinctive store fronts and entrances that are significantly differentiated from the large retail establishment in order to create strong identifiable entrance features. Entrances to the liner store(s) may, but need not, provide access into the large retail establishment and must be fully operational and open to customers at times that are generally equivalent to the store hours of the large retail establishment to which they are attached. All entrances, including those of the liner store(s), shall be architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting public street. (See Figure 14.) Movie theaters are exempt from this requirement. ATTACHMENT Citizen Input on This Issue From City Council Meeting of February 21, 2006 During the citizen input portion of the City Council meeting of February 21 , 2006, a citizen addressed Council regarding the proposed changes to Section 3.5.4 of the Land Use Code. This citizen observed the February 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board discussion and is aware of the issues. Staff has corresponded with this citizen to verify the concerns which are summarized as follows: The primary concern is the pending big box development within the former Lifestyle Center, now eligible to be a Regional Shopping Center, at the northwest corner of Harmony and Ziegler Roads. In particular, there are concerns about the potential impacts on English Ranch and English Ranch South neighborhoods. • Regarding requiring a true second entrance on the side elevation, the citizen contends that big box retailers will never alter their internal floor plans to provide such a side entrance. Retailers will, instead, seek to meet the standard by providing liner shops. Such liner shops could have the unintended consequence of making the big box bigger. • Such liner shops would add signage to the structure. • There is a question as to what is actually more effective — an attractive architectural building side with no entrance (west side of Super Wal- Mart) or liner shops (south end of Harmony Center). • Staff and the P & Z Board need to make sure that servicing, loading and back-of-the-store operations are well-screened from English Ranch. • Traffic remains a concern for English Ranch. As an example of what one neighborhood accomplished to mitigate big box traffic (Home Depot), please note the barricade on Hogan Drive in Fairway Estates, a County subdivision. This was installed in response to the potential cut-through traffic between South College Avenue and Harmony Road. In reviewing and evaluating the future big box projects in the Regional Shopping Center, Staff and P & Z should make full use of the compatibility standards in the Land Use Code. As a result of the Shields Street Lofts Appeal, Council and citizens now expect these standards to be enforced more broadly than applied in the past. ATTACHMENT Item #33 Proposed Land Use Code Revision to Section 3.5.4 - Large Retail Establishments 3.5.4 (C)(3)(a) Key Changes: •Side entrances must be operable •Liner shop(s) may act in lieu if liner shop(s) are along 33% of side elevation •Seasonal entries (garden shops) do not count as second side entrances 1 W r � 3 et Y� 6•Mr'� %,. a�11" � r r ;•a � v� � � .r 5f�aa�v� z rl S ; N �` y v ° Y s r .l kIaR"n zras Harmony Centre E Harmony Center at College & Harmony: (King Soopers, PetSmart) *Excellent example of liner shop(s) along south elevation •Complies with distributed parking *Multi-use and multi-entry •Complies with revised standard 2 E i zi A Jt 41 t{' - �� N , � p, yy.e 6 J y tw SOUTH LEMA; Wal-Mart — Mulberry/ Lemay W Super Wal-Mart at Lemay & Magnolia: *Good example of a side entrance — but it's closed — loophole *Complies with distributed parking *Single-use and single entry •Revised standard would require operable side entrance or liner shop(s) in lieu 3 N • r S S� k w sw.« C a fi x t W E 71 . it " n i Circuit city S Circuit City at College & Pavilion: *Excellent example of multiple entries •Complies with distributed parking *Single-use, multi-entry •Complies with revised standard 4 E - _ -- - N I� S ICI i w:- _. 4 OF 9 Home Depot — Mulberry / Lemay W Home Depot and Lemay & Mulberry: •Garden is second entry •Modification granted for distributed parking •Single use with seasonal entry •Revised standard would require garden entry to be open year-round, or liner shop(s) in lieu 5 W a y^�e s,. aJ 4 J'3y a ,'f t � k '� ,W fir. �s It 4 E#> S S ' N ihm w ` n 5 ei � '"'°" . Y J8 ILI Home Depot— Harmony Centre E Home Depot at Harmony & J.F.K.: *Garden is second entry *Modification granted for distributed parking *Single use with seasonal entry *Revised standard would require garden entry to be open year-round, or liner shop(s) in lieu 6 E q , 4 I !y V -� � ii ��. �3�F yip,,a . � • ek xi x � 1 �i la, i � a•.' e4 trG e'a : a,✓ •1 tp 1,4 aYs E � ✓a � k ^y M j� ,11 77 4 a r ShopKo W ShopKo at College & Bockman: (Acquired by J.C. Penney's) *Single-use and single entry *Pre-Big Box standards -Example of prototype that existing and revised standards (multiple entrances and distributed parking) mitigate 7 ATTACHMENT 4 ®DRAFT Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 3 Project: Recommendation to city Council regarding amending Section 3.5.4 — Large Retail Establishments Project Description: Request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding amending Section 3.5.4 C 3 a of the Land Use Code. The proposed Revision would place additional emphasis on providing a functional entrance(s) on the side of a large retail establishment and that such an entrance may be to small retail stores (liner shop). Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff report recommending approval. He stated that the significant change is that the Board originally wanted to require a 45% linear side elevation coverage of the smaller retail stores or the attached liner shops, staff felt that that was probably going to mean a lot of modifications or perhaps an automatic modification. The 45%, not that it might be that hard to hit, but it is so prescriptive and so precise in that what if they came in at 44% or what if they gave us an entrance that would approximate a large retail establishments side entrance that even if the large retail establishment did it, it might not be 45%; so if it were a side entrance to a Wal- Mart, Target or Home Depot and really truly operational and functional, that would meet the standard in the best way and it might not be 45% of the linear footage along the side elevation. On the one hand we would be saying that that true entrance would be meeting the standard, the smaller liner shops could not meet it unless they did 45% linear footage of coverage. Staff thought that was a double standard there. Staff's recommendation is that we take out the 45%. Chairperson Lingle was concerned about eliminating the 45% standard because he thought the goal of this is to have two operational entrances to a big box. What the city is doing is allowing essentially a pre-approved modification to that standard by allowing the liner shops to substitute for that. He thought in that regard there should be a pretty heavy burden on that modification so that it needs to be something more significant. He was looking at it that the 45% or 75% or 100% is really what we would be shooting for in lieu of the preferred second operational entrance. ®DRAFT Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 4 Member Schmidt commented that when she was reading this and using such words as "distinctive store fronts and entrances that are significantly differentiated" to her that created a scenario that the burden was enough to do this versus having the two entrances. She was wondering what kind of guidelines we have to determine that language when a proposal comes, is that going to be totally subjective of this looks distinctive or doesn't. She agreed with Chairperson Lingle that we are creating an option and we want a strong option and she wondered if the language would cover for that. Planner Shepard replied that the language is written so we have some basis for our subjective evaluation and you could almost say it in the contrary. You could say something, when meeting with the applicant, like that you cannot give us a non descript employee only entrance, you can't give us a metal door that says fire exit only with no windows. You can say when reading the standards what you don't want. These words in this part of the Code, all the standards in the Big Box that are prescriptive are subjective. We sometimes have applicants that test the limits of what the words mean and that is when staff comes back to the Board and say we need better words because we did not like the result. Member Schmidt asked if one of the goals is to help distribute parking, should that be mentioned somewhere or is that covered somewhere else. Planner Shepard replied that the Code does not provide explanatory text. We have a booklet that staff hands out with a lot of illustrations and it is called Standards and Guidelines and it does provide explanatory text. Member Schmidt did not feel uncomfortable putting a number down, she would feel uncomfortable committing to the fact that we would go with 37 or something because we can speak for ourselves but could not speak for future Board's that may not be as lenient. Planner Shepard replied that staff was struggling with what would happen if you get a liner shop that came in and it was 20 feet wide along a 300 foot long elevation. The counter argument was that that is what you might get if it was a side entrance to a Home Depot, but if it is a liner shop we are raising the bar. Chairperson Lingle's point was excellent in that if it a liner shop it is not a true entry, you cannot get into the Big Box from the liner store and maybe it does carry a heavier burden. Chairperson Lingle asked if there was language in the Land Use Code that gives staff the ability to waive up to 10% of what the standard is. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ®OQ February 16, 2006 AFC"` Page 5 Planner Shepard replied that we have Alternative Compliance which is not quite a modification. It means that you have complied with the standard in an alternative way that did not quite cross the threshold to becoming an out and out modification. Alternative Compliance is a flexible way for a standard to be met in a more different and creative way. Member Rollins asked if there was some kind of number because you do want some minimum number. On the other had if staff really does think that by doing this you are just going to get requests for exceptions, then we have accomplished nothing. Member Rollins commented that she shops at the King Sooper's on Harmony all the time and she does not park on the side when she goes to shop at the King Sooper's, she parks in front of King Sooper's. She parks in front of those other stores when she is going to Qudoba or Starbucks, but her destination is different. She loves the way it is laid out, but if you are trying to get me who is going into King Sooper's to park in front of Starbucks and walk over, she highly doubts that there is many people who do that. Director Gloss responded that it gets back to what was discussed at worksession that consumers want to see the entrance of the store that they are trying to get to. They want to park in relative proximity and walk directly to the entrance. Member Stockover commented that in reading it means that we want to mitigate mass and scale and distribution of parking. If he is going to a store he is going to park as close as he can and he will keep going out until there is a parking place. If you want to mitigate parking, do it with parking places. He would not park on the side if there are empty spaces in front. We are dealing with the look of the building and mass and scale is first and foremost and parking is secondary. By putting other stores on the side, he did not think we are curing anything with parking. If he were a developer he would like more flexibility. If we are going to say you need to make the sides look nice, that is what we should do is say we want the sides to look nice, not say we are going to burden you if you don't give us what we want. Let's work more towards what we really want. Planner Shepard replied that one of the ways that you make the Big Box mitigated is by bringing it closer to the street and not have large parking fields between front door and street. That way you get connecting walkways and you do start to add some human scale to it. He thought that even if you don't get total 100% compliance that we envision, you still accomplish shorter walking distances. Member Smith asked if we look at the south Home Depot, in the proposed language it says that "if a large retail establishment does not include a second side entrance that is fully operational and open to the public then this standard shall ... " that does not address their garden door, so somebody could do, if there is a loophole there, exactly Planning and Zoning Board Minutes QD February 16, 2006 ���� Page 6 what Home Depot did because it is not a year round, everyday that the store is open accessible entrance. He thought we have not closed that loophole. Planner Shepard replied that we are hoping that we do. If this language were in effect and this project came in, we would say that the Garden Center entrance does not cut it and you need to do something else. We think that the language we are adding gives us a better standing to require that. Member Smith thought they could do it seasonal and get by with it because the Code does not specifically address hours of operation being the standard. Planner Shepard replied that we could be more precise with that language. Member Stockover referred to the Super Wal-Mart and if it met every letter except that they don't open the door, who cares where they park because when the front parking lot is full, people park on the side. Planner Shepard replied that if we did not have this standard we would not even have side parking and that is the proto type. They would put 95% of the parking between front door and street. That results in pushing the building as far away from the public sidewalks as humanly possible. Member Stockover said that what staff is saying is that they do meet all the standards, they just leave the door locked. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Schmidt thought that the parking was a separate standard in Big Boxes. Planner Shepard replied it is but they work together. If you don't have distributed parking and if you don't have multiple entrances then you are going to get what every community proto type has and that is that you will have the Big Box set way back, front parking field, one single, single entrance, large parking field. The rest of the Big Box Standards are architectural articulation. Member Schmidt asked if Wal-Mart had that door as operational where it is, they would be in full compliance right now. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 7 Member Schmidt wondered if we really need this or if we need to put more force into what we want which is that the Big Boxes have dual entrances and make some kind of allowance for the catty corner thing if it works with the disbursed parking. Planner Shepard replied that the catty corner allowance is there. What we are finding is that the single use Big Box will not give us a true second entrance on the middle of a side elevation. We have tried, knocked our heads against the wall trying and we are not getting it. Member Schmidt asked if right now we would accept the caddie corner as long as they kept it operational. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. If they can't do that they need to give us liner shops. Member Stockover stated that his point is that with Super Wal-Mart they did give the parking that the city wanted. He agrees with everything being said, but if they do put the entrance or what looks like an entrance, which gives it some architectural design on the side and it is not a blank wall and you do have parking over there, you have accomplished your two goals. You have distributed your parking and you have quite a bit of architecture going along the side, so if it looks like you want and the parking is where you want it, why should we care if the doors are locked. That is an operation of business not of planning. Director Gloss replied it is about function. The parking field and the entrance work in tandem. Leaving one of those elements out leaves a dysfunctional situation. Member Stockover said that if you put a shop on the side and you can't get to the Big Box, you have not cured a thing. Planner Shepard replied that his concern about where you are heading, is that we might get faux architecture and faux entrances and that starts to look like applied, tack on type articulation. Like Chairperson Lingle said, it is Plan B. What we really want is what we are not getting, the industry will not give it to us. We can't beat our heads against the wall forever and let's try and beef up the liner shop scenario so we can get the tandem standards to work functionally. Chairperson Lingle still thought even if we set a standard that someone is going want to modify and they have to show that it is equal to or better than and to say that they request 30% coverage is equal to or better than 45% coverage would be a tough sell. Especially since our desire is to have a second entrance to the Big Box. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes !=1 'AFT February 16, 2006 Page 8 Planner Shepard said that when the Harmony Corridor Standards were amended to allow a Regional Shopping Center at the Lifestyle site staff told Council that we would come back with a change to the Big Box Standards to try to beef them up a little bit. Member Schmidt move to recommend to City Council approval of the amendment to the Big Box Standards with the recommendation that staff include an additional paragraph recommending that the liner shops take up 45% of the side or meet an Alternative Compliance paragraph that staff will work on. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. ORDINANCE NO . 0445 2006 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 3 . 5 .4(C)(3 )(a) OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS , on March 18 , 1997 , by Ordinance No . 51 , 1997, the Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, upon the request of the City Council the staff of the City and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored potential amendments to Section 3 . 5 .4(C)(3 )(a) the Land Use Code regarding the design of and entrances to "large retail establishments" and have made recommendations to the Council regarding this issue ; and WHEREAS , the Council has determined that the Land Use Code amendments which have been proposed are in the best interest of the City and its citizens . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 3 . 5 .4(C)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows : (3 ) Site Design and Relationship to Surrounding Community. (a) Entrances . At least two (2) sides of a large retail establishment shall feature operational customer entrances . The two (2) required sides shall be those that are planned to have the highest level of public pedestrian activity, one of which shall also be that rhiehthe side that most directly faces a street with pedestrian access. The other of the two (2) sides having an operational customer entrance may face a second street with pedestrian access, and/or a main parking lot area. If the large retail establishment does not include a second side entrance that is fully operational and open to the public, then this standard shall be met by attaching smaller retail store(s) ( "liner stores") to the side of the large retail establishment which is expected to generate the most pedestrian activity or which faces a public street. Such liner store(s) shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, occupy no less than thirty three (33 ) percent of the building elevation on which they are located and shall feature distinctive store fronts and entrances that are significantly differentiated from the large retail establishment in order to create strong identifiable entrance features . Entrances to the liner store(s) may, but need not, provide access into the large retail establishment and must be fully operational and open to customers at times that are generally equivalent to the store hours of the large retail establishment to which they are attached. All entrances, including those of the liner store(s), shall be architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting public street. (See Figure 14. ) Movie theaters are exempt from this requirement. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of March, A.D . 2006, and to be presented for final passage on the 21 st day of March, A.D . 2006 . Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21 st day of March, A.D . 2006 , Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk