HomeMy WebLinkAbout004 - 01/17/1995 - REGARDING THE REGULATION OF LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ORDINANCE NO. 4, 1995
O1 TH7~;COUNCIL OF-THY CTrY O!~NtSRI COLLINS
REGARDING THE REGULATION OF LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins ("the City"), as a home rule municipality, has broad
constitutional and statutory powers to regulate the use of land within its City limits; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said authority, and the provisions of Article Il, Section 5, of the
City Charter, the City has adopted certain policies, plans, ordinances and resolutions pertaining
to the development of property within the City, including the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
Land Development Guidance System; and
WHEREAS, the Goals and Objectives element of the City's Comprehensive Plan directs
the City to: (1) develop a land use plan which will indicate preferred locations for the various
types of economic activities within the City; (2) protect the character of new and existing
residential neighborhoods from intrusive and disruptive surrounding development; (3) ensure that
future development in the City will be accomplished in a manner which minimizes any
degradation of the environment; and (4) promote better integration of land development and
transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has recently been presented with development proposals for the
development of large retail establishments, sometimes known as "superstores"; and
WHEREAS, the bulk, size and scale of such retail establishments present unusual land use
concerns for the City, especially with regard to the aesthetic and transportation impacts of such
uses; and
WHEREAS, City staff, working with an ad hoc citizen committee, has studied the
phenomenon of the growth and development of such retail establishments in order to determine
the appropriate locations for such land uses, the kind of design criteria which should be used to
mitigate the visual impacts of the same, and the kind of infrastructure requirements which should
be imposed to offset the parking and traffic impacts of such developments; and
WHEREAS, the development of large retail establishments, in the absence of appropriate
regulatory guidelines, may have an irreversible negative impact upon the City; and
WHEREAS, in the interests of affording the City an opportunity to study the impacts of
such retail establishments and establish criteria to ensure that such establishments are developed
in harmony with the City's comprehensive plan and, particularly, the goals and objectives
elements thereof, the Council imposed a moratorium on the development of certain types of such
large retail establishments pursuant to Ordinance No. 111, 1994; and
WHEREAS, during said moratorium, the ad hoc citizen committee, together with City
staff and various boards and commissions of the City, have analyzed the type of vehicular trips
that are generated by such large retail establishments and have developed proposed criteria for
determining: (1) the appropriate location of such establishments from a transportation standpoint,
(2) the appropriate architectural design and functional aspects of such establishments to ensure
that they are not disruptive of the surrounding development, (3) the parking requirements for such
establishments to ensure that an adequate supply of parking spaces remains available City-wide
to serve the overall street, highway and parking systems of the City, and (4) methods for
accommodating the service traffic that is needed to supply and service such establishments to
ensure that such regulations are in harmony with the transportation provisions of the goals and
objectives element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the staff and the ad hoc committee have presented to the City Council certain
revisions to the Land Development Guidance System and other provisions of Chapter 29 of the
City Code for the purpose of better regulating the location and design of such large retail
establishments within the City and have presented to the Council certain 'Design Standards and
Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments" for adoption by the Council in implementing the
regulatory provisions of Chapter 29 of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins has recommended
the adoption by the Council of said proposed amendments and additional design regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of the City that the following amendments to Chapter 29 and the
proposed 'Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments" be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 29-1 of the Code of the City be amended by the addition of the
following new definitions, to be added in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 29-1. Definitions.
Collector street system shall mean a system of one (1) or more collector
street(s) that allows traffic to be distributed to at least two (2) arterial streets.
Grocery store shall mean a retail establishment primarily selling food, as well
as other convenience and household goods, which occupies a space of not less than
four thousand (4,000) square feet and not more than twenty-five thousand (25,000)
square feet.
2
Large retail establishment shall mean a retail establishment, or any combination
of retail establishments in a single building, occupying more than twenty-five
thousand (25,000) gross square feet of floor area.
Retail establishment (also known as retail store) shall mean an establishment in
which sixty (60) percent or more of the gross floor area is devoted to the sale or
rental of goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household
consumption or to services incidental to the sale or rental of such goods or
merchandise.
Supermarket shall mean a retail establishment primarily selling food, as well as
other convenience and household goods, which occupies a space of not less than
twenty-five thousand one (25,001) square feet.
Section 2. That Chapter 29 of the Code of the City be amended by the addition of a new
Section 29-477, to read as follows:
Sec. 29-477. Supplementary regulations for retail establishments occupying
more than 25,000 square feet.
No new large retail establishment, or addition to an existing large retail
establishment which would increase the gross square feet of floor area of such
establishment by fifty (50) percent or more, and no addition to a building which
would create a large retail establishment and which would increase the gross
square footage of floor area of such building by fifty (50) percent or more, shall
be approved for construction or occupancy unless the entire large retail
establishment affected by the new construction has been determined by the
Planning and Zoning Board to be in compliance with the 'Design Standards and
Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments" as adopted by the city, either as a
planned unit development approved in accordance with the provisions of Section
29-526, or as a permitted use under Article III of Chapter 29.
Section 3. That Section 29-526 of the Code of the City is hereby amended by the repeal
and readoption of Activity "C," Community Regional Shopping Center, to read as set forth on
Exhibit "A," which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 4. That Section 29-526(E)(5) is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Special Requirements
(5) The City shall have the right to establish general locational, land use and
design standards, guidelines, and policies for the purpose of augmenting,
3
implementing and interpreting the provisions of this section, and all plans
presented to the City for review and approval must, as a condition of
approval, comply with all such mandatory requirements as are applicable
to such plans.
Section 5. That the "Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail
Establishments" attached hereto as Exhibit "B", which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
be, and the same hereby is, adopted for application to all proposed "large retail establishments"
as defined in Section 29-1 of the City Code.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
January, A.D. 1995, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 1995.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Q}� City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 17th day of January, A.D. 1
ayor
ATTEST:
OV" 7City Clerk
4
Exhibit- H
DRAFT 005
ACTIVITY : COMMUNITY REGIONAL r,
SHOPPING CENTER "
DEFINITION ,
A cluster of retail and service establishments designed to serve consumer demands from the community as a
whole or alarger area. Sucha center isplanned,constructed andmanaged as a cohesive,unifiedmarketing center
with customer and employee parking provided on site and includes a variety ofretail and service establishments
and could include entertainment and recreational facilities. The communityregional shopping center is intended
to accommodate the development needs oflarger retail establishments and,accordingly,anyretail establishment
occupying a space in excess of twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet (except supermarkets) must be
developed as a part of a community regional shopping center. Any building,at least sixty(60)percent of which
is occupied by a retail establishment containing more than twenty-five thousand(25,000) square feet(except
supermarkets)must be developed as a part of a community regional shopping center.
CRITERIA 'Eachofthefolowmgapphcable criteria must be answered"yes"and implemented
withinthedevelopmemplan.
YES NO NA
1. Does the project gain its primary vehicular access from a street ❑ El 1:1
other than South College Avenue?
2. Are all repair,painting and body work activities,including the storage ❑
ofrefuse andvehicleparts,planned to takeplace withinan enclosed
structure?
3. Does the project meet the requirements ofthe Design Standards and
Guidelinesfor CommunityRegional Shopping Centers and Large
Retail Establishments?
continued
22
F4. corii i ii iued
DOESTHEPROJECT EARNATLEAST FIFTY(50)PERCENT YES NO NA
OFTHE MAXIMUM POINTSAS CALCULATED ON"POINT ❑ ❑
CHART C"FORTHE FOLLOWING CRITERIA?
a. Is the project located within"north"Fort Collins?
b. Is theproject located atthe intersection of two arterial streets and contiguous to both such
streets?
c. Is theproject contiguous to an existing transitroute?
d. Is the project adjacentto and functionally apartofan existing orplanned community regional
shoppingcenter?
e. Doestheproject gain itsprimary vehicular access from a collector street system?
f. Istheredirectvehicularandpedestrimaccessbetweenon-siteparkingareasand adjacentexisting
or future off-site parking areas which contain more than ten(10)spaces?
g. Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage through the application of alternative
energy systems orthrough energy conservationmeasuresbeyond those notmallyrequiredby the
Model Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix G for Energy Conservation
methods to use for calculating energy conservationpoints.
h. Is the project located with at least one-sixth(1/6)of its property boundary contiguous
to existing urban development?
i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred,has special public
value because of notable architecture,or is of cultural significance,does the project fulfill
the following criteria?
1. Prevent creation ofinfluences adverse to its preservation;
2. Assure that new structures and uses will be in keeping with the character of the building
orplace. Imitation of period styles should be avoided;and
3. Propose adaptive use ofthebuilding orplace thatwill lead to its continuance,
conservation,and improvement in an appropriate manner while respecting the
integrity of the neighborhood.
DRAFT 005
COMMUNITY REGIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER POINT CHART C
For All Criteria Applicable Criteria Only
I II III IV
Is the Clrciethe Maximum
Criterion Criterion Correct Points ppllcable
APPOc0d3le Score Multiplier Earned Points
Yes No Yes VW*No 1xl1
a. "North" Fort Collins X X 2 0 1 2
b Arterial/Arterial Intersection X X 2 0 2 1 4
c. Transit route X X 2 0 2 1 4
Part of a
d' Community Regional Center X X 2 0 3 6
e Collector Street X X 2 0 2 4
Svstem Access
f. Joint Parking X 1 2 0 2 4
g. Energy Conservation X 2 8
h. Contiguity X X 2 0 5 10
I. Historic Preservation 1 2 0 2
j, 1 2 0
k. 1 2 0
1. 1 2 0
Totals
V VI
Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points VNI = VII
VII
Land Development Guidance System forPlannedUnitDevelopments
APPENDIX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 111, 1994
OF THE CITY OF FRT
ESTABLIS I GH A COUNCTEMPOIRARYF SUSPENSION OF T HE C ROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR RETAIL "SUPERSTORES" WITHIN THE CITY
FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins ("the City") , as a home rule
municipality, has broad constitutional and statutory powers to regulate the use
of land within its City limits; and
WHle 11,
EREAS,
of� the rCity tCharter,I the hCity yhas nad adopted certainn Policd the provisios of ies,cplans,
ordinances and resolutions pertaining to the development of property within the
City, including the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Guidance
System; and
WHEREAS, the Goals and Objectives element of the City's Comprehensive Plan
directs the_ Ci_ty- t_o�:_ (1) develop a land use- piair which wiii indicate preferred
locations for the various types of economic activities within the City; (2)
protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods against
intrusive and disruptive surrounding development; (3) ensure that future
development in the City will be accomplished so as to create the least
degradation of the environment; and (4) promote better integration of land
development and transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has recently received applications and/or informal
proposals for various retail "superstores" to be located within the City, which
superstores present unique land use planning concerns by reason of the bulk, size
and scale of such stores, especially with regard to the aesthetic and
transportation impacts of the same; and
WHEREAS, considerable study is needed to determine the appropriate location
for such uses and the kinds of criteria that should be adopted to regulate the
design of the same, as well as the kind of infrastructure requirements that may
�be• necessary to accommodate such uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
as follows:
Section 1. That the Council of the City of Fort Collins hereby makes the
following findings of fact:
(a) That the City has recently been presented with development proposals
for large, general and special merchandise stores, sometimes known
as "superstores."
(b) That the bulk, size and scale of such superstores present unusual
land use concerns for the City, especially with regard to the
aesthetic and transportation impacts of such uses.
(c) That considerable study is needed in order to determine the
appropriate location for such land uses, the kind of design criteria
which should be used to mitigate the visual impacts of the same, and
the kind of infrastructure requirements which should be imposed to
offset the parking and traffic impacts of such developments.
(d) That the development of superstorea;- in- the absence of appropriate-
regulator; guidelines, may- have- an- irreversible negative impact upon
the City.
(e) That the City has not heretofore studied the impacts of superstores,
nor has it established locational criteria to ensure that such
stores are developed in harmony with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
and, particularly, the Goals and Objectives element thereof.
(f) That the integration of land development and transportation
facilities goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that the
City study and develop criteria for the purpose of regulating the
design of multi-modal transportation access to any superstores that
might choose to locate in the City.
(g) That it is necessary in the public interest to delay, for a
reasonable period of time, the processing of any applications for
such stores, to ensure that the design, development and location of
the same are consistent with the long-term planning objectives of
the City.
(h) That, during the abovementioned period of time, the City should: (1)
analyze and determine the type of vehicular trips that are generated
by superstores to determine whether such trips are predominately
regional, community or neighborhood in nature, in order to establish
criteria for the appropriate location of such stores from a-
transportati-o» standpoint;
or
regulating the size, architectural al design and functionalopriate aspects iteria fof
such superstores to ensure that they are not disruptive to
surrounding development; (3) develop criteria regarding the
establishment of parking requirements for superstores to ensure that
an adequate supply of parking spaces remains available City-wide to
serve the overall street, highway and parking systems in the City;
and (4) establish criteria regarding the regulation of the truck
traffic that is needed to supply and service such superstores, to
ensure that such regulations are in harmony with the transportation
provisions of the Goals and Objectives element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. That, as of the effective date of this Ordinance, no Overall
Oevelopmenif=Plans, preliminary planned unit development applications,
applicationwfor site plan .review or building permits for superstores within the
City will be- processed by City staff or reviewed by the City's Planning and
Zoning Board.
mean any That,
building, orco purposes
t
mbinationofbuildings, Intendednto�besusedsprincipally
for the purpose of retail sales and marketing, which exceed(s) eighty thousand
(80,000) square feet in size, and for which a single certificate of occupancy
would be issued under Section 29-5 of the City Code.
2
Section 4. That the provisions of this Ordinance shall not affect the
processing of applications or the issuance of building permits for uses permitted
under planned unit developments or site plan reviews that have received
preliminary or final approval by the City on or before the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 5. That City staff is hereby directed to develop recommendations
to the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council , within the succeeding six
(6) month period, pertaining to the location, size, quantity, type and design of
superstores within the City and to make specific recommendations regarding any
proposed amendments to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land
Development Guidance System, the zoning ordinances and/or the subdivision
ordinances of the City as they relate to such superstores.
Section 6. That the provisions of this Ordinance are temporary in nature
and are intended to be replaced by subsequent legislative enactment. The
temporary suspension of the processing of applications for large retail and
merchandising establishments within the City as specified in this Ordinance shall
terminate as of January 29, 1995.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published
this 5th day of July, A.D. 1994, and to be pres or final passa the
19th day of July, A.O. 1994.
Mayor L
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of July, A.D. 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk ,
3
APPENDIX 2
FORT COLLINS
RETAIL/GROCERY STORE
SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY
RETAIL STORES
SAM'S (PACE) 229-0797 100,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
4700 Boardwalk Drive
SHOPKO 99,164 SF Bldg Insp Records
135 Bockman Drive
BEST BUY 225-6003 28,520 SF Bldg Insp Records
4040 S. College Avenue Store Manager
TARGET 223-9100 100,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
105 Troutman Parkway
K-MART 493-3232 84,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
2445 S. College Avenue
MONTGOMERY WARD 221-8400 72,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
2201 S. College Avenue
WAL-MART 223-0715 82,130 SF Bldg Insp Records
4625-5. Mason 420,000 SF- Store-Manager-
(future
extension
approved)
FOLEY'S 226-5300 75,403 SF Bldg Insp Records
225 E. Foothills Parkway (includes Store Manager
24,000 SF
remodel)
SEARS 229-1200 79,073 SF Store Manager
205 E. Foothills Parkway 79,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
J C PENNEY 223-8100 66,232 SF Bldg Insp Records
245 E Foothills Parkway
TJ MAXX 229-9444 26,203 SF Bldg Insp Records
4366 S College Avenue
PETSMART 229-9502 33,777 SF Bldg Insp Records
4330 S College Avenue
OFFICE DEPOT 223-0025 25,901 SF Bldg Insp Records
3500 S College Avenue
25
BUILDER'S SQUARE 225-2022 88,584 SF Bldg Insp Records
813 E Harmony Road
SUTHERLAND'S
2701 S College 226-1000 51,870 SF Everitt Companies (owners)
1901 E Prospect 484-7107 30,406 SF Bldg Insp Records
JAX SURPLUS 221-0544 27,000 SF Store Manager
1200 N College + 3,114 SF Addition Bldg Insp Records
(in progress)
WEBERG FURNTURE 225-1500 69,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
5001 S College Avenue
PAYLESS DRUG STORE 226-2513 28,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
112 E Foothills Parkway
BEST PRODUCTS 223-8200 67,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
110 W Troutman Parkway 63-64,000 SF Store Manager
FRED SCHMID 221-3600 44,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
4950 S College Avenue
TOYS 'R' US 226-5131 46,570 SF Bldg Insp Records
120 Bockman Drive
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
3531 S College 282-9767 6,825 SF Bldg Insp Records
725 S Lemay 484-2628 4,500 SF Bldg Insp Records
2601 S Lemay 226-0300 4,200 SF Bldg Insp Records
925 S Taft Hill 484-9999 6,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
SHOWTIME USA VIDEO
3636 S College 223-9654 10,000 SF- Store Manager
1606 S Lemay 221-0940 10,700 SF- Store Manager
2561 S Shields 484-4341 5,500 SF Bldg Insp Records
SOUND WAREHOUSE 229-9099
4300 S College 12,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
SOUNDTRACK 223-3666
4606 S. Mason 16,117 SF Bldg Insp Records
NORTHWEST
FABRICS & CRAFTS 225-9401 12,212 SF Bldg Insp Records
4318 S College Avenue
MICHAEL'S
ARTS & CRAFTS 223-1725
106 E Foothills Pkwy 11,200 SF Store Manager
HOBBY LOBBY 223-3663 41,000 SF** Bldg Insp Records
4106 S College Avenue
Square-Footage-Summary
June, 1994
Page 3
WESTERN AUTO 223-2002
3801 Mitchell Drive 15,376 SF Bldg Insp Records
COUNTRY GENERAL (in County)
1000 N US Hwy 287 484-2221 26,000 SF Store Manager
GROCERY STORES
TODDY'S 223-3456 44,208 SF Store Manager
2601 S. Lemay Avenue 48,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
SAFEWAY/Downtown 484-9490 52,722 SF Store Manager
460 S. College Avenue 50,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
SAFEWAY 484-6048 46,940 SF Store Manager
Drake Crossing 50,000 SF Bldg Insp Records
2160 W. Drake Road
KING SOOPERS 482-8855 48,356 SF Bldg Insp Records
South College Store Manager
2325 S. College Avenue
ALBERTSON'5-221-5845- 43,744-SF Bldg-Insp-Records
Riverside/Lemay 42,264 SF Corporate Office
731 S. Lemay Avenue
STEELE'S/South 226-3086 50,232 SF Bldg Insp Records
200 W. Foothills Parkway 53,000 SF (specs) Owner
STEELE'S 225-2525 44,995 SF Bldg Insp Records
Harmony Market 45,000 SF (specs) Owner
1001 E. Harmony Road
*NOTES RE: SHOWTIME USA VIDEO
1) 3636 S College is old Pay 'n' Pak building: 21,000 SF.
Showtime occupies 10,000 SF; Palmer House Florist occupies back 11,000 SF (storage, etc.).
2) 1606 S. Lemay is old Blockbuster Video building: 15,000 SF.
Showtime occupies 10,700 SF; Sweet Water Spas occupies 4,300 SF.
•• NOTES RE: HOBBY LOBBY
4106 S College is old Phar-Mor building: 62,860 SF.
Hobby Lobby occupies 41,000 SF; 21,680 SF is vacant (interim retail business failed).
6/94
BASQFOOT.LST/hep:planning
Corr unity Planning and Environmer l Services APPENDIX 3
Office of the Director
14��
City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1, 1994
TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members
FROM: Claudia Haack-Benedict, Management Analyst"
RE: Superstore Project, public testimony received at Planning & Zoning Board
hearing on November 21, 1994
This memorandum is written in response to the public testimony that was received during the
first public hearing of the recommendations regarding the Superstore Project. It also
includes some updates regarding the committee recommendations that were determined
during the last committee meeting on November 30, 1994.
1. Was the design community represented on the committee and was there sufficient
opportunity to review the recommendations?
Jim Cox, President, and Tom Kalert, Vice President of Architecture Plus were jointly a
member of the committee because it was clear from the beginning that Mr. Cox would not be
able to attend all meetings. Mr. Kalert missed a few meetings, due to the birth of his
daughter.
Since there were concerns about conflicts of interest and too strong a representation from the
development industry, Mr. Cox and Mr. Kalert became members of the committee because
they had no affiliation with large scale retailing, yet could evaluate the proposed regulations
from an architectural viewpoint.
Membership and meetings were open to the general public. The Chamber was specifically
contacted to inform interested parties. Out of the 7 members of the Chamber, listed under
"architects" no one responded, in spite of the wide exposure the adoption of the moratorium
ordinance received. This is probably due to the fact that these types of retailers typically do
not hire local arachitects or planners.
The draft design standards were available for review (advertised in newspaper, radio,
television, through committee members, and the Chamber of Commerce), beginning
November 2, 1994. After the P&Z hearing on November 21, 1994 local architects were
contacted individually, provided with draft standards, and invited to comment. Most of the
comments that were received focused on the issues of standards vs. guidelines and creativity,
which are addressed below.
1
281 N. College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-Wl • FAX: (303) 221-6378
2. Was the committee actually involved in determining the proposed design ,
standards?
Committee discussions on desirable design characteristics were the basis for all of the
features of the standards. The committee reviewed various examples of big box
developments and discussed the benefits, draw-backs, and options during their meetings. The
committee met on 9/21, 1015, 10/12, 10/19, 11/2, 11/16, and 11/30. Two of those meetings
were used exclusively to establish desirable criteria. These criteria were then taken by the
consultant, reviewed for their applicability and effectiveness and processed in a legal format,
as standards and guidelines. Over the course of three following meetings the standards and
guidelines were reviewed and refined.
3. Why standards vs. guidelines?
In the very first meeting of the committee the objectives for the project were discussed. One
of the objectives, as provided in a hand-out, stated that "clear, enforceable requirements"
should be developed. Guidelines only would not be sufficient because Superstores typically
rely on "stock" plans that are just minimally adapted to the site. While the standards are
intended to establish a new "minimum" for the Fort Collins community, the committee also
wants to emphasize the "equal or better" principle of the LDGS. The review process would
still involve neighborhoods to the same degree as before. However, now it is clear that there
has to be-asubstantial deviation from the stock plan in order to meet the new requirements.
Neighborhood compatibility criteria would still apply.
4. How would the Design Standards and Guidelines be implemented?
The proposed requirements would be part of the LDGS point chart "C" and included in the
code to apply to use-by-right developments. They would apply to all PUD's that qualify as
"Community Regional Shopping Centers". All retail stores and retail buildings over 25,000
sq. ft. in PUD's (except supermarkets) would have to be part of a community regional
shopping center. Wherever area plans are in place those would apply as well.
5. Are the needs of the retail industry overlooked in regards to requirements for
multiple customer entrances?
The degree to which the proposed standards bear an impact on retail operations must be
balanced against the positive effects they are intended to produce. There are actually many
existing examples, where retailers already have more than one customer entrance. For
example, the local K-Mart has two entrances in the summer months, Office Depot can only
be accessed through the mall, which has many customer entrances, and Mervyns has multiple
exterior and an interior entrance. It is also possible to fill this criterion by locating smaller
retail stores, or service establishments with separate entrances in, or attached to the main
building. This would also facilitate pedestrian circulation and meet the criterion for
additional entrances.
2
6. Why is there a requirement for dispersed parking?
Dispersed parking adds to the attractiveness of a center by reducing the immediately visible
amount of paved surface, the "sea of parking". It also limits the distance for pedestrian and
bicycle access to the customer entrances. Depending on the site plan, it can also facilitate
pedestrian circulation.
7. Does dispersed parking pose a security problem for customers?
We have many examples in town that have dispersed parking, such as the Foothills Fashion
Mall, the Square and two Steele's Markets that don't seem to have more security problems
than other developments. In the committee review, these developments were considered to
be more pedestrian friendly and more attractive because the scale of parking is reduced. In
these types of developments, three, or even four sides of a building (or more) receive the
same attention to design and accessibility as the front facade. They not only have adjacent
parking, they also have customer entrances with appropriate lighting, etc. The intent of the
design standards and guidelines is actually to be more pedestrian friendly and re-create
similar characteristics in new developments. The "dark" side of buildings may still exist, but
it is not required to have customer parking on that side.
8. Could the moratorium be extended?
If the City Council deems it necessary to extend the moratorium an extension for a
reasonable timeperiod could be implemented by a new ordinance. The moratorium was
implemented to collect information about superstores and their impacts and to develop
criteria regarding their location based on transportation impacts, design and size, parking
requirements and truck traffic.
9. Why was the consultant selected?
Clarion Associates is a consulting company with offices in Chicago and Denver. They have
an interdisciplinary staff of lawyers, economists and planners. They were selected based on:
one, their experience on the topic (they prepared similarly oriented zoning ordinances for the
City of Pittsburgh; and have researched the issue nation-wide); and two, their immediate
availability. Other planning consultants and architects that were contacted did not have the
expertise, time, or ability to conduct the necessary research in the established budget. It
was also necessary to hire_a-consultant wha would-be-able_to draft legally defensible
language that regulates design. Most planning or architectural consultants have little, or no
experience in that area.
3
10. Should new, and separate definitions for Community and Regional Centers with
size limitations, pre-determined tenant selections, etc., be developed?
The original scope of work for the project did not include doing a comprehensive analysis on
community and regional shopping centers, location of grocery stores, or neighborhood
shopping centers. However, the discussions during the course of this project and the
Harmony Corridor Update strongly indicate that it would be beneficial to evaluate the
existing definitions and assumptions in the comprehensive plan update process.
11. Why were stores under 80,000 sq.ft. included even though the Ordinance only
speaks to stores over 80,000 sq. ft.?
The moratorium was established to study the superstore phenomenon further, since very little
information was available. The committee determined very early in the discussions that all
superstores that are 25,000 sq. ft., or larger, have a community-wide impact and that based
on their size and inherent need for exposure they should be mitigated by design standards.
For example, Best Buy at slightly over 26,000 sq.ft. appears to be very large, and massive
and could not be considered to be more attractive than K-Mart at 80,000 sq. ft.. Also, a
store of 25,000 square feet may have a community-wide market area and traffic impact. So
it was determined to include smaller stores than 80,000 sq. ft. in the regulations.
An exception are supermarkets. Supermarkets are traditionally located in Neighborhood
Shopping Centers, where they are the primary, and most frequent anchor tenant; yet they are
also much larger than 25,000 square feet. It would be contradictory to existing city policies
and practices to require such stores to locate in Community Regional Shopping Centers.
This is why supermarkets are excluded from the requirement to locate in Community
Regional Shopping Centers. After discussions with the Planning and Zoning Board, and a
staff evaluation of the current practices it was decided, not to attach any size specifications to
the definition of a supermarket but instead rely on the existing guidelines of the LDGS.
12. Should there be a size limitation and what should it be?
The committee has discussed size limitations on several occasions. The majority of the
committee has always recommended against a size limitation based on the following criteria:
A. A size limitation on buildings is possible. However, unless a rational basis can be
enunciated to distinguish large retail buildings from other large buildings the limit
would apply to all buildings. This might unduly limit office and industrial buildings.
If such a rational jg found, based, for example, on aesthetic considerations, or traffic
impacts, the limitation would apply to all retail buildings; then the question becomes
if it is really the intent to limit the size of retail buildings. If it is >Q the intent to
limit the size of retail buildings in general, such as neighborhood shopping centers, or
other centers, then the question becomes what jg the intent. If the intent is to limit
the size of a store, a rational basis that distinguishes large retail stores from other
4
retail uses would have to be found. In this case, such a rational could not be based
on aesthetic considerations, or traffic impacts, since the impacts of a large store are
comparable to those of a shopping center that has similar characteristics (square
footage and functions). At this point, no rational basis was found for a distinction
between a large retail store and other retail uses.
B. Even if a rational basis could be established, there may be very large businesses that
the community would like to see locate in Fort Collins.
C. With the design standards, it is intended to substantially reduce the apparent scale of
all retail buildings, whether in a mall-type development, or individual buildings on a
center site.
D. The LDGS already has tools available that address the issue of inappropriately large
buildings on a site.
Since the issue keeps resurfacing, below is some information on other types of size
limitations other than an absolute one.
Ratio per anchor
The principle of this type of regulation is to determine the maximum size of any one anchor
in relation to the total size of the center. Following are some examples of centers in Fort
Collins and existing ratios:
Name Total size Anchor(s) % of Total
size
Scotch Pines 95,000 48,000 5o
Drake Crossing Tract 1123,000 50,000 40
Raintree Phase 177,555 52,055 67
Riverside First Filing 101,228 43,744 43
27,953 27
Arbor Plaza 153,913 82,130 53
The Square 152,340 25, 901 17
The Pavilion 106,350 without pad sites 33,777 32
26,203
Harmony Market 250,000exc1. pad sites 100,000 40
100,000 40
Country Club Corners as proposed, without pad sites. 51,000 28
approx. 180,000 100,000 55
5
Lot to floor area
The principle of this type of regulation is to establish an "intensity of use" for any site in the
city. It is used widely in areas where it seems necessary to limit the building mass on a lot,
for example inner cities, where land prices are high, etc. It does not limit the size of
buildings in general and not at all the size of individual stores. If the site is very large, the
storelbuilding could still be very large. Since these stores look for fairly large sites and have
a desire to have large parking lots, this is a fairly ineffective way to regulate store size.
Below are some existing floor to lot ratios in Fort Collins.
Square 565,500 .27
Pavilion 791,700 .13
Arbor Plaza 669,465 .22
Foothills Fashion Mall 2,462,100 .29
University Mall 870,000 .31
Harmony Market 2,175,000 .19
To establish a rational basis for this type of a size limitation, considerable analysis would
have to be done regarding the characteristics and functionality of neighborhood, community
and regional shopping centers and relationships among them. The evaluation also would
have to include a thorough evaluation of the impacts this might have on future developments
for Fort Collins as a whole. It would possibly include new definitions for these types of
centers, which again would have an impact that calls for a much more comprehensive
approach. The scope of the superstore project was much more narrowly defined.
December 7, 1994c:%wpwinkhbVuprcc.005
6
Superstore Project
Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 5, 1994
Members present:
Jim Cox Bill Strickfaden Les Kaplan
Milan Hanson Bob Pennok Susan Meyer
Larry Stroud Jim Elias Jim Heaton
Staff: Claudia Benedict
Heidi Phelps
Clark Mapes
Heidi Phelps gave a presentation on design issues regarding superstores. She identified two
main objectives for design concepts, that the committee should discuss:
Mitigation of Mass
Community Integration. -
The committee suggested some alterations to the slide show if it is to be used for other
groups as well. More examples of good designs should be included and more focused on the
issues rather than a documentation of the project.
Next, Clark Mapes presented design concepts that were developed for the Harmony Corridor
Plan. They focused again on community integration and human scale. He pointed out that
alternative design concepts — for example, a "main street character" — would achieve these
objectives better than traditional designs.
The committee discussed the alternative characteristics:
- our regional preferences need to be defined
- multiple access would be preferable
- there should not be any uninterrupted wall space
- include windows or opportunities for art, sculptures, graffiti
- they don't need 100% visibility
Pedestrian areas should be in front and provide connections to the arterials
- utilize various upgraded materials, such as brick and stone, or hide it behind ivy
- signage and colors may not be necessary for big boxes
- have some stores co-locate with the big box
- stores above street level and with vertical phasing are imposing (e.g., Shopko).
- use awnings, canopies, arcades
- use irregularity, variety in building
- put in e.g. playgrounds, picnic tables, other-activities
Superstore Advisory Committee
1015 Meeting Summary
Page 2
- provide focal points "where to meet" for the community
- have the site be a part of the street & sidewalk system & create that atmosphere
- concentrate shopping to eliminate too many trips
- be more inviting to back
- backside mitigation
In summary, the committee suggested that there are many ways that are- known-to-
mitigate mass and provide a better integration into the community. We should use that
information and the suggestions that came up today to develop prescriptive design standards
that-provide predictability.
During the design discussion it was asked how the project would address issues such as:
- whether there should be more Superstores in town or not
- what the impacts of such stores on the local economy are
- whether they provide jobs that offer a liveable wage, and if not, how affordable
housing and healthcare could be provided for
- what the environmental impacts are
It will be necessary for the committee to discuss these issues at an upcoming meeting.
The next meeting will be on October 19, 1994. It will be held in the Central Conference
Room at 281 N College. The purpose of the meeting will be to review information on
transportation issues regarding big boxes and determine appropriate sites/inappropriate sites
or criteria for them. The preliminary agenda is as follows:
1. Transportation Information
2. Locations
3. Other Business
October 14, 1994cAwpw4nkhb\mw o .004
Com• uiity Planning and Environmen' ' Services
Office of the Director
_AV of Fort Collins Superstore Project
Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
September 21, 1994 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
Members present:
Jim Heaton Tom Kalert Les Kaplan
Susan Meyer Bob Pennock Bill Strickfaden
The other members of the committee were unable to attend the first meeting due to previous
scheduling conflicts. They will receive all materials and updates on the meeting.
Agenda:
1. Welcome & Housekeeping
2. Introductions
3. Overview of the Project
4. Market Analysis
What is a Superstore?
What can be expected ?
5. Preparation of next meeting
----------------------------------------------------
1. Welcome and 2. Introductions
The Citizen Advisory Committee for the Superstore Project met for the first time on
Wednesday, September 21, 1994. The members briefly introduced themselves and a few
additional meeting dates were set. They are:
October 5, 1994 5:30 p.m. Committee Meeting
Location: Advance Planning Conference Room, 281 N College Ave.
October 12, 1994 4:00 p.m. Worksession of the Planning and Zoning
Board on the Harmony Corridor and Superstore Projects
Location: Central Conference Room, 281 N College Ave.
October 19, 1994 5:30 p.m. Committee Meeting
281 N. College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6601 • FAX: (303) 221-6378
Location: Central Conference Room, 281 N College Ave. (tentatively)
On October 19, there might be a joint meeting of the Harmony and Superstore project
committees. A developer of power centers has offered to give a presentation. Both
committees expressed an interest in inviting the developer to Fort Collins. We'd like to
encourage other interested citizens and staff to attend this meeting as well. A definite
location and time will be determined at a later date.
The committee will welcome guests at any time and will encourage them to actively
participate in the discussions.
3. Overview of the Project
Claudia gave a brief overview of the moratorium ordinance and the issues that lead to its
adoption. She pointed out that there are four major areas of concern that need to be
addressed by December 6, 1994.
1. Impacts of such stores on the local economy and transportation are unclear and
information is lacking or contradictory.
2. Their appearance has been criticized.
3. There are no such stores in the northern part of town; retail development
concentrates in southern part of town in spite of long standing policies to the
contrary.
4. Transportation and parking issues are a concern.
It follows, that the objectives of the project are to address these issues and provide Council,
citizens and staff with clear, enforceable policies.
The committee reviewed the issues and objectives of the project in some detail. In the
discussion the following issues and questions came up:
- What are the sales tax implications?
- An evaluation of the situation should be pursued in a regional context.
- Would it be possible to require these stores to sell local goods and provide local small
businesses an opportunity to co-locate with superstores to take advantage of their
customer-draw?
- What are the design alternatives; what have other communities done?
- The LDGS is not working for the community needs, can it be fixed?
- It is necessary to look at cumulative impacts, not only at an individual project.
- Where are possible locations for superstores and powercenters (a conglomerate of
more than 2 superstores)?
- Superstores are the single most important growth sector in the retail industry, they
are, in fact, the malls of the 90's. Would we be able to discourage them altogether?
What about the regional impacts on transportation (compare to Loveland Outlet Mall).
Are cars going to be the only encouraged transportation alternative?
How many of such stores can our community support? What happens with them after
they are left vacant?
4. Market Analysis
The committee agreed, that the market report by Kathol & Company was very informative
and will be very helpful in the beginning ofthe project. It was clarified that additional
information will be provided regarding transportation, sales tax, design and location issues.
As a first step the definitions of superstores were reviewed. The members of the committee
determined that the superstore category for grocery stores should be included and that the
definitions for the other types of stores should clarify the differences in products and service
to regular retail stores.
In the discussion it also became clear, that even though the moratorium only applies to
buildings of 80,000 sq. ft. or more, the recommendations of the committee to council should
apply to a broader range of retail stores. Basically, any retail that has community-wide
impact should be included in the design guidelines. According to the classification in the
Kathol report any store that is either stand alone (not a favored alternative) or developments
of community shopping centers ( 200,000 sq. ft. or more), or larger centers, should fall
under the new guidelines.
5. Preparation of the next meeting.
The next meeting will be devoted in its entirety to design issues regarding superstores. This
includes access and circulation for all modes of transportation, site design in general
(placement of building), parking requirements, architectural elements to mitigate mass, bulk
& scale, and landscaping to aide the community integration.
6. Meeting Evaluation
The initial meeting went well and clarified the purpose of the project. The committee
members hope that their input will be valuable for Council. The committee would like to
determine a clear purpose for every meeting (see above). Claudia will mail agendas and
supporting information in advance.
September 27, 1994c:\wpwin\cbb\aprcom.002
Comparison of Retail And ,Mce Trip Generation Rates APPENDIX 4
Existing ITE Trip Generation Manual Rates
City Of Fort Collins Transportation Department
October 19, 1994
PM Peak
PM Peak Hr. Rate Sq. ft. (or Size of Sq. ft. (or Hr. Trips/
/ 1,000 Gr. Sq. Ft. units) / Site units) / 10 Acre
Land Use (or per unit) Acre (Acres) Site Site
Retail
General
General Merchandise 4.8 12,500 10 125,000 600
Shopping Center 6.56 12,500 10 125,000 820
Most Like "Big Box"
Building Material and Lumber 3.27 10,000 10 100,000 327
Discount Store 3.43 10,000 10 100,000 343
Discount Club 3.05 10,000 10 100,000 305
Factory Outlet Center 1.69 10,000 10 100,000 169
Grocery Stores
Supermarket 10.34 12,500 4 50,000 517
Discount Supermarket 9.76 10,000 6.5 65,000 634
Office
Office Park 1.51 10,000 10 100,000 151
Residential
Single Family @ 3/acre 1.21 3 10 30 36
Single Family @ 5/acre 1.21 5 10 50 61
Townhomes (Rental) @ 7/acre 0.72 7 10 70 50
Multifamily @ 14 / acre 0.58 14 10 140 81
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 5th Edition
27
Big Box Retail Project
Transportation Issues
October 19, 1994
1. Traffic Generation
a. Traffic impact studies must relate to specific project's proposed uses and the proposed project site.
b. Existing ITE .Trip generation rates-provide a-reasonable basisfor-most "Big-Box" traffic studies--Actual-
weekday PM traffic from Harmony Market is with in 4%of that predicted. However, Saturday Peak
hour traffic rates are less well documented, and were not part of the original study.
C. Big Box stores peak on Saturday at noon, while most streets peak on weekday evenings. However,
South College Saturday traffic now equals Weekday PM peak hour traffic.
d. Stand-alone big box stores such as warehouse clubs and discount retail are less traffic intensive than a
regular grocery store based shopping center with of same square footage.
e. Super Stores(discount retail with groceries)will generate more traffic per square foot than a regular
discount retail store,due to the grocery store element. It is expected,but not documented that these
stores would generate about the same traffic per square foot as a regular shopping.
f. Category Killers are the least well documented in regard to trip rates. Rates will likely vary by retailer.
The study for the Fort Collins Toys-R-Us store used the higher shopping center trip rate,rather than a
normal retail rate. Future traffic studies can require the chain to provide trip information from other
stores.
2. Access
aBig Box retail stores should have access to an a signalized intersection of an arterial street. Secondary
access to another arterial or a collector street is desirable as well, especially for multi-use centers.
b. Collector/Arterial intersections are best to provide signalized access to an arterial street. The City will
not signalize a shopping center driveway. It is difficult to locate a signal close to the intersection of two
arterial, especially if one is a State Highway.
C. More access points and a more developed street network service the site improves traffic distribution and
reduces congestion.
J. The design of the collector street system and the adjoining neighborhood effects how the center can
either integrate with or negatively impact the neighborhood.
3. Parking
a. The recommended ration of 5 stalls per 1,000 GLFA seems to be working well for most Fort Collins big
box retailers.
b. Other communities have experienced parking problems with Category Killer power centers, although it
is not clear if theses ratios were maintained.
r. Congestion Management - -1 Air Quality
r.' In general, land use decisions that result in shorter, more direct trips will result in less VAT and less air
pollution and overall congestion than land use decisions that result in longer trips. Destinations such as
employment and retail should not be isolated from residential area, but instead integrated with
neighborhoods.
b. Providing for shorter trips will likely result in higher levels of congestion in key activity centers. This
will help control congestion elsewhere in the city.
C. Providing for adequate distribution of traffic will require neighborhood collector streets to cant'
significant volumes of traffic. Traffic volume standards should be applied to keep traffic this impact at
acceptable_levels._
Exhibit B
Revised as of December 27, 1994
DRAFT-- VERSION 6
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RECOMMENDED
DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
City of Fort Collins
CPES
Clarion & Associates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ARTICLE I. AESTHETIC CHARACTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Facades and Exterior Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Small Retail Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Detail Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Materials and Colors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Entryways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Back and Side Facades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ARTICLE II. SITE DESIGN AND RELATIONSHIP TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITY . 8
1. Entrances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Parking Lot Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Back Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Outdoor Storage, Trash Collection, and Loading Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Pedestrian Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Central Features and Community Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Delivery/Loading Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fort Collins adopted a moratorium on large retail developments to study the community
impacts of the "superstore" phenomenon in more detail and to provide the community with clear and
enforceable policies to mitigate those impacts. The moratorium provided the opportunity to review
existing retail developments with community-wide or regional impacts and to set standards for future
developments to ensure that future development fits with the expectations and meets the needs of the
community.
These standards and guidelines are a response to dissatisfaction with corporate chain marketing
strategy dictating design that is indifferent to local identity and interests. The main goal is to
encourage development that contributes to Fort Collins as a unique place by reflecting its physical
character and adding to it in appropriate ways.
Large retail developments depend on high visibility from major public streets. In turn, their design
determines much of the character and attractiveness of major streetscapes in the city. The marketing
interests of many corporations,_even with strong-image-making design by professional designers, can
be potentially detrimental to community aspirations and sense of place when they result in massive
individual developments that do not contribute to or integrate with the city in a positive way.
Fort Collins already has a development review system that promotes solutions to these general issues.
The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to augment those existing criteria with more specific
interpretations that apply to the design of large retail store developments.
These standards and guidelines require a basic level of architectural variety, compatible scale,
pedestrian and bicycle access, and mitigation of negative impacts. The standards are by no means
intended to limit creativity; it is the City's hope that they will serve as a useful tool for design
professionals engaged in site specific design in context. They are placed within the framework of the
Land Development Guidance System which provides for variance from the requirements if the
proposal is equal to or better than the City requirements.
PROCEDURE,
The following standards and guidelines are intended to be used as a design aid by developers
proposing large retail developments in community regional shopping centers or as uses-by-right; and
as an evaluation tool by the City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board in their review processes.
These standards and guidelines apply to all projects which are processed according to the criteria for
Community Regional Shopping Centers in the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM as
Planned Unit Developments and to all projects for retail establishments of more than 25,000 square
feet as uses by right. "Standards" denoted by(+)are mandatory; "Guidelines" denoted by (o) are not
mandatory, but are provided in order to educate planners, design consultants, developers and City
staff about the design objectives. These standards and guidelines are to be used in conjunction with
the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S.
The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the mandatory (+) standards
under the following circumstances:
I. The strict application of the standard would result in peculiar and exceptional practical
difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship upon the owner of the affected property; or
2. The alternative site planning and building design approach meets the design objectives as
stated in the standard, equally well or better than would compliance with the standard; and
3. In either of the foregoing circumstances, the variance may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
ii
ARTICLE I. AESTHETIC CHARACTER
1. Facades and Exterior Walls:
GUIDELINE: Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform,
impersonal appearances of large retail buildings and provide visual interest that will be consistent
with the community's identity, character and scale. The intent is to encourage a more human scale
that Fort Collins residents will be able to identify with their community. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
1. Facades and exterior walls:
a. Facades greater than 100 feet in length, measured horizontally, shall
incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least 3%
of the length of the facade and extending at least 20 percent of the length of
the facade. No uninterrupted length of any facade shall exceed 100 horizontal
feet.
b. Ground floor facades that face public streets shall have arcades, display
windows, entry areas, awnings, or other such features along no less than 60
percent of their horizontal length.
1
9 t 1
1 1 1 \
t 1 1
ecese
It 1 olecbo 1 de
\en9 exceed+;AGO FEE
1 t\,of fete
ota\
projections/recesses shall comprise at least
20% of facade length with a minimum depth of
3% of facade length
11 I �- —1, ;W
WINDOWS AWNINGS ENTRY AREAS ARCADES
Animating features such as these must total 60% of total facade length
for any facade abutting a public street
1
2. Smaller Retail Stores
GUIDELINE: The presence of smaller retail stores gives a center a 'friendlier"appearance by
creating variety, breaking up large expanses, and expanding the range of the site's activities.
Windows and window displays of such stores should be used to contribute to the visual interest of
exterior facades. The standards presented in this section are directed toward those situations where
additional, smaller stores, with separate, exterior customer entrances are located in principal
buildings. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
Where principal buildings contain additional, separate stores which occupy less
than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area, with separate,
exterior customer entrances:
a. The street level facade of such stores shall be transparent between the height
of three feet and eight feet above the walkway grade for no less than 60
percent of the horizontal length of the building facade of such additional
stores.
b. Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills,
shutters, or other such forms of framing.
2
3. Detail Features:
GUIDELINE: Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual
interest, at the scale of the pedestrian, reduce massive aesthetic effects, and recognize local
character. The elements in the following standard should be integral parts of the building fabric,
and not superficially applied trim or graphics, or paint. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
Building facades must include a repeating pattern that shall include no less
than three of the elements listed below. At least one of these elements shall
repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than
thirty (30) feet, either horizontally or vertically.
• Expression of architectural or structural bay through a change in plane
no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal, or projecting
rib.
• Color change.
• Texture change.
• Material module change.
gam\\d\r�9
offsets
I 9 '8IE1I9I I1 i t
"i projecting ribs
reveals
structural bay layout
Expression of Architectural or Structural Bay.
3
4. Roofs:
GUIDELINE. Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest to, and reduce the massive
scale of, large buildings. Roof features should complement the character of adjoining
neighborhoods. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
Roofs shall have no less than two of the following features:
a. Parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment such as HVAC units
from public view. The average height of such parapets shall not exceed 15%
of the height of the supporting wall and such parapets shall not at any point
exceed one-third of the height of the supporting wall. Such parapets shall
feature three dimensional cornice treatment.
b. Overhanging eaves, extending no less than 3 feet past the supporting walls.
c. Sloping roofs that do not exceed the average height of the supporting walls,
with an average slope greater than or equal to 1 foot of vertical rise for every
3 feet of horizontal run and less than or equal to 1 foot of vertical rise for
every 1 foot of horizontal run.
d. Three or more roof slope planes.
0
= average
parapet height
n shall not exceed
m
a 15% of supporting
wall height
a
parapet heights
shall not exceed
1/3 of supporting
wall height
Parapet Standards.
4
5. Materials and Colors:
GUIDELINE: Exterior building materials and colors comprise a significant part of the visual
impact of a building. Therefore, they should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials
and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
a. Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials . These
include, without limitation:
• brick
• wood
• sandstone
• other native stone
tinted, textured, concrete masonry units
b. Facade colors shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors.
The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors
is prohibited.
c. Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary
colors,but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or
accent areas.
D. Prrp-dominant_exterior building-materials-should not_includethe-fbllowing:_
• smooth-faced concrete block
• tilt-up concrete panels
• pre-fabricated steel panels
5
6. Entryways:
GUIDELINES: Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation and aesthetically
pleasing character to the building. The standards identify desirable entryway design features. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
Each principal building on a site shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances featuring
no less than three of the following:
a. canopies or porticos
b. overhangs
c. recesses/projections
d. arcades
e. raised corniced parapets over the door
f. peaked roof forms
g. arches
h. outdoor patios
i. display windows
j. architectural details such as tile work and moldings which are integrated into
the building structure and design
k. integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places
for sitting
Where additional stores will be located in the principal building, each such store shall have
at least one exterior customer entrance, which shall conform to the above requirements.
6
7. Back and Side Facades:
GUIDELINE: All facades of a building which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public
streets should contribute to the pleasing scale features of the building and encourage community
integration by featuring similar characteristics as the front facade. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
All building facades which are visible from adjoining properties and/or public
streets shall comply with the requirements of Article I, 1. of these Design
Standards and Guidelines.
7
Article H. SITE DESIGN AND RELATIONSHIP TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
1. Entrances:
GUIDELINE: Large retail buildings should feature multiple entrances. Multiple building entrances
reduce walking distances from cars,facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access from public sidewalks,
and provide convenience where certain entrances offer access to individual stores, or identified
departments of a store. Multiple entrances also mitigate the affect of the unbroken walls and
neglected areas that often characterize building facades that face bordering land uses. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
All sides of a principal building that directly face an abutting public street shall feature at least
one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting
public streets, this requirement shall apply only to two sides of the building, including the side
of the building facing the primary street, and another side of the building facing a second
street.
SMALLER RETAIL
�� - -- STORES WITH
CUSTOMER ENTRANCES
Customer
Entrance 4V ANCHOR
RETAIL
STORES
Customer
Entrance
i
Customer ,.
r -
Entrance
Example of a development with customer entrances on all sides which face a public street.
8
2. Parkin@ Lot Orientation:
GUIDELINE: Parking areas should provide safe, convenient, and efficient access. They should be
distributed around large buildings in order to shorten the distance to other buildings and public
sidewalks and to reduce the overall scale of the paved surface. If buildings are located closer to
streets, the scale of the complex is reduced, pedestrian traffic is encouraged, and architectural
details take on added importance. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
No more than 50 percent of the off-street parking area for the entire property shall
be located between the front facade of the principal building(s) and the primary
abutting street.
9
3. Back Sides:
GUIDELINE. The rear or sides of buildings often present an unattractive view of blank walls,
loading areas, storage areas, HVAC units, garbage receptacles, and other such features.
Architectural and landscaping features should mitigate these impacts. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
The minimum setback for any building facade shall be thirty five (35) feet from the
nearest property line. Where the facade faces adjacent residential uses, an earthen
berm, no less than 6 feet in height, containing at a minimum evergreen trees planted
at intervals of 20 feet on center, or in clusters or clumps shall be provided.
10
4. Outdoor Storage, Trash Collection, and Loading Areas:
GUIDELINE: Loading areas and outdoor storage areas exert visual and noise impacts on
surrounding neighborhoods. These areas, when visible from adjoining properties and/or public
streets, should be screened, recessed or enclosed. While screens and recesses can effectively
mitigate these impacts, the selection of inappropriate screening materials can exacerbate the
problem. Appropriate locations for loading and outdoor storage areas include areas between
buildings, where more than one building is located on a site and such buildings are not more than
40 feet apart, or on those sides of buildings that do not have customer entrances. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
a. Areas for outdoor storage, truck parking, trash collection or compaction,
loading, or other such uses shall not be visible from abutting streets.
b. No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading, or
other such uses shall be located within 20 feet of any public street, public
sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way.
c. Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage, utility meters, HVAC
equipment, trash collection, trash compaction, and other service functions
shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the
landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully
contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets, and no
attention is attracted to the functions by the use of screening materials that are
different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and
landscape.
d. Non-enclosed areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory shall be
permanently defined and screened with walls and/or fences. Materials, colors,
and design of screening walls and/or fences and the cover shall conform to
those used as predominant materials and colors on the building. If such areas
are to be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as
predominant materials and colors on the building.
11
5. Pedestrian Flows:
GUIDELINE: Pedestrian accessibility opens auto-oriented developments to the neighborhood,
reducing traffic impacts and enabling the development to project a friendlier, more inviting image.
This section sets forth standards for public sidewalks and internal pedestrian circulation systems
that can provide user-friendly pedestrian access as well as pedestrian safety, shelter, and
convenience within the center grounds. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
a. Sidewalks at least 8 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot
that abut a public street.
b. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways, no less than 8 feet in width, shall be
provided from the public sidewalk or right-of-way to the principal customer
entrance of all principal buildings on the site. At a minimum, walkways shall
connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as but not limited to transit
stops, street crossings, building and store entry points, and shall feature
adjoining landscaped areas that includes trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds,
ground covers, or other such materials for no less than 50 percent of its
length.
c. Sidewalks, no less than 8 feet in width, shall be provided along the full length
of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance, and along any
facade abutting public parking areas. Such sidewalks shall be located at least
six (6) feet from the facade of the building to provide planting beds for
foundation landscaping, except where features such as arcades or entryways
are part of the facade.
d. Internal pedestrian walkways provided in conformance with part (b) above
shall provide weather protection features such as awnings or arcades within
30 feet of all customer entrances.
e. All internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from driving surfaces
through the use of durable, low maintenance surface materials such as pavers,
bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as well
as the attractiveness of the wakways.
12
6. Central Features and Community Spaces:
GUIDELINE: Buildings should offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces, and
amenities. Entrances and parking lots should be configured to be functional and inviting with
walkways conveniently tied to logical destinations. Bus stops and drop-off/pick-up points should
be considered as integral parts of the configuration. Pedestrian ways should be anchored by special
design features such as towers, arcades,porticos,pedestrian light fixtures, bollards,planter walls,
and other architectural elements that define circulation ways and outdoor spaces. Examples of
outdoor spaces are plazas,patios, courtyards, and window shopping areas. The features and spaces
should enhance the building and the center as integral parts of the community fabric. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
Each retail establishment subject to these standards shall contribute to the
establishment or enhancement of community and public spaces by providing at
least two of the following: patio/seating area, pedestrian plaza with benches,
transportation center, window shopping walkway, outdoor playground area, kiosk
area, water feature, clock tower, or other such deliberately shaped area and/or a
focal feature or amenity that, in the judgement of the Planning and Zoning Board,
adequately enhances of such community and public spaces. Any such areas shall
have direct access to the public sidewalk network and such features shall not be
constructed of materials that are inferior to the principal materials of the building
and landscape. (+)
a� caee¢u
n
Example of a center with numerous special features and community spaces.
13
7. Delivery/Loading Operations
GUIDELINE. Delivery and loading operations should not disturb adjoining neighborhoods, or
other uses. (o)
STANDARD: (+)
No delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction, or other such operations shall
be permitted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless the applicant
submits evidence that sound barriers between all areas for such operations
effectively reduce noise emissions to a level of 45 DB, as measured at the lot line
of any adjoining property.
14