Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE REZONING & STRUCTURE PLAN AMEND. - 3-00 - CITY COUNCIL PACKET - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (9)4ov-13-01 10:41A a • P .'GAF Competition between developers? Due to the immediate need for one grocery store, both the subject site and the CR 32 site have competed for the "first grocery store". All three grocery stores have "gone on record" multiple times that the Trilby site is ready now but the CR 32 site is not ready now (that is what the market study clearly shows). However the CR 32 site has represented that it has a "raos000 ', and it offers the o site that will be allowed by the City. This strategy has resulted in a parade of multiple developers trying to sign up a grocery store for the CR 32 site. One after another developer has failed to get a grocery store to "sign up" because the market study shows the CR 32 site is not ready now. The owners of the CR 32 site have been preparing oppose any effort to allow a second grocery store at the subject site and have worked with two different law firms to prepare for such opposition. The grocery store that was not picked to go at the subject site has acknowledged that they have kept the "fire burning" at the CR 32 site even though they cannot commit to the CR 32 site until they know the subject site has been eliminated as a possibility for the obvious reason that the market study shows that a grocery store at the CR 32 site cannot compete under current market conditions with a grocery store at the Subject site. So if both grocery stores are built in the near future the one at CR 32 will lose substantial sales volume to the one at Trilby, BUT in 10 to 15 years from now both stores will be needed. F. Conclusions I. The subject site has been rejected by "big boa" retailers. 2. The subject site has been declared the "first choice" site by the three primary grocery store operators. 3. The CR 32 site is the better site than the subject site for a "big box" store. 4. The CR 32 is also a viable grocery store site in the future after the market matures. NOv-13-01 10:41A P.03 cities (Fort Collins, Loveland and Windsor). In general, retail developers are seriously considering locations that are near Fort Collins BUT not "in" the Fort Collins City Limits to service Fort Collins and the "region'. 6. Car dealerships have traditionally located on 2 to 5 acre sites. Spradley Barr Ford located its new facility on a 10 acres (the former REA site). In 1997, two car dealers held a conceptual review to locate on about'18 acres at the NWC of College at Crestridge (which is zoned CC). They also needed about 8 to 10 acres each. The owner of the subject property would prefer keeping about 8 to 10 acres as C zoning, which would be able to accommodate a car dealership and/or other C zoning uses. Whether or not the subj ect property keeps 8 to 10 acres as c zoning the CC zoning remains available at Crestridge as well'as multiple sites along Mulberry and I-25. Several developers have considered doing an "auto - park" for 3 to 5 dealerships along 1-25 in Loveland. Again the topography and other site constraints at the subject site would preclude a major auto park with 3 to 5 dealerships: In general auto dealerships have many choices for future locations. 7• _The NC zoned site at CR 32 (Windsor Road and South College) has often been viewed by the marketplace as a superior "regional retail location" over Trilby at College. The C zoning at Trilby could be replaced by changing the NC zoning at CR 32 to C zoning (47 acres are not yet platted at the CR 32 location). The owner of the CR 32 location was very interested in changing from NC zoning to C zoning until he had a meeting with Ken Waido and Clark Mapes who said they could recommend LMN for his property but not C zoning. The CR 32 is better suited for C zoning due to its strategic location at the "hub" where roads connect directly to Windsor, Loveland and Fort Collins, making a superior location for a tonal" draw but an inferior loon for a "zrocery store draw". Both . grocery stores and "big box" stores have confirmed this conclusion over the past seven years. Can the area south of Harmony Road support two grocery stores? 1. In discussions with King Soopers, Safeway and Albertson, all three have confirmed that the market area currently needs one grocery store and that in the future will need two grocery stores. Dan Clayton of Safeway confirmed this at a meeting with Cameron Gloss and Steve Olt on September 25, 2001. Chris Carly of Albertson also confirmed this in meetings with Jeff Timan and Steve Pfister on July 24, 2001. Bill Woodward formerly of Regency Realty also confirmed this with all three stores over the past year. 2. Market studies prepared for the grocery stores also confirm the immediate need for one grocery store. The expected build out of residential areas south of Harmony show a long term need for two grocery stores. Nov-13-01 10:40A P.. 02 to locate nearby are so called "big box" stores and automobile dealerships. However in the Harmony Corridor Plan it was decided as a matter of policy that "big box" stores were not appropriate in this nearby corridor. Could that policy be extended to conclude that "big box' stores are not appropriate "this close to Harmony Road" (the subject property begins 1.5 miles south of Harmony Road). Where then are "big box" stores appropriate. The first logical alternative locations according to the retailers would be along the Mulberry corridor and the I-25 corridor. Fort Collins "Structure Plan" contemplates that significant areas along the Mulberry and I-25 corridors will be C zoning (see Structure Plan). 3. A developer for "Super Target" did analyze the Fort Collins trade area to locate "big box" stores (that developer also represented Lowes). That developer decided the I-25 at Prospect corner (where all four corners have C zoning) was a superior location compared to the subject property for several reasons. The subject property is substantially hindered by topographic variations, irrigation canals, wetlands, adjoining frontage roads and lack of street connections. These constraints make it extremely challenging and possible economically not feasible to locate even one (much less two) 140,000 to 225,000 square foot stores on the subject property. From a regional perspective a "big box" store at the subject property would, from a regional perspective, bring the overwhelming majority of its traffic along South College Avenue (whereas a store with a neighborhood draw would bring most of its traffic on Trilby and Skyway - from the neighborhood). 4. In 1995-96, Hugh M. Woods spent $200,000 and 2 years working its way through the approval process on the subject site. After 2 years Hugh M Woods "dumped" the subject site because: site costs had gone about $1.5 million over the original budget AND because their board had always been skeptical about the "eye -sore across the street". The $1.5 million over budget was caused primarily by site topography which required an 18' high retaining wall along the west end and a sloped 6' to 16` retaining wall along Skyway (at an estimated cost of $900,000). Other extraordinary site costs included $250,000 to rebuild the frontage road north of Skyway, and $150,000 extra costs for the drainage system which included off -site improvements east of South College Avenue and retaining was around a wet land area along South College. 5. Recent discussions regarding "sales tax sharing" may effect how to locate "big box" stores and large retail centers. IF "regional sales tax revenue sharing' becomes a reality, THEN large retail centers will be located to best serve multiple communities in northern Colorado. Thus, market driven factors may identify sites located between Fort Collins, Loveland and Windsor. consequently, land outside the City Limits of Fort Collins would be `opened up" for potential future retail centers and other "C" commercial type uses. An initial report between Fort Collins and Loveland was completed in early 2001. Also this concept has already been adopted by other cities in Colorado. Whether or not this revenue sharing plan is approved by Fort Collins, developers and "big box" users are showing increased interest in locations along I-25 AND in between the three .iVov 13-01 10:40A P-01 Market Study To address first: the Supply of "C" Commercial zoning in Fort Collins To address second: what would be the ramifications of eliminating all or part of the "C' zoning at the NWC of South College Avenue at Trilby (the "subject property")? L Supply of "C" Commercial Zoning The February 1, 2001 report published by the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department entitled "2000 Buildable LaBds Inventory" identifies the following supply of VACANT LAND for. 1. "C" Commercial - 390 acres 2. "CC" Community Commercial - 115 acres 3. CCN Community Commercial North - 130 acres 4. CCR Community Commercial River - 18 acres 5. CN Commercial North 63 acres Potential vacant land for retail centers - 716 acres* (716 acres could support up to 7 won square feet of retail buildings or ten (10) foothills Fashions Malls) * portions of this vacant land are not well suited for retail centers due to size or other constraints IL WHERE CAN RETAIL CENTERS LOCATE IF THE SUBJECT SITE IS REZONED I. Commercial zoning ("C zoning's allows a mix of neighborhood and regional commercial uses as well as multifamily and other secondary uses. Some uses allowed in C zoning also can locate in MMN, NC and CC zoning. Due to multiple uses in multiple zones the loss of C zoning does not eliminate those "duplicate" uses allowed in related zones. Consequently, if a site is well suited for multiple uses (such as the case with the subject property) those related and secondary uses are still allowed under MMN and NC. 2. For the reasons stated above, only a few uses are actually eliminated from the subject property IF the C zoning is eliminated (i.e. general retail uses and multifamily uses are still allowed). Two particular uses that would find it difficult Post -it' Fax Note 7671 11 25. The developer is expected to pay for the off -site road improvements required for this project. Thi' has not been confirmed in writing. 26. The proposed site plan does not provide for direct access to the site from College Avenue. This is consistent with the approved access control plan approved by the City and CDOT. On -site improvements, required for the development of the site are estimated ate or 4M per square foot of total site area. Off --site improvements required for the development of the site are estimated at per square foot of total site area. Off -site improvements are assumed to include driveway improvements, ditch relocation, traffic signal improvements and utility improvements. Total improvements required for the development of the site are estimated at per square foot of total site area. It is anticipated that the costs of the development will be prorated to the principle building areas of the development. At the time of the Preliminary Site Evaluation Report, a finalized Site Development Agreement was unavailable. Prorata shares for the site development costs are under negotiation. Assuming m� the site issues listed above can be successfully accommodated within the budget established for. this project, the site -is well suited for the development of the proposed Albertson's store. B. Site Development Information Form Attached is an Albertson's Inc. Site Development Information Form, for use in the preliminary evaluation of the described development. This proprietary document is included as a guide to assist in the team's initial appraisal of site specific information that may not be contained within the remaining sections of the PSER tt Preliminary Site Evaluation Report Albertson's Store No. 8-P NWC College Avenue & Avondale Road Ft. Collins, Colorado Gilmm Ardnlynr PGAL F.*i—nT Plmmnryl uses. Even in the Market Study, the references to "regional hub locations" were laced with speculation about possible "sales tax sharing" and other possible joint municipal agreements that were possibilities but not realities. Front Range has not demonstrated a compelling public need to justify eliminating its large C-Commercial site. CONCLUSION Shenandoah asks that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council denial of the Front Range proposal to amend the City Structure Plan and to rezone the 39 acres that are currently zoned C-Commercial. HAShenandoah Land-939Robjection-item 3-00-11-12-Ol.wpd November 14, 2001 (1:40pm) 6 amendment and rezoning decisions have traditionally been based on whether a change is necessary to meet a community need. As addressed above, a supermarket need for the local area can, and will, be met by Shenandoah under current zoning. The Front Range argument is that if they are rezoned, they can better meet that need. This competing zoning rationale is not suited to this case. First, there is no request to rezone the Shenandoah property. The Front Range proposal must be judged on its own merits, based on the standards of the City's Plan, Land Use Code and Colorado law. None of these standards provide for rezoning based on comparative market evaluations by regulatory bodies. Second, the comparative arguments made in the context of the Front Range rezoning are one-sided, with opinions and conclusions only coming from Front Range. The objective, undisputed difference between the two parcels is that the Shenandoah property is already planned and zoned for supermarket use while the Front Range property is not. Private market studies also do not necessarily coincide with the public interests that have to be at the core of planning and zoning decisions. When the Shenandoah and Front Range properties were designated and zoned as part of the 1997 Structure Plan, that decision was made in the context of an overall plan for what was best for the entire city as well as for the immediate neighborhood. Front Range has not demonstrated a need to change the Plan's designation for its property or changed conditions to support rezoning. IV. The Front Range Proposal Should Be Denied Because It Would Eliminate A Substantial C-Commercial Site. The Staff Report adopts conclusions from the Market Study to explain away the City's loss of a large parcel of C-Commercial property. In its June 21, 2001 Report, however, the Staff recommended denial of the Front Range proposal and stated (on page 8,1 1): "Appropriate, large sites for Commercial zoning are rare, and the City as a whole may have an interest in retaining the existing zoning for its own sake." At the time, Front Range was proposing to retain the C- Commercial designation for 21 acres of its site. Even under its current proposal, Front Range "feels strongly"that the C-Commercial designation should still remain on 10 acres of its property. See Staff Report page 4. Based on the "Market Study," however, the Staff has now concluded that there would be no loss to the City if the C-Commercial designation for the property was removed. Staff Rejort page 4-5. The comments regarding the property being ill- suited for C-Commercial are taken directly from the Market Study as are the explanations for why the Hugh M. Woods development did not succeed. Those explanations, in both the Market Study and in the Staff Report do not mention the fact that the Hugh M. Woods development did not proceed because it filed bankruptcy. The Staff Report also notes (at page 5) that Front Range had provided "market evaluation information" indicating that "superior regional hub locations" could be found for major commercial HAShenandoah Land-939Robjection-item 3-00-11-12-0I.wpd November 14, 2001 (1:40pm) 5 as appropriate for that use in the interest of the City as a whole. The need for an area supermarket can and will be met by the existing land use/zoning designations, and neither Staff nor Front Range contend that the Shenandoah property cannot meet that need. Shenandoah is going forward with developing supermarket and apartment uses on its property, and Albertsons has indicated that the site is perfectly fine. There has been no demonstrated need to change the plan, and the Board should recommend to City Council that the Front Range request for such an amendment be denied. III. The Self -Serving Front Range "Market Studv," Which Designates Its Own Proverty As A Better Supermarket Site, Is Not A Sound Basis For.Rezoning and Amending The Structure Plan. The Staff's belated recommendation to approve the Front Range proposal is unsoundly based on a "Market Study," a copy of which is attached. The document is unsigned, undated and its author is not identified. It was provided to Staff by Front Range's real estate agent. At best, the "Market Study" is a subjective, self-serving document, created for the sole purpose of supporting Front Range's proposal. The "Market' Study" is laced with speculation, double and triple hearsay, conclusions without any supporting documentation, and, of course, conclusions biased in favor of Front Range. It also contains a number of untrue and inaccurate statements regarding Shenandoah and its property. In particular, Shenandoah disputes statements made on the last two pages of the document. Staff did not ask Shenandoah for its position with regard to the statements in the "Market Study." Shenandoah disagrees with most of the conclusions made in the study. The Staff Report relied on this document as "persuasive analysis" indicating that the Front Range property is "the best feasible location" for a supermarket. On page 3, the Staff Report states that the three primary supermarket operators have declared the Front Range site to be the "first choice." This language appears only as a "conclusion" in the "Market Study." It does not appear in the body of the Study, itself, and the document does not contain any such statement from the supermarket operators, themselves. Similarly, the Staff Report's statement that the Front Range site is "significantly better" than the Shenandoah site was also uncritically taken from the Front Range's own "Market Study." On page 5, the Staff Report states that "findings" indicate that the Front Range site is better suited for a local "grocery store draw." This language is once again taken verbatim from Front Range's own "Market Study." As addressed above, Albertsons has found the Shenandoah site to be perfectly acceptable for supermarket use. Even more important, the City's Structure Plan has determined that the Shenandoah site is appropriate for supermarket use. There is no requirement that a land use choice be based on the "best feasible" site for any particular use. At best, such determinations are subjective, debatable and will vary over time. If "best feasible site" were grounds for rezoning, Planning and Zoning would be flooded with applications based on market studies showing that the applicant had the best feasible site for a particular use. Such a process would only promote instability in land use. In contrast, Plan H:\Shenandoah Land-9391\objection-item 3-00-I1-12-Ol.wpd November 14, 2001 (1:40pm) 4 would not be in furtherance of the City's Comprehensive Plan and would, thus, constitute it legal spot zoning. The Staff's approval recommendation relies on circular reasoning. The Front Range request is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, but the Staff concludes it would be "if the Structure Plan Amendment is supported." The recently adopted Structure Plan is not in need of amendment and the Front Range rezoning request is not supported by change conditions in the area. The Front Range proposal should, therefore, be passed on to City Council with a recommendation for denial. II. The Need For A Neighborhood Supermarket Is Being Addressed By Shenandoah's Development Of Its Parcel. The main reason for the Staff's belated approval of the Front Range proposal is the perceived need fora supermarket to serve the local area. As addressed above, the City's Structure Plan has already designated the Shenandoah property as appropriate for supermarket land use. Shenandoah can, and will, address the supermarket need for the area without requiring any change in zoning or the Structure Plan. A letter of intent has been circulated between Albertsons and a developer for the Shenandoah property, with the details currently being finalized. Attached is an excerpt from a very detailed and lengthy Albertson's Preliminary Site Evaluation and Report, which states: "The site is well suited for the development of the proposed Albertson's store." Albertsons has been provided with an updated site plan, traffic and demographic information for the Shenandoah site. Shenandoah is also working with a developer for an apartment project on its site in accordance with its MMN zoning. Shenandoah has applied for site plan approval. On September 10, 2001, a conceptual review meeting was held with Planning. On October 3, a follow up meeting was held, and a neighborhood meeting is currently scheduled for November 27, 2001. The Colorado Highway Department has approved three access points for the Shenandoah site. The Shenandoah site plan provides for connectivity without Arterial access. It is closerto higher density residential and will provide greater pedestrian and bicycle supermarket access than the Front Range site. The Staff Report disregards development of the Shenandoah property. This is not surprising since the report is based on meetings and discussions with Front Range and Front Range's consultants (Staff Report, page 2), who want to displace Shenandoah as a supermarket developer in the area. The Staff has not asked for any Shenandoah input into its analysis of the Front Range proposal. The criteria for amending the existing Structure Plan is whether there is a need for change. The existing Plan provides for supermarket use in the area and has designated the Shenandoah parcel H:1Shenandoahland-939Robjection-item 3-00-11-12-Ol.wpd November 14, 2001 (1:40pm) 3 I. The Front Range Request For Structure Plan Amendment And Rezoning Is Not Supported By Changed Conditions And Is Not Consistent With The Citv's Master Plan. The Staff Report acknowledges: "The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning decisions." The Front Range request does not conform to the City's current Structure Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The City Plan has been in place only since 1997. The Plan was implemented after considerable review and- analysis.. As noted in the Staff Report (page 3,12), the Plan honored land use designations for projects then in progress. Those designations included C-Commercial for the Front Range parcel and NC-MMN designation for the Shenandoah property. Front Range did not object to either designation when the Plan was adopted in 1997. In fact, Front Range utilized the commercial designation to promote a Hugh M. Woods development proposal for its property. That development never reached fruition because Hugh M. Woods filed bankruptcy, not because the parcel was unsuited for commercial development. Front Range now wants to amend the Structure Plan and rezone its property to attract different developers. Under Colorado law, property owners have a right to rely on existing zoning if there is no material change of conditions. Clark v. City of Boulder, 146 Colo. 526, 362 P. 2d 160, 163 (1961). Shenandoah has relied on the current Plan designations and zoning for the area. Shenandoah gave up allowed uses for its property when it was designated NC-MMN under the 1997 Plan. Shenandoah has expended substantial time, effort and money to develop its property in compliance with the existing Structure Plan and zoning. As recognized in the Staff Report (page 3,12), an amendment is not appropriate unless "the existing Structure Plan is in need of change." There are no changed conditions to justify the proposed Front Range amendment. The Staff, itself, states that changed conditions were "not a deciding factor" in their evaluation. Staff Report page 7,15. To the contrary; the Staff found: "the residential development is consistent with the original Structure Plan." There are no changed conditions to justify the proposed Front Range amendment. The Staff Report (page 3,12) acknowledges that the current Structure Plan addresses the need for NC -Type Commercial services with its NC zoning designation of the Shenandoah property. That designation allows supermarket use for the Shenandoah property. The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate two NC-MMN development sites within one mile of each other, which would be the result if the Front Range proposal was approved. Such approval would not be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, allowing rezoning of the Front Range parcel would constitute illegal spot zoning. Spot zoning occurs when a land use designation is changed to benefit a particular parcel rather than for the purpose of furthering a comprehensive zoning plan. Clark v. City of Boulder, supra at 162. Rezoning would remove restrictions on development that Front Range seeks to eliminate, but it HAShenandoah Land-939hobjecrion-item 3-00-11-12-OLwpd November 14, 2001 (1:40pm) 2 SHENANDOAH LAND, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OBJECTION TO ITEM NO.3-00 FRONT RANGE REZONING AND STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD- CITY OF FORT COLLINS MEETING NOVEMBER 159 2001 SUMMARY Shenandoah Land, Limited Liability Company asks that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council denial of Item # 3-00, the Front Range Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. The following are major substantive reasons supporting denial of the Front Range request: 1. The City's Structure Plan was adopted only a few years ago. The Front Range request for Structure Plan Amendment & Rezoning is not supported by changed conditions and is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The need for neighborhood supermarket development is being addressed by development of Shenandoah's parcel, which does not require any change in rezoning or the Structure Plan. 3. The "Market Study" offered by Front Range, promoting its own property as a better supermarket site, is not a valid basis for amending the Structure Plan or for rezoning. The "Market Study" is a self-serving, inaccurate statement, based on hearsay and speculation. 4. The Front Range proposal would result in a loss to the City of CGCommercial designated land. INTRODUCTION Shenandoah is the owner of a 47.3 acre parcel of land located at the northwest quadrant of College and County Road 32, only one mile south of the subject Front Range parcel. The Shenandoah parcel is designated on the City Structure Plan, and is currently zoned, NC - Neighborhood Commercial and MMN-Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential Neighborhood. The Front Range parcel is designated on the Structure Plan and zoned as C-Commercial District. The Shenandoah zoning allows for supermarket use. The Front Range zoning does not. The Front Range proposal seeks to amend the Structure Plan to rezone 43 acres to NC and MMN, the same designation as the Shenandoah parcel. The Front Range proposal was initially filed in January, 2000. As recently as June, 2001, the Planning Staff issued a report recommending denial. Its latest report, based in part on a "Market Study" furnished by Front Range, recommends approval. H:\Shenandoah Land-9391\objection-item 3-00-11-12-01.wpd November 14, 2001 (1:40pm) 1