HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE REZONING & STRUCTURE PLAN AMEND. - 3-00 - CORRESPONDENCE -of it constitute a changed condition. In fact that could really backfire, because we either knew or should
have known about the Hugh M. Woods hearings (see below). Right?
Note one clarification on our meeting yesterday: the Hugh M Woods big box was approved in 1995-96.
Not the 80's as we thought. Right around the time of City Plan. I don't know when they officially backed
out.
Thanks.
teve Olt - Some More Questions We MiF' 1 on Timari �
S Page 1
f.
From: Clark Mapes
To: Cameron Gloss; Joe Frank; Steve Olt
Date: Fri, Nov 9, 2001 9:12 AM
Subject: Some More Questions We Missed on Timan
Better touch base NOW on these 3 points.
Sorry to raise more issues after we met yesterday, but I believe they are worth sharing prior to P/Z. I hope
you agree in the spirit of understanding and preparation.
1. Would this NC location undercut a supermarket on the one to the south?
Answer: Apparently yes, especially in the short term. Market and traffic information provided to staff looks
convincing, regarding the points that the subject site is a superior site for the NC zone, that if a
supermarket were built here it would compound the deficiencies of the existing site. With more build -out,
Staff has been told it is possible that a second supermarket could be viable in the future.
2. Given that the owners of the existing NC site to the south have recently been to conceptual
review, and are currently working on an application, should we not at least WAIT to support THIS
proposal, so that it does not kill that other project before its applicant has a chance to reach
submittal stage?
Remember, we have said these NC districts may need the "monopoly" advantage conferred by the
Structure Plan and zoning, and these applicants are relying on that with their project.
Answer: The subject item has been in active discussion about 21/2 years. Staff has been listening to
market information indicating the subject site is the superior site for an NC location. We have also
followed up on various implications of an NC location on the subject property during this time.
During this time, another project came and went on the existing NC site. When it came in to Conceptual
Review and follow-up meetings, this subject property DID shift into a waiting mode, with Staff
encouragement to do so. In the end, the withdrawal of that project was one part of the market evidence
we mention.
After discussion, evaluation, and waiting, this applicant decided to proceed to hearing, and staff had
concluded that it was worth supporting for the reasons noted.
Unfortunately, after those decisions were made, the other site came back again with another conceptual
review, which we are told is another serious proposal.
This applicant did not wish to withdraw this request based on that event, and likewise staff decided not to
change our position based on that event. So the two are proceeding each on their own time frame.
[FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN HERE!]
3. So tell me clearly, one more time, what NEED do you see to change the Structure Plan?
Answer: Because a supermarket center is needed, this is demonstrably the best site, and the loss of C
zoning is not a significant issue, Staff believes the structure plan needs to be changed in response to this
proposal to allow a supermarket center in the best location to serve the market.
[Note the point this does NOT say it needs to be changed because big box retail does not fit well on the
slooino site. I do not plan to even imply that we should be doing this for,that reason. In other words, the
Hugh M. Woods finding that big box retail does not work well does not create the NEED TO CHANGE
THE STRUCTURE PLAN. Nor does it constitute a CHANGED CONDITION. Nor does staff's realization