Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-ELEVEN @ COLLEGE & MAGNOLIA - PDP/APU - PDP120026 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 22 Member Elmore said she's in agreement with her colleagues. With Safeway right across the street, she's having problems seeing the need. With a vacant lot right there and with neighborhood compatibility issues, she just can' approve it. Member Campana said the applicant is selling it as a downtown urban market for convenience and then they're putting in a parking lot. It might be better if it was designed as the market on the hill in Boulder. Chair Smith said one of their greatest responsibilities is to uphold and defend somewhat the Comprehensive Plan. There are a lot of places in town where the Comp Plan does not speak as specifically as it does about downtown. That process that we went through to create sub -districting in the downtown was for a good reason. It's a delicate balance and takes a lot of intention to get it to where it is. Smith said he'd like to adhere to the criteria for the Addition of a Permitted Use and if an applicant can come in and meet them we're okay. Smith said the characteristics of some of the other allowed uses for the Canyon Sub -District are a bit different primarily because of the parking field. He doesn't think the applicant has demonstrated that they've met that higher burden of proof that he thinks is required. He doesn't think that this use conforms to the basic characteristics of the sub -district zone. He said to reject what is the Comp Plan would actually be detrimental to the public good. He will not be supporting the Addition of Permitted Use request. Member Campana said he'd feel a lot better about the design if the site was utilized more and the parking lot was gone — it would truly be an urban market and operated to hours similar to Safeway. Chair Smith made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the request for the Addition of a Permitted Use. The reason for denial was the use proposed does not conform to the basic characteristics of the sub -zone district and the other permitted uses to this sub -zone to which it is added. Also, because it is a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan which is very specific to the downtown, it would, in fact, be detrimental to the public good. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:0. Member Hart made a motion to deny the 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia PDP, # PDP120026 because it is not a permitted use. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0 ember Kirkpatrick returned to the dais. Project: LUC (Land Use Code) — Student Housing Action larr ase I Project Description: This is a request_ related to the Student Housing Action Plan Phase I near term Land Use Code amsndmen`ts related to compatibility between multi -family developmeltarrs-ezisting neighborhoods. Recommendatic*. Staff requests approval. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 21 not be finished out. The intent behind the two story design was to increase compatibility with the downtown area. Chair Smith said in the report he read, the second floor is finished to take a second floor tenant such as a small office use sometime in the future. Is it engineered to have a second floor tenant? Rymer said it will be engineered to potentially finish out to second story at some future date. They've elected to finish out only the 1" floor because of issues related to Fire Code (elevator, stairs, etc.) and because it compromises the 1 s` floor space. Member Hart said if the ceiling is 14 feet and the roof at 24 feet, will there be enough room to complete a second floor. Rymer said they could drop the 1 s` floor ceiling to 10 feet if they need to. Member Elmore asked if Ms. Rymer was familiar with the 7-Eleven at Prospect and Overland. Rymer said yes. It's more of a convenience store because there are not as many pedestrians in that area. It would be a different product assortment. Member Elmore said because there is another 7-Eleven so close to the proposed site, how do you differentiate so people don't think it's the same thing. Wouldn't you cannibalizing the other store? Rymer said they've done extensive studies and based on population densities, they feel the two stores will survive and thrive. Member Hart said the board received written comments focused on the hours of operation and how it exceeded the hours of business in that area. Rymer said most of their stores are open 24 hours a day. They sell convenience and their business system requires that. They've found it's better and safer because it's a 24 hour watchful eye for the neighborhood. They have less crime incidences reported at their 24 hour stores. They do have a few stores in Utah that are not 24'hours and there are actually more incidents there when the lights are not on. Member Campana asked what zone district this is. Levingston said it's the Canyon Avenue Sub -district. He said it appears that convenience retail stores without fuel sales and convenience shopping centers are not allowed while grocery stores and supermarkets are. He said as we urbanize and increase density downtown, we may want convenience shopping to take place there. Can staff tell him why they're not included? Levingston said speaking with Chief Planner Ted Shepard he was not aware of the specific reason for not including them. Board Discussion Member Carpenter said she's uncomfortable with this. She thinks that there's a reason convenience retail sales were not allowed in the downtown zone district. She thinks with an Addition of Permitted Use here we are losing the chance to put something here that is a good fit with the Downtown District. The faux 2Id story does really work for her. When you hear we can't fit things in for fire code to make a second story, it makes her uncomfortable. She believes the Downtown District was well thought out and it makes her uncomfortable to talk about an addition of permitted use such as this in this zone. Member Hart said he shares Member Carpenter's concerns. He also has some serious reservations about compatibility with the neighborhood — not so much the adjacent buildings but the overall area. In terms of LUC Section 3.5.1(D), he doesn't think it complies at all with privacy considerations in this area. The 24 hour operation is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Member Campana is feeling the same way. He thinks convenience stores are okay downtown and he loves the idea of an urban market as we increase density. The 24 hours a day, however, is hanging him up. He's just not certain with the limited amount of available space downtown on College Avenue that we couldn't do better. He's going to struggle with using an APU on this design. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 20 Kirkpatrick said the Downtown District provides a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses. The development standards for this district are intended to encourage a mix of activities in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale, and a pedestrian oriented character. She said a major focus of City Plan is to increase in -fill development to support a mix of land uses and provide opportunities to grow and diversify the economy throughout the community. She said the developer has offered a picture of a reasonably attractive facade for this important location but fundamentally the use fails to achieve compliance with permitted use in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 1.3.4 because it fails to be a quality development that maintains a sense of history. If fails to diversify the economy. Kirkpatrick said two other convenience stores are within easy walking distances of the parcel. Additionally, the Safeway is easy access from the parcel. That is where she shops. Her neighbors at Urban Living Lofts have provided other written testimonies to the board about their concerns about the proposed use. She said she was a member of City Council when they added a section on convenience store spacing to the LUC. Convenience stores were proliferating in the 1980s. When she learned of this 7-Eleven proposal for the corner of College and Magnolia, she was sad to learn that their changes only applied to convenience stores that offered gasoline. It was certainly her intention to limit the proliferation of this type of land use. She does not see that having 3 with the same type of land use within a 4 block area in the Downtown District achieves the vision expressed for this special part of the city. She said coincidentally they own property in downtown Denver and she's familiar with the 7-Eleven stores there. Their situation is quite different — there are no grocery stores in the vicinity of the convenience stores. She asked the board to please deny the petition of the developer to add 7-Eleven as a permitted use. John Kessenich, 210 W. Magnolia, # 340, said he lives one block from the proposed site. He's concerned about the store being on the pathway when people leave the bars. It's a pedestrian walkway that gets pretty crazy about mid -night to 1 a.m. He thinks it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and provide a stopping place rather than continuing on home. He'd like to hold out for a business that would be healthier for the neighborhood. End of Public Input Applicant Response Alicia Rymer said she'd like to reiterate they are not a convenience store. They are different than their competitors because of their 'business system'. They have an urban market concept. It is essentially a smaller grocery store. They offer the exact same amenities and products you find in a grocery store. She said the building they propose is complimentary to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. It is a two-story, multi -tenant retail space and is a quality architectural product that will fit into the downtown area. Staff Response Levingston said the LUC defines a convenience store as a retail store containing less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area which sells every day goods and services which may include without limitation ready -to -eat food products, groceries, over the counter drugs and sundries. Pursuant to that definition, this is classified as a convenience retail store and that is why we are here today for the Addition of Permitted Use. Board Questions Member Carpenter said she understood at work session that this was not a two-story building that there is not a second floor. Levingston said this is a one-story building. It's built to visually look like a two- story. She said the drop ceiling is going to be installed at 14 feet. Levingston said the second story will Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 19 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Addition of a Permitted Use and the Project Development Plan. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said the request for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) was evaluated and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4. The APU is proposed in conjunction with a Project Development Plan (PDP), which complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The process located in Division 2.2 — Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 — Administration; • The relevant standards located in Article 3 — General Development Standards and; • The relevant standards located in Division 4.16, Downtown (D) — Canyon Avenue Subdistrict, of Article 4 — Districts. Levingston reviewed the project location, specifications, the landscape plan, the south and east elevations, a rendering. She said one of the proposed tenants, 7-Eleven, is defined by the Code as a convenience retail store and convenience retail stores are not specifically listed as a permitted use in the Canyon Avenue Sub -district of the Downtown Zone. The applicant has applied for an Addition of a Permitted Use (APU). APU criteria is: such use is appropriate in the zone district; such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district; does not create any "adverse impacts" more than normally resulting from other permitted uses; not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use'; compatible with surrounding area (LUC 3.5.1); and would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff recommends approval of the 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia, Addition of a Permitted Use and Project Development Plan. Applicant Presentation Alicia Rymer, 7 Eleven, said she'd like to speak about the company and the direction they're heading. They started in 1927 as an ice house and market in Oakwood, Texas. Over the years they have strived to become more than a convenience store. She showed slides of downtown Denver and Boulder stores where they strive to bring fresh food, grocery, and convenience items to students, workers and local residents. She described the proposed site plan and reviewed in detail the multi -tenant building elevations. Rymer said benefits to the community are: quality development with character that fits into surrounding community, business system provides information needed to tailor merchandise set to surrounding neighborhood, bringing needed convenience, fresh food, grocery and services to you, tax dollars, potential for local business owner & 10-15 jobs, 24 hour good neighbor, and community outreach. Public Input Susan Kirkpatrick, 210 W. Magnolia, #430, said she's both a homeowner and business owner (Savory Spice Shop at 123 N. College) in the vicinity of the proposed 7-Eleven. She's said she's a former city council member and mayor and appreciates the board's time as volunteers in service to the community. She urged them to deny the petition for the Addition of Permitted Use because the addition of that use to the downtown district would undermine the very purpose of the district. This parcel is one of the few flat ground in -fill properties in the downtown core. The burden is on the developer to meet the community standards. This proposal for a convenience store doesn't merit alteration in the Downtown District's framework. She asked that the board uphold the integrity of the Downtown District. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 18 Staff recommends approval. Heari g Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Commdqlty Development and Neighborhood Services Director Laurie Kadrich said/rarely s to make a re mendation on whether to amend the Land Use Code (LUC) to allow se industry (as ned in Article 5) to be able to request a limited vested right not to ers in accordance with�a approved Project Development Plan (PDP) prior to approval oThe reason for that is of times with a large scale industry plan this type of developmes place at one time. It's more of\a phased development plan. ' Kadrich said it has to be a project that has invested over $100,000,000 int the community either in land or assets. It can't be the corporate value of a company. By allowing t vesting to occur for a longer period of time (whether built in 3 years or 10 years), it provides insurance the proposal as described at the time of the PDP will be built in accordance with the approved Plan. Public Input None Board Questions Deputy City Attorney Eckman said there is one #Orc lines down in the red language, he'd like to recom complete the final plan" to " be changed to,,/..not to plan"... ng change he'd like to suggest. He said 4 or 5 lend "...not to exceed twenty-five (25) years to 3xceed twenty-five (25) years to submit the final Eckman said it's not a vested right irp tfie statutory sense (3 years to complete the public infrastructure to a final plan). The State's vested,rfghts act gives municipalities the right to extend that by a legislative (ordinance) act for a period notfo exceed 25 years. The idea is to give these large based industries the ability to have an extended period of time not to exceed 25 years to move forward with their PDP without having to worry about c9l'e changes that might make the PDP obsolete:. Eckman said Woodward is a perfect example of a project that might merit a longer period of time. Member Campania made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council to update Section 2.2.11(C) of the Land Use Code regarding the vested rights for certain project development plans and plats as presented in the ordinance to the Board with the change,that they'll not to exceed 25 years to submit final plans. Member Hart seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Member Kirkpatrick left the dais due to a conflict. Project: 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia PDP, # PDP120026 Project Description: This is a request for a convenience retail store (without fuel sales) on a .436 acre site at the northwest corner of West Magnolia Street and South College Avenue at 112 West Magnolia Street. The proposed building will be one story, 32 feet in height, and contain approximately 4,139 square feet. The property is located in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict of the Downtown Zone District. Because the proposed use, convenience retail sales, is not permitted in the zone district an Addition of Permitted Use is required and is requested in conjunction with the Project Development Plan. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 2 Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the January 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Mitsubishi Dealer (2712 S. College) Major Amendment, # MJA120007 3. Lot 1, Nix Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment, # MJA130001 3A. Planned Development Overlay District Pilot Member Campana made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the January 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Mitsubishi Dealer Major Amendment (# MJA120007), Lot 1, Nix Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment (#MJA130001) and the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot. Member Elmore seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. Fort Collins LDS Temple Project Development Plan (PDP), # PDP120029 5. Link-n-Greens PDP, # PDP130001 7. 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia PDP and Addition of Permitted Use, # PDP120026 8. Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies — staff requested the topic be continued to another date. 9. LUC (Land Use Code) — Student Housing Action Plan Phase I 10. LUC — Vested Rights ect• Fort Collins LDS Temple Project Development Plan, # PDP72002 Project escription: This is a request for a 30,389 square foot Church of Jesus rist of Latter Day Saints (LDS) Temple on a 15.69 acre site at the sou ast corner of South \Timberline Road and Trilby Road. With this Project elopment Plan, the site will be subdivided into two blocks and two out lots ith the subject development do occurring on lot 1, block 1. Currently, therpeiority of the site is undeveloped; however there is an existing single-family r idence on the southwest portion of the site.�,This structure, including the ssociated gravel access drive off of TimberlineRoad, will be removed pri o construction. Recommendation: Staff recommends Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and her Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said cu5rrerfty, the majority of the site is undeveloped; however there is an existing single-family residence o e southwest portion of the site. This structure, including the associated gravel access drive off Timberline Road, will be removed prior to construction. In addition to the new LDS Temple, t project proposes a new 3;042 square foot single family residence (parsonage) oZ1, 1 for the Temple President. A 1,500square foot maintenance building is also proposed eastle parsonage. Access to th and associated residence is from two points on newly constructed extension of Majes i Drive, which will align with the existing Majestic Drive to the west. With this project, Timb ne Road will be improved in terms of widening, additional turn Ianes'arid providing new si walks. The proposed land uses, place of worship and single family residential, are permitted uses in Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Campana, Elmore, Hart, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Excused Absence: Hatfield Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Lorson, Ex, Bolin, Levingston, Stanford, Holland, Langenberger, Olson, Hilmes-Robinson, and Sanchez -Sprague Chair Smith said in an effort to make the process a little more citizen friendly he would provide background on the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen participation — an opportunity to present comments on issues that are not specifically listed on the meeting agenda. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and questions by board members, staff comments and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position and he encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda and noted that staff had requested that Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies be continued to another date. Citizen participation: None