No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGARTH COMMERCIAL PLAZA - MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS - 20-02 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSNext Steps •Establish a specific work plan, Establish a project schedule, •Find out how much money is needed to complete the tasks on the workplan, •Find sources to pay for work plan completion. �s No Text r 1 IA { rAq / � ��� `�� �`dit.F Mr•a � ,F✓ »-.afr •� � 1 � to _,_ -icy + �-• �' .I: ��M•. tY.ta'^tie rn _ + J { ai .�IvL. Lit f r., Hui MI t � ,'�lii}°'"�i; + �}•f�����,f �%�lrril/tt`a�. ^`y'Iq,•�':��.ii ,' �S.^�` I.t.��� F 1,..( �j, ,�� w. ..•tea. �f1 , f/f.J f � Y • 1 L4} �.♦ // to �q q r e • »a - 5P6= b✓ i ,,. 4 �,. ^tea a♦IA, r s "i�' No Text No Text Till ! 14, ED AM jr wi q;ir L t n �r ma's t........... No Text Strategies and Incentives to "Fill the Gap" • Financing Strategies • Intergovernmental Grants — Community Development Block Grants\ — Section 108 guaranteed loans — State economic development grants • Local Debt Financing — General obligation bonds — Revenue bonds — Industrial development bonds • Off -Budget Financing — Lease -purchase agreements — Ground leases — Land/building swaps — Property tax abatements • Dedicated Sources of Local Funds — Special district assessments — Tax increment financing — Eannarked sales or special-purpose taxes — Reuse of UDAG loan paybacks 0 General Budget Revenues Strategies and Incentives to "Fill the Gap" • Indirect Assistance — Zoning or density bonuses — Transfers of development rights — Transfers of air rights — Regulatory relief from zoning and building codes — Reduced processing time for project approvals — Quick take by eminent domain — Design coordination in public/private projects — Below -cost utilities, if publicly owned — Arbitration of disputes that might arise — Government commitments to rent space Strategies and Incentives to "Fill the Gap" • Direct Assistance • Land Assembly — Acquisition — Demolition — Relocation — Writedowns • Capital Improvements — Infrastructure — Parking garages — Open space and amenities — Programmatic facilities • Grant Assistance — Cost sharing of private improvements — Payment for predevelopment studies • Debt Financing — Direct loans — Below -market interest rates — Loan guarantees — Credit enhancements Strategies and Incentives to "Fill the Gap" • Strategies for Enhancing the Risk/Return Relationship of Private Investment — Reduce capital costs — Absorb demand for new or improved infrastructure — Lower operating costs — Increase opportunity for development — Reduce debt service burden — Reduce predevelopment risk — Enhance availability of private capital Infill Development Scenario: Project "Gap" Analysis • Project Value/Cost • Office (SF) 2509000 • Retail (SF) 76,500 • Residential (Units) 500 • Structured Parking (Spaces) 19968 • Gross Building Area 8769500 • Project Land Area (Acres) 14.5 • Building/Land Ratio 1.4 • Total Project Value $13190749113 • Total Project Cost $141,9129430 • Project Margin/"Gap " ($101838,318) • Project "Gap" Fill: • Public Property Donation $49628,250 • Tax Increment Financing $796089235 • Parking Ratio Reduction $179599000 • Project "Gap" Fill $14,1957485 Once the questions are answered: Establish a Vision Identify Cost/Value Gaps ate a Pro and Schematic Design Create Public/Private Partnership to Fill Gaps Present Idea to Experienced TOD Developers to Get Input and Advice No Text - ddaDOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY--- CA 71 owl"Cr \ - M O U N T A I N I e I . ,I � w,owY i. 11Iv, ,! r�K I,i , , •I I I�-,. 1 i 11 �; i '� ��� µ,1 it I , . �.1.' , Ih-i't' .i .� I I�..fli l�!�}I'•� ji I J . .:a• _ ,w, s''r.' ir1 � �.. a•� �.•r�-j°i;��'r��7�r,r� is F� �, r:;�-; � ... �.;,,, , , . 7,-4 LEGEND 1. Retail er 2.14 Plex Mann Theatre P., 3. Retail 4. Breaktime Billiards 5. Lowe.'s 6. Parts America �j 7. Conoco 8. F=lis Restaurant ortV. 9. Bennigan's Restaurant ' 10. PetsMart 11. Office Max 12. Home Depot 13. Alamos Verdes Restaurant a 14. Rpedx Paper Store e ; 15. Arvada Connection Retail Center 16. Business/Retail 17. Arvada Marketplace Retail Center I8. Gaut Sports 19. Sams Club 20. Home Base 21. Office Depot .: 22. Columbine Professional Building 23. Stephany's Chocolates a 24. Minolta . Sc 25. Envieotest Auto Inspection 26. Office Spec Building 27. lakefront Office Building 11, Swinerton 8 %Valberg 29. RID Park'n Ride 30. Carpet Exchange 31. Team Tires 32. Texas Roadhouse 33. Phillips 66 34. Costca I he Tax Increment Empty or under-utilized property generates $1 a year in property taxes two Same property developed to highest and best use generates $I000 a year in property taxes. Improved property generates $9,000 per year additional tax revenue over its underutilized condition Tax Increment Financing taps into this increase in tax revenue to finance the improvements and activities that make redevelopment occur. Partnership Responsibilities Infill Development Principles Responsibility Public Private Joint Maximize pedestrian access Promote development densities Define areas where development will be concentrated Develop a strong commercial core Plan and manage parking effectively Promote commercial land use intensities Promote residential development near transit/shopping Promote and provide incentives for infill Promote residential units above grade level retail Provide an adequate amount of retail Establish a wide range of land use activities Encourage a mix of different housing types • Public -Private Partnerships • What the private sector seeks from the public sector: • Political will Stable City Council/Planning Commission Community support Community and business alignment Favorable (or at least neutral) media • Financial means — Urban renewal — Bonding capacity — Land control Other needed incentives and mechanisms Partnership Expectations • What the public sector seeks from the private sector: • Developers who have done mixed -use infill projects — Who know the public scrutiny and won't back out — Who understand public process and microscope view of a public project — Who have experience in the project type desired — A successful track record • Developers who are financially strong — Equity or an equity source in place — Debt sources as well Private Capital Follows Public Commitment • Key sites need to be assembled • "Barriers" must be removed or neutralized by the public • Public must invest —streetscape, parking, public spaces, etc. • Public must make it easy • Reluctance to pioneer new concepts • Infill locations often perceived as outside the mainstream of development • Accept difficult regulations or unreasonable restrictions stop/slow development The Key Public/Private Partnerships s e ��I RTDLighI Rail ., Ham Stapden tion ) e 4% ., t:t_ ParkingFl _ " J ♦ M" 1 '�klr' w Floyd Avo_ . F PkR L c e Wal-Mart Ftn Residential in q j %a� ° Residential t l Retail v) g!y 211N►l14 r+� p Parking , %fi■1. A```" "'�� Rest Retail 'Jy ivic Center w. Res �1 Health Clvb ' Paridng ly s. ParL•ins Legend ■ InnR 1'um P>Hliag /�ir . Time Renricted Pukiaq ■ Pn.ntc Puking / w—+ CIVIC �� �•s / Centers Hrzn.im A.� kin ])i) Ys ir---------------. wt f• ' Retail RMI t; '..I # .A A to s t in�• ars # ._ .n► eA a a .c.:a a a 4s an 'Al � j' Ratan np lopIN Retail y4a " 1 % 780 1) lk —_. Haulpden Ave IMwy 288J No Text Mason Street Corridor Land Use Framework • The intent of the code is too encourage pedestrian oriented uses, and to create a more dynamic and diverse streetscape. The code also acknowledges existing development, and the desire for new development to not be disjointed with existing developments, particularly with the use of contextual setbacks. By arranging the site as proposed, this building and use is compatible with other neighboring uses. • The placement of the pedestrian amenity adjacent to Mason Street provides a street visibility and identity to the site, and provides a gateway for pedestrians wishing to travel from the intersection of Boardwalk and Mason Street to the proposed transportation corridor west of the site. • The small parking lot between the building and the street does not impair pedestrian mobility within the site. It does reduce the presence of a building on the street, however, there is limited parking, with about 31 spaces that are visible from the street versus the plan that meets the code with 45 visible parking spaces. This parking area would be screened from the street with a 3-4 foot hedge, and meet other landscape criteria. • The proposed site plan promotes pedestrian connectivity better between this site and the adjacent uses better than the plan meeting code. Both of the adjacent uses were designed with a continuous pedestrian connection in mind. The proposed site addresses this with a clean and clear pedestrian connection from site to site in a mostly straight line, crossing two existing driveways. The plan meeting the requirements actually blocks the direct pedestrian access. From the hotel, pedestrians would have to cross a drive and walk around the proposed building to get to the entrance of it. Crossing to the retail building to the south would require pedestrian to cross two driveways. • The three buildings would work together to create more of a unified center, which was the intent when the other two sites were developed. • The proposed site plan provides better visibility of potential tenants than the site plan meeting the intent of the code. In that plan, a large portion of the building would be partially hidden from the street. Findings of Fact/Conclusion We understand that in order to approve the Modification Request the Planning and Zoning Board must make the following findings: A. The request for a modification to Land Use Code Section 3.5.3(B)(2) and 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Granting the requested modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code. C. Granting the requested modification would allow the project to advance the public interests and purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard as follows: • The proposed site plan promotes better pedestrian connectivity between the proposed site and adjacent uses, and • The direct pedestrian connection and pedestrian amenity provide a `node' for pedestrians between Mason Street/Boardwalk, and the proposed transportation corridor, and • The small vehicular use area is not intrusive to the overall streetscape, is consistent with adjacent uses, and will be well screened. We recommend approval of Garth Commercial Plaza Lots 3&4 Modification Request. Gartk Commercial Plaza Modifications of Standards Request 4/15/02 3 • The proposed site plan does allow for a direct pedestrian connection to the building from Mason Street, with direct pedestrian connections to both the hotel and retail building to the south. A connection to the proposed Mason Street Corridor is also possible. • To compensate for the lack of direct building frontage, a pedestrian amenity has been located at the setback line along Mason Avenue, adjacent to the pedestrian connection. While not specifically designed at this time, this would be a structure with a small plaza and benches. This would serve as an Icon for the overall center. The Code Requirements can be met by developing Plan `B'. This plan places the building perpendicular to Mason Street, with parking between it and the retail building to the south. This would be a good workable plan for a single user building; however, it is not as desirable for a multi -tenant building. Retail users, particularly those along this corridor at this time, want direct visibility to the street. Spaces to the rear of the building would be more hidden, without direct street visibility, would be more difficult to lease, and at a far less favorable rental arrangement. This building also turns its back to the hotel to the north, with service areas adjacent to the hotel. An east west orientation to the building, would also partially block visibility to the existing retail building to the south from vehicles traveling south along Mason Street. This building placement also hinders pedestrian circulation between the various uses immediately adjacent to this site as well. Taken as a whole, the three separate buildings would not read as one well thought out center. Justification We understand that in order to approve the Modification Request the Planning and Zoning Board must make the following findings: A) The Planning and Zoning Board may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; We feel that the proposed design allows the pedestrian to interact with the vehicle in a safe and convenient manner, allows better circulation between this site and the adjacent uses, and is not detrimental to the public good. B) The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; The purpose of the LUC code section 3.5.3(B)(2) "is intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating vehicular movement. " We feel that the proposed plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard as follows: • In the proposed plan, pedestrian do not cross any vehicular areas to access this site. Garth Commercial Plaza Modifications of Standards Request 4/15/02 2 MODIFICATION REQUEST GARTH COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED SITE PLAN We are submitting this request for modification of standards for the Garth Commercial Plaza, Lots 3&4 project to address the following item: A. Modification of standards to Section 3.5.3(B)(2) and 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) of the LUC PROJECT BACKGROUND Garth Commercial Plaza is a small infill commercial site located along Mason Street just south of Boardwalk Drive. This site is 1.28 acres in size. The applicant is proposing a small retail building on the site, approximately 12,500 square feet in size. The developer owns the land to the north of this site that the Quality Inn and Suites Hotel sits on, and the retail building to the south. The original retail building was built in the early 1980's with the intent of continuing with an identical building to the north. The hotel building was constructed in the late 1990's. An original preliminary PUD site plan was approved for both the hotel and the site that this development is being proposed for. When designing the hotel site, considerable attention was paid to providing the ability for pedestrian connections between the hotel and the proposed building, as well as auto circulation. The developer has worked with staff on a variety of conceptual plans, both those that meet the LUC criteria and those that don't. As a result, the applicant is requesting a modification to 3.5.3(B)(2), Orientation to Build -to Lines for Street front Buildings. Modifications to setback requirements Code Sections: 3.5.3(B)(2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Street front Buildings. Build -to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalk shall be established by development projects for new buildings and, to the extent reasonably feasible, by development projects for additions or modifications of existing buildings, in order to form visually continuous, pedestrian -oriented street fronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. (b) Buildings shall be located no more than fifteen (15) feet from the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial or has on -street parking. Purpose: These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating vehicular movement. Discussion: For The Garth Commercial Plaza, we are requesting to modify the code requirement by placing a small vehicular use area between the building and the street for the following reasons: • Buildings to both the north and the south of this site have vehicular uses between the street and the buildings. Both projects were originally designed with a use and building placement on the proposed site consistent with the proposed site plan. Garth Commercial Plaza Modifications of Standards Request 4/15/02 1 <M m EXISTING HOTEL FUTURE PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO MASON CONNECTION STREET CORRIDOR TO HOTEL ago 51 LOT 3 50 PROPOSED 49 1 = BULD01G = 12.920 S.F. RETAIL BUILDING 48 PAFKNG - 52 SPACES 4.0: 1.000 4% t- PEDESTRIAN LOT 4 CONNECTION A �mmmmmm©«LhE, W(A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO EXISTING HOTEL EXISTING COMMERCIAL V' N U) a O V1 7 O N Boardwalk EXISTING COMMERCIAL PLAN B - PLAN TO MEET CODE SECTIONS Boardwalk EXISTING HOTEL CONNECTION TO MASON TO HOTEL STREET CORRIDOR �Ii " Ll11JJ����0��0��di�!► WIN lid • �� _ toEXISTING F CONCEPT 4 SPACES4 � �r LOT 4 IL TO SCREEN PARKING mmmmm�t� 0 oaf PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO EXISTING HOTEL EXISTING COMMERCIAL PLAN A - PROPOSED SITE PLAN f 4 dc No Text Modification of Standards for the Garth Commercial Plaza, File #20-02 May 2, 2002 P&Z Meeting Page 4 better than a plan that satisfies the standards. The purpose of the standards requested to be modified can be found in section 3.5.3(A) where it states, "these standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating vehicular movement." Directly north and south of the site on Mason Street are buildings built under a previous code that have substantial building setbacks from the street, and have parking areas located directly between the street and the building. If the modifications were granted for this site, the building would be consistent within its context. The other side of the issue, however, is that the Land Use Code has established a new set of priorities for the interaction of a building with the street. Even though a building in this location built to satisfy the Land Use Code would introduce a smaller setback distance not currently existing along this stretch of Mason Street, this building could be the first in the immediate vicinity to chart a new direction for the future character of Mason Street as envisioned under the Mason Street Corridor Plan. As long as the build -to line standard is consistently applied to all development and redevelopment along Mason Street, in the future the street will eventually be pedestrian -oriented with buildings closer to the street. In light of the adopted Mason Street Corridor Plan, staff finds that it would be detrimental to the public good to grant the requested modifications because the sidewalk along Mason Street will likely be a very important component of the pedestrian network that will link the surrounding neighborhood with the future transit stops, and the human scale of the Mason Street sidewalk will be better served by buildings satisfying the build -to line standards. 5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: A. The requested modifications for the Garth Commercial Plaza are subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Staff finds that the granting of modification would be detrimental to the public good. 6. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the modification requests. Modification of Standards for the Garth Commercial Plaza, File #20-02 May 2, 2002 P&Z Meeting Page 3 2. THE MODIFICATION PROCESS (A) Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC specifies that in order to approve a modification the Planning and Zoning Board must find that: (1) the granting is not detrimental to the public good, and that (2) the plan as submitted would satisfy one of the following: (a) the general purpose of the standard is satisfied equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard, or (b) the proposed project would, without impairing the intents and purposes of the LUC, substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution, and that the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible, or (c) strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship due to exceptional physical conditions unique to such property. 3. APPLICANT'S REQUEST For illustrative purposes, the applicant has submitted the following diagrams: (i) The "proposed site plan" (Plan A) depicting the applicants proposed modification requests. (2) The "plan to meet code sections" (Plan B) depicting what the site would look like if it satisfied the code without any modifications. The applicant has proposed that the modification request meets the requirements of LUC 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures (H) Step 8 (Standards). Please see the attached written justification by the applicant. 4. ANALYSIS OF MODIFICATION REQUEST The applicant contends that the granting of the modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and that the general purpose of the standards are satisfied equally well or Modification of Standards for the Garth Commercial Plaza, File #20-02 May 2, 2002 P&Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS 1. BACKGROUND The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: W: C — Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, RL — Existing residential neighborhood, Manhattan Avenue, NW: C — Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, LMN — existing residential development, existing wetland, vacant developable area, Manhattan Avenue, N: C — Existing 3 story Hotel, existing 1 and 2 story retail buildings between the railroad tracks and Mason Street. NE: C — Intersection of Boardwalk and Mason Street, existing Olive Garden with large parking lot along Mason Street, E: C — Mason Street, vacant lot, existing bank and office building, existing KFC Restaurant, SE: C — Existing REI store, Barnes and Noble bookstore, S: C — Existing one and two story retail buildings, SW: C - Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, RL - Existing residential neighborhood, Manhattan Avenue, The property was annexed as part of the Horsetooth Harmony Annexation in July of 1978. The property is adjacent to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, which is the future location for the Mason Street Multi -modal Transportation Corridor. The site is located tentatively about halfway between an anticipated transit stop at Troutman Parkway and a potential transit stop at Horsetooth Road. Current Planning staff is currently working on the Mason Street Corridor Land Use Framework effort to determine more specifically how the land use regulations and processes should best be organized to implement the adopted Mason Street Corridor Plan. Although no specific conclusions have been determined in the implementation effort because it is still early in the process, a few basic assumptions have been established: • areas in the immediate vicinity of future Mason Street Corridor transit stops should have development at a higher intensity so that more people have the opportunity will live, work and/or shop close to the transit stop; and • areas just beyond the immediate vicinity of the transit stops should have a convenient pedestrian network of streets and/or sidewalks that allow easy pedestrian access from the residential and commercial neighborhoods to the transit stop. STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Modification of Standards for the Garth Commercial Plaza, File #20-02 APPLICANT: Terrance Hoaglund Vignette Studios 100 Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: George Holter PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property is a 1.28 acre vacant infill site just southwest of the intersection of Boardwalk Drive and Mason Street. The applicant would like to construct a retail building in a configuration that does not satisfy the following two sections of the Land Use Code: (1) section 3.5.3(B)(2) which requires that no vehicle use area be located between the building and the street ; and (2) section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) which requires that a commercial building be located no further away from a minor arterial than 15 feet. The applicant is requesting two modifications to the Land Use Code in order to configure the site in a way that has a vehicular area between the building and the street, and a front setback exceeding the maximum allowed setback of 15 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Denial EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for modification to the following sections of the Land Use Code: 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking (2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings - This section of the Land Use Code requires that build -to lines based on a consistent relations of. buildings to the street sidewalk shall be established by development projects for new buildings.... in order to form visually continuous pedestrian -oriented street fronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking (2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings (b) —This section of the Land Use Code specifies that buildings shall be located no more than 15 feet from the right-of-way of an adjoining minor arterial. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-5750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT