Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE REZONING & STRUCTURE PLAN AMEND. - 3-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)The proposed annexation and zoning, as well as the proposed amendment to the zoning map (rezoning), are both expressly conditional upon the Developer's and the City's approval of a mutually acceptable site -specific development plan, and the execution of a mutually acceptable development agreement, all as provided by Section 2.9.4 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and C.R.S. 31-21-115(5). TELEPHONE FACSIMILE (970)493-8484 - (970)493-8598 DOUGLAS D. KONKEL ATTORNEY AT LAW THE LAW OFFICE OF 1405 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE DOUGLAS D. KONKEL Fr. COLLINS, C ONE 80524 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 "monopoly" and it offers the only 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. Conclusions 1. The subject site has been rejected by "big bog" 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 bog" store. 4. The CR 32 is also a viable grocery store site in the future after the market matures. 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 subject 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 I-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 "regional" draw but an inferior location for a "grocery 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 Albertsons, 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 Albertsons 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. 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 walls 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 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")? I. Supply of "C" Commercial Zoning The February 1, 2001 report published by the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department entitled "2000 Buildable Lands 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 million 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 H. WHERE CAN RETAIL CENTERS LOCATE IF THE SUBJECT SITE IS REZONED I. Commercial zoning ("C zoning") 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 OCT-03-2001 WED 11:47 AM REALTEC C R E S INC FAX NO. 9702821080 P. 04 Can the area south of Harmony Road support two grocery stores? 1. In discussions with King Soopen, 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 htis 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. 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 "monouoly' and it offers the only site that will be allowed by the Q . 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 promised that they will strenuously oppose any effort to allow a second grocery store at the subject site and have been working 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 cu reut 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 be toast, BUT 10 to 15 years from now both stores will be needed. Conclusions 1. The subject site has been rejected by "big box" 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 viable grocery store site in the future after the market matures. OCT-03-2001 WED 11:47 AM REALTEC C R E S INC FAX NO. 9702821080 P. 03 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 offsite improvements east of South College Avenue and retaining walls around a wet land area along South College. 5. City Manager John Fischbach and Loveland City Manager Jane Broutigan are considering a "regional" view of how to locate "big box" stores and regional type retail centers. By implementing "regional sales tax revenue sharing" these larger retail centers can be located to best serve the multiple communities around Fort Collins and not just in the community that is focusing on more sales tax revenues. A report has been completed and the City Managers are taking a serious look at this type of regional planning. This concept is in existence between other cities in Colorado. Whether or not this revenue sharing plan is approved, developers and "big box" users are showing increased interest in locations along I-25. In general their first choice is Harmony Road (which is now "off limits" for stores over 80,000 square feet). Second choice is 1-25 corridor OR Mulberry. And last choice is South College south of Harmony Road. The reasons why South College south of Harmony Road is ranked low is the traffic "splits at Harmony and College". "eye -sore" appearance. Lack of any flat easy to develop sites. The father south you go the weaker the demographics become. 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 subject 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 I-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 .0 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 "regional" draw but an inferiorion for a "Mcely store dr w". Both grocery stores and "big box" stotes have confirmed this conclusion over the past seven years. OCT-03-2001 WED 11:46 AM REALTEC C R E S INC FAX NO. 9702821080 P. 02 Market Study: Supply of "C" Commercial zoning in Fort Collins 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")? Commercial zoning ("C zoning") 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 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). 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 1-25 at Prospect comer (where all four comers 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). OCT-03-2001 WED 11:46 AM REALTEC C R E S INC FAX NO. 9702821080 P. 01 REAUMC COMMERCIAL REAL. ESTATE SERVICES, INC. To: Joe Frank Fax: 224-6111 Copy Cameron Gloss `y /6 ao ao At PAGU Date: 10/03/01 From: Steven Pfister Fax: (970) 282-1080 Tel: (970) 229- 9900 Independent Members mrvcomoror shopping Comm Re Requested market information on rezoning Trilby at College Cameron Gloss asked me rough draft a report and fax it to you for your comments. Since we have not have an opportunity to discuss this report, I'm not sure if 1 am addressing what you need or not, so I took a "gunshot" approach. Please call me to discuss how to make this report better suited for your needs. Thanks, Steve