Proposal met with skepticism
Board votes against recommending OK of Centerra South development
Citing a lack of details and lingering questions, the Loveland Planning Commission ruled on Monday that the Centerra South urban renewal plan proposed by Mcwhinney Real Estate is not consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. As a result, the commission will not recommend approval of Centerra South to City Council.
“I just don’t feel like I have enough information to make a good decision on this, either way it goes,” Commissioner Sarah Warnock said prior to voting against a positive recommendation. “That might make me sound ignorant, but I just want more information. And that’s what it comes down to for me.”
The Centerra South proposal calls for a 149-acre mixed use development, located on vacant agricultural land southeast of the Interstate 25 and U.S. 34 interchange. Half of the parcel would be dedicated to retail space, highlighted by a 40,000 square foot Whole Foods grocery store, while the other half would be for up to 1,075 residential units.
To help finance the construction, Mcwhinney is also proposing a new urban renewal plan, similar to the one used to build the first phase of Centerra. Under Colorado urban renewal law, taxing entities for the property, such as the city, Larimer County and Thompson School District, can agree to divert all or part of their property tax revenues to repay principal and interest on construction bonds.
The commission heard a presentation about Centerra South from Andy Arnold, a consultant retained by the city to advise on urban renewal issues. He gave the
commissioners a brief overview of the project, a short course on tax-increment financing and a list of the ways Centerra South aligns with the city’s comprehensive plan, which was the focus of their review.
The opposing view was provided by eight concerned Loveland residents during the public comment portion of the meeting. Many were skeptical about the urban renewal plan’s tax-sharing arrangement and Mcwhinney’s ability to deliver on the revenue projections.
Others voiced concerns about increased traffic congestion that the new development would bring to an already congested stretch of Eisenhower Boulevard or asked questions about the short timeline on the pending deal with Whole Foods.
“Why would a city government who was supposed to represent the people who elected them to office be under the gun of a Whole Foods grocer?” commenter Jane Perkins said.
Many of the commenters were also skeptical about the current conditions of the property and whether it needs to be rescued from blight by a developer. Others brought up other retail vacancies in Loveland, including in Centerra shopping centers, and suggested the city and developer should fill those before proposing a new development.
Commenters also pointed out that Arnold’s presentation and the agenda packet materials did not contain enough information to make an informed decision, a point that seemed to resonate with some commissioners during their later discussion.
“As a practical matter, you can’t make a judgment on what you’ve heard here tonight, or to what’s in the agenda packet, which I’ve gone through,” commenter Larry Sarner said. “This is going to be a 25-year decision that you are going to be making here, or recommending that City Council do it, on the sparsity of information that you’ve been given.”
According to a memo in the agenda packet and comments by City Attorney Vince Junglas, the Planning Commission was supposed to limit its consideration of Centerra South strictly to its alignment with “Create Loveland,” the comprehensive plan ratified by City Council in 2016. But several commissioners still expressed concerns about the urban renewal aspects of the plan, and why this property shouldn’t necessarily qualify.
“I can’t get my mind around the five factors that were listed there, as far as calling this a blighted area, which then in turn, triggers it to be a URA,” chair Lori Goebel said. “I can’t get there with the information that was provided.”
Vice chair Sarah Mckeen made a motion to reject the Centerra South proposal, and then addressed its compliance with Create Loveland directly, pointing to several instances where she said it conflicted with the city’s plan for the future, including supporting existing businesses and preserving open spaces, among others.
“The last one that I really wanted to focus on because this was brought up earlier it says ‘where appropriate, utilize urban renewal policies to organize and incentivize desired redevelopment projects,’” she said. “I don’t see this, with all the comment we’ve heard tonight, as a desired redevelopment project.”
Just one commissioner spoke in favor of recommending Centerra South. Geoff Frahm argued that the proposal does comply with many aspects of the comprehensive plans when viewed from a high level.
“If the suggested future land use changes for the comprehensive plan that divides the property, north being commercial, south being medium density residential, and so with the question before us, does that fit within the plan? I can’t see anything but that fits the plan,” he said, arguing against Mckeen’s motion. “No, I’m not considering financing, street layout is an appropriate use of the URA. That’s not our purview at this point. But I think that this fits with the comprehensive plan and I have to disagree with that.”
The commission went on to vote 4 to 2 that it will not recommend approval of Centerra South to City Council, and has 30 days to provide its decision in writing.
However, the decision is advisory only, and has no procedural impact on City Council’s vote on the proposal, slated for March 24.