The proposed Walgreens building exceeds typical corporate design with exposed timbers and fieldstone. This is the second time Walgreens has tried to gain city approval and enter the Steamboat Springs market. The 7,500-store chain previously went deep into the development permit process in April 2005 and December/January 2005-06.

Courtesy Artist Renderings

The proposed Walgreens building exceeds typical corporate design with exposed timbers and fieldstone. This is the second time Walgreens has tried to gain city approval and enter the Steamboat Springs market. The 7,500-store chain previously went deep into the development permit process in April 2005 and December/January 2005-06.

Walgreens tries again in Steamboat

Store proposal goes before Planning Commission tonight

Advertisement

Past Event

Steamboat Springs Planning Commission meeting

  • Thursday, January 13, 2011, 5 p.m.
  • Centennial Hall, 124 10th St., Steamboat Springs
  • All ages / Free

More

photo

Courtesy Artist Renderings

The proposed Walgreens building exceeds typical corporate design with exposed timbers and fieldstone. This is the second time Walgreens has tried to gain city approval and enter the Steamboat Springs market. The 7,500-store chain previously went deep into the development permit process in April 2005 and December/January 2005-06.

— A proposal for a Walgreens store at the corner of U.S. Highway 40 and Pine Grove Road heads to the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission tonight.

The store would be built across Pine Grove Road from Staples. Co-developer Brian Olson said in November that he and partner Rod Forrester would like to break ground in March and see the store open by October.

However, they go to the Plan­ning Commission without a favorable recommendation from city planning staff.

In his recommendation for denial to the Planning Com­mission, senior city planner Bob Keenan wrote that the application is not consistent with city development code for land use, nor with design standards that deal with the way the proposed 16,450-square-foot building addresses the corner of U.S. Highway 40 and the architectural elements of its roofline. Keenan also wrote in his report that although the proposal includes a transit-friendly design, it falls short of including pedestrian improvements that would promote a “walkable community.”

The developers are seeking variances from city planning standards that would allow them to delay building sidewalks associated with a second adjacent lot until that site is developed. City staff is recommending that because the need for pedestrian connectivity already exists in the area, it wouldn’t be advisable to require a sidewalk for the Walgreens store but not connect it beyond the lot line.

Olson said Wednesday that he has gone to considerable lengths to fit the city’s urban design guidelines for the U.S. 40 corridor, including persuading Walgreens to add a second story to reduce the footprint of the building.

However, Walgreen’s company-wide insistence on a drive-through pharmacy window created a challenge in meeting the city’s goal of having the corner of the building address the intersection.

“The city didn’t want parking adjacent to the highway, so we don’t have it, but we have to have traffic circulation for the drive-through,” Olson said. “Without it, Walgreen’s is not coming.”

A different developer sought to gain approval for a Walgreens in Steamboat in 2005 but withdrew the application.

Tonight’s public hearing is a two-step process for a preliminary plat approval and a discussion of the developers’ simultaneous applications for development and final development permits.

Comments

exduffer 3 years, 8 months ago

Is the second story a grow room for the dispensary?

0

Neil O'Keeffe 3 years, 8 months ago

Compromise is paramount these day's. What are the expected tax revenues that will benefit the city? Can the city afford to be turning away sorely needed revenue? On the other hand, I can't believe there is a need but Wallgreeens must have done their homework. My greatest concern would be seeing Lyons Drugs go the way of Boggs Hardware.

0

sledneck 3 years, 8 months ago

Once again a planning commissions idea of perfection is the enemy of the good. Happens every day all across this country. I know, I have lived it.

Good building, proper location. Good project for some unemployed folks. Does the planning commission care? The hubris of our would-be sheppards is astounding. Who among us actually owns their land if it can't be utilized as Walgreens wants to do here. There is not a thing wrong with this proposal.

The owner of the land probably needs the sale. The realtors need the sale. The building dept needs the revenue. The unemployed construction workers need the work. The lumber yard needs the sales. The community needs all the ensuing revenue. The city needs the tax revenue. The people need the facility. Why is there a problem? The City should get out of the way and let these people earn a living.

Holding people "hostage" within their own property lines is just one example of things that make people feel like they can not work within the system.

0

callguinness 3 years, 8 months ago

Sled- I see what you are saying about the money that would come from the sale, building dept. and for the construction industry. However those are relitivly small amounts in the long run. The sales tax should bet net zero, if someone needs medication there are at least three pharmacies already in town, where they buy doesn't change the sales tax for the city, just the company that pays it to them.

I would argue in the long run, continuing to allow or town to become just another ski town in CO, will cause a loss of money. I can't tell you how many people I talk to that come here, to live or visit because it is different from the other mountain towns. That is what another "box" store such as walgreens cost us, our individuality.

0

John Rogers 3 years, 8 months ago

I'd say NO .... OUR GROTH SHOULD FOCUS ON THINGS WE NEED !

NOT another drug store that would impact the small local stores......think hard about what we need in this town.

0

ftpheide 3 years, 8 months ago

It would be lovely if the planning department could "lighten up" a bit on the walkable community concept. There is a parcel of land, adj. to Riverside, that has a sidewalk burden placed on it. We were told, if we wanted to develop this parcel ,a sidewalk would need to be installed basicly from just past the entrance to Riverside to the Riverside Plaza. This sidewalk would need to be built on raised concrete structures to accommodate the wetlands.Of course this would be at our expense! We passed on this property. Back then it was stated that the reason for the sidewalk was so the community wouldn't become obese!

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 8 months ago

It is not the planning dept's fault. They are just following the rules approved by the City Council. If you think planning dept should be approving this then change the rules for highway facing parking lots and so on.

Governments have so many rules that nothing significant can be done without variances so the the city council can be sure to always have the opportunity to extort whatever they can get from the developer.

It would be a whole lot more cost effective if zoning rules were straightforward enough that a commercial application could simply be expected to follow the rules and be approved without variances.

0

bellyup 3 years, 8 months ago

JBR, I don't have to think hard. What we REALLY need in this town is a topless bar. Let's see if we can sneak that one by the Planning Commission!

I'm not a big fan of all the layers of regulation here, but at the same time we can't have Pine Grove and 40 looking like 13th does west of town.

0

greenwash 3 years, 8 months ago

Evelyn that Riverside parcel you refer too is nothing but wetlands....another example of a realtor making a big mistake in buying it. Nobody in there right mind would purchase that piece of swamp, let alone put a sidewalk in .

If anything Walgreens should do some research and realize the west side of town, say Windemere site or storage units behind it would be a much better site for Walgreens and Post Office. Access could be off Hiway 40 and Shield Drive.

They are being led down the wrong road.

0

ftpheide 3 years, 8 months ago

greenwash, Their is a building site on the hill. It's located close to what is now the Hammon Law Office. The site had been approved by the core of engineers and had deeded access . Even though the pond is an asset the cost of the sidewalk (to prevent obesity) didn't justify purchasing the property. As you stated the rest of the acreage is wetlands. Back then True Value was located in the Riverside Plaza and the planning dept. had visions of homeowners walking to True Value and carrying what they purchased home.

0

greenwash 3 years, 8 months ago

I know the site and it barely has access . Yes approvals are in place but you would have to be getting site for next to nothing to make it worth your time.Plenty of buildable infill sites available without waisting your time on that site .Yes sidewalk stipulation makes it even less desirable.

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

evelynn...a walkable community is exactly what we need.

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

a grocery store on the west end of town makes more sense to me than another "wal mart" on that side of town.

0

sledneck 3 years, 8 months ago

Scott Wedel, You are exactly right. The current setup is by desing to allow the "troll of the bridge" to extort as much as possible from every development. You are also correct that the zoning should be set up such that anyone from anywhere with any concept could expect approval if their project met a FEW SENSIBLE guidelines.

I have, I do, and I always will HATE the "troll of the bridge". Another name for it might be the "good 'ole boy network". Makes me sick.

It further irritates me to hear people saying what the community "needs" while never putting their money where their mouth is. What business is it of yours if someone wants to build a drug store in a place that does or does not need it? Are we not supposed to be free to do things because we WANT to rather than because the "community" wants it done? You folks wouldn't know real freedom if it smacked you in the mouth!

0

Neil O'Keeffe 3 years, 8 months ago

And anyone that thinks "freedom" comes with out a price is dellusional.

0

pitpoodle 3 years, 8 months ago

The community does not need another drug store or another Walmart. Period. The last thing we need is to make our community look like Anytown USA. Tourism is the base of our economy - like it or not. There is tremendous competition for tourist dollars. Right now, we can compete. If SB doesn't keep its character, we will not be competitive with other ski resort areas for long. Talk all you want about employment diversification and champagne powder, when we agree to destroy who we are (who tourists think we are) for questionable sales tax amounts and more low paying jobs, we bite the hand that feeds us.

0

1999 3 years, 8 months ago

it's funny people don't want us to look like aspen.....I think that would be great...except now we're emulating silverthorn.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.