Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/04/2000 - ITEMS RELATING TO INTERSTATE LANDS REZONING AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: April 4, 2000000 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ronald G. Fuchs SUBJECT: Items Relating to Interstate Lands Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 2000-52 Amending the City Structure Plan Map. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 2000, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning. The parcels affecting the Structure Plan Amendments and Rezone request are known as the Interstate Lands project. This item has three parts: 1. Request to amend the City Structure Plan as follows: (a) Expand the Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential designation into the current Employment designation. (b) Expand the Urban Estate designation into the current Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential designation. (c) Designate a section of Prospect Road from the existing corridor further west to County Road 5, then north to State Highway 14 (Mulberry Street) to the Interstate 25 (I-25) interchange into the transit corridor. 2. Request to rezone five (5)parcels totaling 65.322 acres within an approximate 155.57 acre site as follows: (a) Rezone property from Employment District (E) to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District(LMN) consistent with 1 (a) above. (b) Rezone property from Commercial District (C) to Employment District (E). 3. Make technical corrections to update the legal descriptions of zoning districts to ensure the descriptions match the districts as shown on the zoning map. DATE: April 4,2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 12 A-B BACKGROUND: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I, Industrial (County) - mix of commercial and industrial uses (Crossroads East Business Center), RI, Residential (County) (Sunrise Acres) S: C, Commercial; E,Employment; and, RC,River Conservation-undeveloped E: C, Commercial-adjacent to I-25 interchange(Johns Harley-Davidson); and I, Industrial - east of I-25 W: UE, Urban Estate, undeveloped; FA-1, Farming (County) - large lot residential; and, R, Residential (County) - small lot residential (Boxelder First) The property was annexed to the city as part of the Interstate Lands First and Second Annexations in 1989,and was placed into two(2)zoning districts,the H-B,Highway Business Zone(151.6 acres) and the R-P, Planned Residential Zone (40 acres). In March 1997 the City adopted City Plan including the City Structure Plan,the Land Use Code and the Zoning Map. As one of several"hot spot" properties where the appropriate zoning was contested, this property was placed in the T- Transition zone district. Issues were resolved and the current zoning of Commercial District (C), Employment District(E), Urban Estate District(UE), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District(LMN) occurred in November 1997. The applicant is now requesting additional changes to the zoning. A. Structure Plan Amendment This Structure Plan amendment application must be decided based on the duly adopted goals and policies set forth in the City's City Plan.The applicant has provided a Burden of Proof narrative(see Attachment C)citing policies of justification from City Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board and staff concur with the applicant's cited policies and agree with the structure plan re-designations, supporting the applicant's amendments to the Structure Plan with the exception of the transit corridor designation. It was Planning and Zoning Board's contention that the re-designation of the transit corridor should wait until the Transfort Strategic Plan is completed. B. Rezone Request Section 2.8.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code outlines two (2) mandatory requirements for any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of lands within the City in order to be approved by the City Council. In addition, Section 2.8.4[H][3] outlines additional considerations that may be considered by the City Council. Provided the City Council finds that the Structure Plan Amendments are appropriate,the rezone requests can be found to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted a Burden of Proof narrative justifying the requested rezones (see attachment D). The Planning and Zoning Board and staff concur with the applicant's analysis for requested rezones. The proposed rezones from Commercial District(C)to Employment District(E) and from Employment District(E) to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District(LMN) are appropriate for this property;are compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land;will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment; and,will result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The property is currently not in the residential sign district. DATE: April 4, 2000 3 ITEM NUMBER: 12 A-B PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: On March 16. 2000, the Planning and Zoning Board, made the following recommendations: I 1. The Planning and Zoning Board by a vote of 5-0, recommends that the City Council approve the applicant's request to amend the Structure Plan from Employment District to Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential and Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential to Urban Estate with the following condition: The irregular zoning district boundaries shall not be used as justification for any future development proposal. 2. The Planning and Zoning Board by a vote of 5-0, recommends that the City Council deny the applicant's request for reclassification and extension of a major transit corridor for East Prospect Road. 3. The Planning and Zoning Board by a vote of 5-0,recommends that the that the City Council approve the applicant's Rezone Petition request to rezone the subject area from Commercial District zoning to Employment District zoning. Zoning Board b a vote of 5-0 recommends that the City Council 4. The Planning and Zo g y t3' approve the applicant's Rezone Petition request to rezone the subject area from Employment District zoning to Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential zoning. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Staff Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board C. Request for Amendments to Structure Plan D. Interstate Land Rezoning Petition- Justification for Rezoning Petition E. Existing Structure Plan F. Proposed Structure Plan G. Existing and Proposed Zoning Boundaries H. Zoning Map Plat 1. Excerpt from March 16 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes EXHIBITS: A. City of Fort Collins—Proposed Structure Plan • RESOLUTION 2000-52 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MAP WHEREAS,by Resolution 96-79 and Resolution 97-25,the City Council adopted the City Structure Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Structure Plan Map has been amended from time to time by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Western VII Investment, LLC has requested the rezoning of certain lands located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Interstate Highway 25 and Prospect Road(the "Interstate Land Rezoning" request); and WHEREAS,the Interstate Land Rezoning request also proposes certain amendments to the City Structure Plan pertaining to the land uses identified on the Structure Plan Map; and WHEREAS,the staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have recommended the proposed changes to the Structure Plan Map for adoption by the City Council upon the condition that the irregular zoning district boundaries that will be created because of the proposed amendment to the Structure Plan Map shall not be used as justification for a request for modification of standards with • respect to any future development proposals; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the city that the City Structure Plan Map be amended accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,that the City Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, upon condition that the irregular zoning district boundaries that will be created because of the proposed amendment to the Structure Plan Map shall not be used as justification for a request for modification of standards with respect to any future development proposals. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 4th day of April, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I � NJ I ik d9s �� i .er+l1(��"mil:%/�',�� ����'�E ti� ►\ 'I■I ll'�IIIP='mii`fd�i .,J 0 m Nw� ISO N.M. I. Dunne� u �......... _ lN.M.q_L�� r�dlllu '!-. IIIIIIIIIIIII.-H ,My IQIi1 '41.�i, G6•� 11 %j� � rrrarTrlP��'sr ,. W�, `�C unueu�l zi�r /ijL� c: p Of �ffl RI-E-J � >>;=�p !m C 111 �1.vi �Cl !ice 4e Fes.- 1 ��I� eyfiyl,�lllu{1!4 I3 �� T/��� �3pfeE j• .,,. ■W t M. ►r.G L/V1 = �:c13f1�'": ,�%%I p.-� 1 •- UMS .1,11 f�4 4-41 NO Ell- O AW is Rw�l � '4 D\ ORDINANCE NO. 33, 2000 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE INTERSTATE LANDS REZONING WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the rezoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing,the Council has considered the rezoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that the said property should be rezoned as hereafter provided. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the . City of Fort Collins be,and the same hereby is,amended by changing the zoning classification from "C", Commercial Zone District, to "E", Employment Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: ZONE E PARCEL (1) A tract of land located in Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,County of Larimer,State of Colorado,being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North 88'19'55" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 16; thence,North 06'40'17" West, 1722.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence,North 76'22'04 West, 236.51 feet;thence,North 25'46'50"East,62.98 feet;thence,North 06'07'59"West, 743.69 feet; thence, North 57'08'42" East, 197.32 feet; thence, North 69'27'23" East, 140.94 feet; thence, South 00'08'53" West, 599.95 feet; thence, South 02'00'12" West, 408.70 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 5.360 acres more or less and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be,and the same hereby is,amended by changing the zoning classification from "T", Transition Zone District, to "E", Employment Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: ZONE E PARCEL(2) A tract of land located in Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6' Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,County of Larimer,State of Colorado,being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North 88'19'55"West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 16; thence, North 15'26'35" West, 1848.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence, South 11'52'18"West, 260.72 feet; thence, South 25'46'50" West, 264.85 feet; thence, South 61'21'17" West, 306.13 feet;thence, South 82'02'35"West, 137.69 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Northeast,having a central angle of 31'19'51",a radius of 449.26 feet and the chord of which bears South 59'27'30" West, 242.62 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 245.67 feet; thence, North 37'06156" West, 31.06 feet; thence, North 61'21'17" East, 550.55 feet; thence, North 25'46'50" East, 594.40 feet; thence, North 05'24'49" East, 743.16 feet; thence, South 06'07'59" East, 743.69 feet;thence,South 25'46'50"West,62.98 feet;thence,North 76'22'04"West,64.11 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 3.534 acres more or less and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Section 3. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be,and the same hereby is,amended by changing the zoning classification from "C", Commercial Zone District, to "E", Employment Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: ZONE E PARCEL(3) A tract of land located in Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6' Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,County of Larimer,State of Colorado,being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North 88'19'55"West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 16; thence, North 28°03'25" West, 1321.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence, South 85°37'25"West, 289.71 feet;thence,South 82°02'35"West, 19.40 feet;thence,North 61'21'17"East, 306.13 feet; thence, North 25°46'50" East, 264.85 feet; thence, South 11°52'18" West, 368.33 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 0.708 acres more or less and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Section 4. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be,and the same hereby is,amended by changing the zoning classification from "E",Employment Zone District,to"LMN",Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: LMN A tract of land located in Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,County ofLarimer,State of Colorado,being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North 88'19'55" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 16; thence, North 39°14'55" West, 2269.72 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence, South 30`00'00"West, 1241.29 feet to a point on a curve concave to the North having a central angle of 28'28'13", a radius of 610.00 feet and the chord of which bears South 15'45'54" West, 300.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 303.11 feet; thence, South 01*31'47" West, 99.74 feet; thence, North 56°49'58" West, 245.08 feet; thence, North 88°19'55" West, 293.86 feet; thence, North 00'11'05" East, 736.50 feet; thence, North 75°57'25" East, 251.44 feet; thence, North 14`02'22" West, 685.83 feet;thence,North 07°41'06"West, 53.16 feet;thence,North 05°01'54"East,53.16 feet; thence, North 11°23'24" East, 596.08 feet; thence, North 13'05'53" East, 135.45 feet; thence, North 30`28141" East, 122.90 feet; thence, North 40'36'56" East, 172.36 feet; thence, North 24°34'41" East, 119.89 feet; thence, North 12'48'38" East, 140.56 feet; thence, North 00"00'00" West, 532.31 feet; thence, South 48'54'30" East, 1021.76 feet; thence, South 30`00'00" West, 1156.51 feet; thence, South 60'00'00"East, 612.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 52.111 acres more or less and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Section 5. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be,and the same hereby is,amended by changing the zoning classification from "T", Transition Zone District, to "C", Commercial Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Interstate Lands Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: ZONE C A tract of land located in Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6' Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,County ofLarimer,State of Colorado,being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 as bearing North 88°19'55" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 16; thence, North 55°50'49" West, 1621.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence, South 55`49'38"West, 113.83 feet; thence, South 23'38'24" West, 287.55 feet; thence, South 01°40'05" West, 507.31 feet; thence, North 88°19'55" West, 149.48 feet; thence, North 01*40101" East, 502.55 feet; thence, North 23°38'24" East, 287.55 feet; thence, North 55°49'38" East, 174.20 feet; thence, North 61'21'17" East, 167.87 feet; thence, South 37°06'56" East, 31.06 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Northeast having a central angle of 14`13'18",a radius of 449.26 feet and the chord of which bears South 36'40'55"West, 111.23 feet;thence along the arc of said curve 111.51 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 3.094 acres more or less and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Section 6. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be,and the same hereby is,changed and amended by showing that the above-described property is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 7. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 4th day of April, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of April,A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 18th day of April, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk m - SIM �I EN \\ \�\\� \� ...moo\Oa..•� �irYrrr+YYY++rr�:i.'.t�,sy w•+a ♦ y �.O���U``�`�\\\`\\\�\�. III ATTACHMEIJT B ITEM NO. 7 MEETING DATE3/16/00 STAFF Ron Fuchs Cite of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment Current Planning File#34-88D APPLICANT: Western VII Investment, LLC c/o Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNERS: Western VII Investment, LLC 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 202 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to change the zoning designation of five (5) parcels totaling 65.322 acres within an approximate 155.57 acre site located at the northwest comer of Prospect IML Road and Interstate —25. The parcels are known as Interstate Lands. The rezone request also includes two requests to amend to the City Structure Plan, (one is related to new Plan designations and one is related to the inclusion of a section of Prospect Road into the transit corridor) and correction of prior errors related to the application of the current zoning district. The rezone request will involve reducing the E— Employment District and increasing the LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District. In addition, the rezone also includes reducing the C—Commercial District with these areas going to the E — Employment District. Current zoning consists of C —Commercial District (8.1 acres), E-Employment District (104.133 acres), UE— Urban Estate District (21.3 acres), LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (15.727 acres) and T —Transition (6,5 acres). The proposed zoning consist of C — Commercial District (5.2 acres), E— Employment District (60.7 acres), LMN— Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (68.7 acres), and UE — Urban Estate District (21.3 acres). In regard to the legal descriptions for the current zoning districts, the recorded descriptions contained a typographical error resulting in areas within the Interstate Lands still being zoned T—Transition. This request involves correcting the zone boundaries as they were approved by City Council in November 1997. Hence, this is a legal description housekeeping item to bring the legal descriptions back into accordance with the adopted zoning map. The property with the legal description in question was placed into the current C zoning designation in November 1997 as part of a new city-wide zoning system; however, the legal description contained an error as part of it's filing. The legal Y 9 descriptions submitted as part of this application corrects and matches the zoning designation. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. PO.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, Current Planning file# 34-880 March 16, 2000 P &Z Meeting Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the Structure Plan Amendment to extend a major transit corridor along Prospect Road. Approval of a Structure Plan Amendment to extend a feeder transit corridor along Prospect Road. Approval of the Structure Plan Amendment request to change the Plan's land use designations. Approval of the rezone requests. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant's amendment request to the City Structure Plan from "Employment District" to"Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential" is consistent with the policies contained in City Plan. The proposed zoning districts are consistent with the recommended amendments to the Structure Plan, are appropriate for this property and are compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land. The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed rezoning results in a logical and orderly development pattern providing a balance of future employment, commercial and residential uses and services. The Interstate Lands Structure Plan Amendment of reclassification and extension of the East Prospect Road major transit corridor can not be supported at this time. A final determination on this issue should wait until the Transfort Strategic Plan is completed. However, staff will support both a corridor extension and designation of the corridor as a "Feeder Transit Corridor". COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I, Industrial (County)—mix of commercial and industrial uses (Crossroads East Business Center), R1, Residential (County) (Sunrise Acres) S: C, Commercial; E, Employment; and, RC, River Conservation — undeveloped E: C, Commercial —adjacent to 1-25 interchange (Johns Harley-Davidson); and I, Industrial —east of 1-25 W: UE, Urban Estate, undeveloped; FA-1, Farming (County)— large lot residential; and, R, Residential (County) —small lot residential (Boxelder First) The property was annexed to the city as part of the Interstate Lands First and Second Annexations in 1989, and was placed into two (2)zoning districts, the H-B, Highway Business Zone (151.6 acres) and the R-P, Planned Residential Zone (40 acres). See attached map of 1989 zoning district boundaries. In March 1997 the City adopted City Plan including the City Structure Plan, the Land Use Code and the Zoning Map. At the time of adoption of the ordinances, approximately 27 rezoning issue areas (this property was one such issue area) were identified where either the property-owner and/or the Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, Current Planning file# 34-88D March 16, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 3 adjacent property-owners and residents did not agree with staffs recommendation for the zoning of an area or a piece of property. Rather than delay the adoption of the new Land Use Code until all the issues could be resolved, the issue areas were guaranteed a rezoning process following the adoption of the ordinances. Prior to adoption of the ordinances, the owner of this property was offered two (2) choices for the temporary zoning of the property: accept staffs recommendation for the LMN — Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood District, or place the property into the T—Transition Zone. The property/owner selected the second option. To finalize the zoning of the subject property, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.170, 1997, on November 4, 1997, when it changed approximately 191.6 acres from UE—Urban Estate, the C —Commercial, and T—Transition designations and rezoned it to C—Commercial District, E-Employment District, UE— Urban Estate District, and LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (see zoning map). 2. Request for Structure Plan Amendment The requested rezone to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN), is not consistent with the City Structure Plan designation for the site. A portion of the requested Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) zoning currently lies within the area identified as "Employment District" on the Structure Plan Map. Before considering the requested LMN zoning, a Structure Plan amendment to Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential is required. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the amendment, and a request to amend the City's transit corridor by extending the corridor east to I —25 to include the portion of Prospect Road (an arterial road)fronting the applicant's frontage. The applicant has cited City Plan Community Goals, and City Plan Principles and Policies as justification for the requested Structure Plan amendments. The applicant has successfully demonstrated how the Community Goals, Principles, and Policies of City Plan support a change in the Structure Plan to Low Density Mixed-Use Residential. 3. Analysis of Request for Structure Plan Amendment This Structure Plan amendment application must be decided based on the duly adopted goals and policies set forth in the City's City Plan. The City's task, albeit difficult, is to promote the larger public interests without eliminating the applicant's property rights. Opponents will probably argue that the City should continue to restrict the owner's use of the property and promote a larger"public interest" which envisions the establishment of an E—Employment District. According to the applicant, the area located west of Interstate 25 and north of Prospect Road is developing and certain trends have emerged that are consistent with City staffs original vision of the area. The applicant contends that the extension of a transit corridor encourages through traffic movements as a means to achieve the described urban design character and integrates the subject area with the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole. Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, Current Planning file#34-88D March 18, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Although the petitioner would clearly benefit from the re-designation of East Prospect as a "major transit corridor" and the corresponding proposed transit corridor extensions, it is inappropriate for staff to support such a change at this time, as written. Staffs position on the reclassification of the transit corridor to a "Major" (actually "High Frequency Corridor") is that the proposed land use activities on the periphery of the city would not support a "High Frequency Corridor." However, staff will support both a corridor extension and designation.of the corridor as a "Feeder Transit Corridor". Feeder transit corridors are routes that feed into High Frequency Transit Corridors. Based upon review of the applicant's Burden of Proof narrative, the Structure Plan amendment to change the land use designations relates reasonably to cited City Plan goals for the requested change from Employment District to Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential (see attached Request for Amendments to Structure Plan). Staff concurs with the applicant's cited policies that the extension of the Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential is logical and is consistent with City Plan policies. 4. Petition For Rezoning The applicant, Western VII, filed a rezoning petition with the city on January 14, 2000. The applicant is requesting a rezone for a portion of land from C— Commercial District to E—Employment District. In addition, the applicant has requested rezoning a portion of land from E— Employment District to LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District. 5. Provisions of the C—Commercial District The purpose of the C Zoning District is spelled out in 4.17(A) of the Land Use Code where it states that the district ". . . setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the city's intent that the Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians." Rezoning the property from C to E would extend the E district that exists to the west. Land uses permitted in the C zoning district are similar with those in E zoning district. 6 Provisions of the E—Employment District The purpose of the E Zoning District is spelled out in 4.22(A) of the Land Use Code where it states that the district". . . is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices Structure Plan Amendment Current Planning file# 34-88D Interstate Lands Rezone and St g • March 16, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 5 and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing." Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services, and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods." The property was zoned E— Employment District in 1997 at the property owners request. 7 Provisions of the LMN —Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District The purpose of the LMN zone as described in Section 4.4(A) of the LUC states that it is . . . is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this district shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood." Rezoning the property to LMN would extend the existing LMN district that exists to the west of the request. 8. Land Use Code Criteria For Rezoning Section 2.8.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code outlines mandatory requirements for quasi- judicial rezonings. This section states: "Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property." In addition, Section 2.8.4[H][3] outlines additional considerations for quasi-judicial . rezonings: Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, Current Planning file# 34-88D March 16, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 6 "In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural environment' (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern." 9. Analysis of Rezoning Request a. Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? The request to zone a part of the Employment District to LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, is not consistent with the approved City Structure Plan designation for the site (Employment District). Before considering the requested LMN zoning, a Structure Plan amendment to E— Employment is required (see Sections 2 and 3 above). The applicant has submitted a request and justification for an amendment to the Structure Plan, which is attached. The applicant has cited City Plan Community Goals, and City Plan Principles and Policies as justification for the requested Structure Plan amendment and has successfully demonstrated how the Community Goals, Principles, and Policies of City Plan support Plan Amendment to Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential. The requested rezone is consistent with the recommended Structure Plan Amendments. The property proposed for rezone from C to E is consistent with this Structure Plan designation of Employment. b. Is the rezone request compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is it the appropriate zone district for the land? The requested zoning is compatible with all existing land uses. The property is surrounded on one side with land that is already zoned LMN, so changing/enlarging the property to LMN (decreasing the E— Employment District) would be compatible. The property is a logical extension of an existing piece of the LMN zoning district. Properties to the west of present LMN zoned lands are UE— Urban Estates and R1 —Residential (County). Moderate intensity residential uses that are supportive of commercial and employment activities would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, since lands to the west are residentially zoned and developed. Based on the purpose stated in the Land Use Code for the LMN zoning district, these non-residential uses should be developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, Current Planning file # 34-880 March 16, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 7 surrounding neighborhoods and would be appropriate uses for LMN land. Further, the extension of the E—Employment zoning district to the east is a logical extension of an existing piece of property currently zoned E. c. Will the rezoning result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment? The property is bisected by Boxelder Creek, although it is out of the floodplain. Boxelder Creek may be part of a wildlife movement corridor. During development review a buffer will be required along Boxelder Creek. Although there are no wetlands on the site, there are existing wetlands on adjacent property to the west. At this time there is no way of determining the use and value of these wetlands. This analysis will occur at the time of a Project Development Plan. Current air quality and noise levels along Prospect Road and 1-25 would not change significantly as a result of any development that would be allowed due to this rezone. d. Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern? This property is located within a developing area of the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, and should it further develop, would be able to utilize the existing logical and orderly development pattern provided by the site's proximity to Interstate-25 (1-25), Prospect Road, Sherry Drive, Surry Lane, Boxelder Drive, Kenwood Drive and 1-25 frontage road already in place. However, the boundaries separating the proposed LMN and E zone districts are configured irregularly. As a condition of approval, the zoning district boundaries should not be used as justification for approval of any development plan on the property. Further, future land use(s) will be limited to those permitted in the respective zone districts. FINDINGS OF FACTICONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment- Current Planning File #34-88D, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The applicant's request for an amendment to the structure plan adequately justifies changing the structure plan designation from "Employment District" to "Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential," and such a change is supported by the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Interstate Lands Structure Plan Amendment of reclassification of the transit corridor to a "Major" (actually "High Frequency Corridor") for East Prospect Road can not be supported at this time. Staff will support both a corridor extension and designation of the corridor as a "Feeder Transit Corridor". Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, Current Planning file# 34-88D March 16, 2000 P &Z Meeting Page 8 3. The Interstate Lands Rezone from "Commercial District (C)" to "Employment District (E)" is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Interstate Lands Rezone from "Employment District (E)" to "Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood District (LMN)" is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. The proposed rezoning is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land. Future land use(s) will be limited to those permitted in the respective zone districts. 6. The proposed zoning district is appropriate for this property. 7. The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 8. The proposed rezoning results in a logical and orderly development pattern. 9. The legal description filed in 1997 contained an error as part of it's filing. This request provides the needed legal fixes to correct previous surveying errors related to the application of the current zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the substantial evidence in the record and the above findings for Request for Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning Petition: 1. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the applicant's request to amend the Structure Plan from Employment District to Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential with the following condition: A. The irregular zoning district boundaries shall not be used as justification for any future development proposal. 2. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council deny the applicant's request for reclassification and extension of a major transit corridor for East Prospect Road. 3. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve a corridor extension and designation of the corridor as a "Feeder Transit Corridor"for East Prospect Road. 4. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the applicant's Rezone Petition request to rezone the subject area from Commercial District zoning to Employment District zoning. Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, Current Planning file# 34-88D • March 16, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 9 5. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the applicant's Rezone Petition request to rezone the subject area from Employment District zoning to Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential zoning. • • ATTACHMENT C . REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO STRUCTURE PLAN Western VII Investment, L.L.C. (the "Applicant") is the owner of approximately 155.57 roe northwest of the Interstate Highway 25 "I-25" interchange at acres of undevelopedproperty rty g Y ( ) Prospect Road (the "Property"), which Property is a portion of the tract known as Interstate Land. With the adoption of the City Structure Plan in February, 1997,the City designated the Applicant's Property as a "Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential District" with a narrow edge of "Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridor" on the south and east, generally following the Boxelder Creek. City Staff had envisioned the area as primarily residential and intended to also zone the Property for residential development. The Applicant did not then have any special plan for development and being uncertain of the appropriateness of the site for such a significant amount of residential zoning, desired to retain some of the flexibility and uses of the current Highway Business (H-B) zoning, "downsizing" from H-B to E. Therefore, the Property was identified as an "issue" area and zoned Transition(T). Following months of discussion, and in conjunction with a rezoning of the Property into the Employment(E) and L-M-N zoning districts in November, 1997, the City Structure Plan was amended to change the land use designation for a majority of the Property from "Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential District" to "Employment District". Since the 1997 Structure Plan changes, the Applicant has kept a watchful eye as development activity in the east and northeast has intensified and certain trends have emerged, many of which are consistent with City Staffs original vision for the area. The Applicant believes that the current designation of such an extensive "Employment District" no longer 1 evolving and. because the I-25/Pros ect Road interchange area reflects how the City is actually g p w exists unique opportunity to redefine also believes that there no xrsts a remains largely undeveloped, q pp Y g Y the land use designations to set the stage for future development in a manner consistent with the vision, goals and objectives of City Plan. The Applicant proposes that the following factors should be considered in your review of this request for amendments to the Structure Plan: Housing Needs Additional housing opportunities ortunities in the northeast will complement existing employment and commercial centers along Mulberry Street and East Prospect Road and the developing commercial, industrial and service-related centers along the 1-25 corridor and in the Mountain Vista Planning Area, helping to balance the ratio of housing to jobs. The completion of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the identification of a future high school site just east of I-25 on Prospect Road is evidence of projected growth in the northeast that will, in turn, create more demand for housing. During the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan discussions, staff emphasized the imbalance of residential to non-residential uses in the northeast quadrant of the City and the need for significantly more residentially-zoned ground, especially in areas close to employment and commercial opportunities. This Property is one of only a few larger parcels in the northeast which meet these goals. • Complicating this need for residential development is the existence of numerous natural resource areas (Boxelder Creek, Cooper Slough, Lake Canal, Latimer and Weld Canal, Cache la Poudre River and numerous drainage and irrigation ditches, reservoirs, ponds and wetlands), the protection of which limits the amount of land available for building homes. The placement of new residential neighborhoods in the northeast will improve the housing-to-jobs balance, decrease potential commuting time to employment and commercial centers, and provide residents opportunities to utilize alternative modes of travel. Particular attention must be given, however, to providing an appropriate buffer for the existing large-lot County subdivisions immediately west of the Applicant's Property, and to providing a progressive transition from the urban estate neighborhoods,to low density, employment and finally commercial uses. City Entrance Opportunities The fact that the I-25/Prospect Road interchange is still largely undeveloped gives the City and the Applicant a unique opportunity to develop the immediate area with a true City Plan character. It is possible to create a new urban "place", a mixed-use, walkable "town" setting, with the natural resources serving as a backdrop and further invitation into the heart of the City. Need for Neighborhood Services The placement of a true mixed-use neighborhood near the I-25/Prospect Road interchange will create a need for neighborhood-related services that can be easily accommodated by the existing Commercial District which is immediately adjacent. Transit Opportunities The location of a new high school and the supporting neighborhoods and commercial development highlights the need to reexamine the Prospect Road corridor as a potential major transit corridor. At present there is a lack of planned transit serving major employment and commercial areas in the East Prospect corridor,particularly the "Riverway" and "Highway Corridor" district defined in the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. In an effort to implement what the Applicant believes to be the desired direction of future growth and to define the structure and basis for specific rezoning to govern development of the Property, the Applicant requests one primary amendment(#1) and four ancillary amendments (#2-5) to the City Structure Plan, as follows: 1. Change the land use designation for approximately one-half of the "Employment District" to a "Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential Neighborhood" designation. Please see the attached map entitled "Structure Plan Amendment" for the approximate boundaries of these proposed neighborhood designations. The Applicant is retaining approximately 60.7 acres of"Employment District" adjacent to the proposed residential neighborhood to provide employment opportunities for its residents and an appropriate transition to the Commercial District. . Designation of a"Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential Neighborhood" at this location is consistent with the following Community Goals for Land Use, Transportation, Community Appearance and Design and Housing (See City Plan, Community Vision and Goals 2015,pages 15-16, 23-25, 32 and 43): . . . Growth will be distributed throughout the city, to both new and existing urban areas. . . Our neighborhoods will have a mix of land uses and different housing types . . . Existing residential neighborhoods will be protected against development that is incompatible . . . A well-developed system of connections —walkways, bikeways, and streets —throughout the community will link land uses and travel within and beyond Fort Collins . . . Fort Collins will promote mixed-use development so there is less need for people to travel, and so distances traveled are shorter . . . Our City will manage its development in a manner that minimizes automobile dependence by its population and work force . . . Residential neighborhoods will develop as interconnected parts of the broader community, extensively linked to a generous range of settings and activities . . . our neighborhoods will include a variety of housing types to support a diverse population and allow people of different ages, cultures, races and incomes to live in each neighborhood. • Designation of a"Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential Neighborhood" at this location is also consistent with the City Structure Plan choices to increase residential densities and locate housing next to commercial areas and/or along existing or future transit routes (See City Plan, Structure Plan, page 73)and the following City Plan Principles and Policies: LU-1.1 AN-2.1 LU-2.1 LMN-1.1 T-4.1 LMN-1.2 T-5.1 LMN-1. ECON-1.4 LMN-2.1 HSG-1.1 ED-1.4 HSG-1.4 TC-4.4 ENV-1.21 NOL-1.2 GM-7.1 AN-1.1 2. Change a small area on the western edge of the Property,desi designated as "Low- Density Mixed-Use Residential Neighborhood" to an "Urban Estate Neighborhood" designation. Please see the attached map entitled "Structure Plan Amendment" for a comparison of the existing and proposed designations; Changing this area will extend the existing Urban Estate designation further north and will provide additional buffer between the Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential Neighborhood and Industrial Districts to the north and will correspond with the following Community Goals for Land Use (see City Plan, Community Vision and Goals 2015,page 16): . . .Our neighborhoods will have a mix of land uses and different housing types. . . Existing residential neighborhoods will be protected against development that is incompatible. This amendment is also consistent with the following City Plan Principles and Policies: AN-3.3 EXN-1.1 LMN-1.3 RD-3.1 3. Extend the Transit Corridor on East Prospect Road further west to County Road 5, then north to State Highway 14 (Mulberry Street), and then back west on State Highway 14 (Mulberry Street)to the Interstate Highway 25 ("I-25") interchange. This extension of the transit corridor is consistent with the following Community Goals for Transportation(see City Plan, Community Vision and Goals 2015, pages 25-26 and 28): . . .Land Use decisions regarding the form and character of the city will ensure that our transportation will support many modes of travel. Also, transportation decisions will be consistent with, and support, our land use goals. . . (S)ystem of transportation corridors providing connectivity within the community . . .Our City will manage its development-in a manner that minimizes automobile dependence by its populace and work force. . .Our Master Transportation Plan will provide for connections to county, state and national transportation corridors . . .Our community will have a comprehensive public transit system . . .Key corridors will be identified for intensive transit development. The extension is also consistent with the Transportation Choices of the Structure Plan: "Activity centers" in our neighborhoods and districts - - including our places of work and shopping- - will be designed to support a variety of modes of transportation. . . Our transportation corridors will link our destinations and activities (see City Plan, Structure Plan, page 75). This amendment is also consistent with the following City Plan Principles and Policies: T-1.1 ED-2.1 T-1.5 ED-2.4 T-2.1 TC-1.1 T-2.3 TC-1.3 LMN-2.8 TC-4.2 TC-4.4 4. The last item is technically not a Structure Plan Amendment but a requested acknowledgment that the Commercial Corridor Districts located at I-25 interchanges will include the types of uses allowed in a Neighborhood Commercial Center and a Community Commercial District. • nE+rt-UG J;. y tU t'n rm nu. ATTACHMENT D • F.sho B to INTERSTATE LA\D REZONING PETITION Justification for Rezoning Petition Western VTT Investment,L.L.C. (the"Applicant")is the owmcr of approximately 155.57 acres of undeveloped property northwest of the Interstate Highway 25 ("I.25") interchange at Prospect Road (the "Property"),which Property is a portion of the tract known as Interstate Land. All of*the Property that is subject to this rezoning petition is located north of Prospect Road, north and west of the 1-25 Frontage Road,cast of two County developments(Boxelder Estates and Sunrise Acres) and south of Crossroads East Business Center, also a County development. After the annexation of Interstate Land in 1989 and until the adoption of City Plan in March, 1997,the Property was located in two zoning districts: approximately 34:6 acres on the western edge adjacent to the large-lot County developments of Boxelder Estates and Sunrise Acres was zoned R-P, Punned Residential;the balance of the Property,approximately 157.8 acres, was placed in the II-B, Highway Business zoning district. With the adoption of City Plan,the western edge of the Property was rezoned Urban Lstate (U-L) to maintain the buffer for the County developments, and the parcels on both sides of the 1-25 Frontage Road were placed in the Commercial (C) zoning district. Because there.+gas uncertainty as to the appropriate zoning for the balance of the Property, approximately 152 acres between the U47,and C zones, this portion was identified as an "issue" area and zoned Transition Cl). Although the City's Advance Planning Department believed the appropriate use for the Transition property to be residential,most of the Property(104.13 acres)was ultimately zoned Gmploymcnt(L') while 15.7 acres adjacent to the U-L zone was zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood(L-M-N) in November, 1997. Although a range orresidential uses are allowed in the L zone,this zoning.classification also permits the incorporation of commercial and business uses, as were previously allowed in the fI-B zone. Wilh the increase in development activity in the City's east and northeast quadrants,the adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the recent focus on planning for the 1-25 corridor and interchanges,the Applicant has deternrined that a portion of the L' zone(identified as Pared 1 appropriately could be more ap ro riarely utilized for transition and development if it was rezoned r to s The Applicant also proposes to rezone four small irregular parcels(identified as Parcels 2. .3,4 and 5) within the Property to correct lenal description discrepancies and irregularities of kthe previous rezonings. s s Parcel 2 is part of a small 5.2 acre area located between Boxelder Creek and the Proninge : Road. Parcel 2 appears to be in the Transition(T)zone,while the remainder of the area is x zoucd Commercial (C). It is assumed that the intent was not to assign two different t • s e i unit-uL-w inu u4- lu ill e nn NV. zoning designations to this arcs and that this has resulted from errors in the legal descriptions on a prior rezoning. It is proposed that Parcel be rezoned to Commercial (C),so it can be developed with the remainder of this area Parcel 3 appears to be in the Commercial(C)zoning district,obviously resulting;frotn errors on the prior rezonings. This small parcel of only .65 acres is sandwiched between the Frontage Road and Parcel 5, which was unintentionally left in the Transition(f) zone. It is requested that Parcel 3 be rezoned to the same zoning designation as Parcel 5, since Parcel 3's small size would not be able to accommodate any Commercial use. Parcel 44 is in the Commercial(C)zone. The small size of Parcel 4 (5.2 acres), coupled with its extensive natural features(creek,ditch, trees)could limit access and possible development options as a commercial use. It is proposed,therefore, that Iles parcel be added to the existing Employment(L)district. Because up to 25%of property zoned E can be utilized for multi-family residential,designation of this parcel as Employment (F,) would allow sufficient acreage for a reasonable amount of this type of residential within the Employment(E)area, which in turn provides a more appropriate transition from Employment(E)to the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood(L-M-N)directly to the west Parcel 5 appears to be in the Transition M zoning district. Mistakes in the legal descriptions or the prior rezoning resulted in this parcel being, left in the Transition(T) zone unintentionally. While the parcel could be rezoned to either Commercial(C)or Employment(L•),the Applicant believes that it would be more appropriate to add this acreage to the adjacent Employment(r)area for integration into its development,since a parcel of this size zoned Conmicreial (C),particularly given its long narrow shape, would be virtually unusable in this location. The primary justification for the retuning of Parcels 2,3, 4 and 5 is to correct mistakes and the irregularities which resulted from the prior zonings and were clearly not intended. A review of the "Existing& Proposed Zoning Boundaries"map submitted with this Petition illustrates both the necessity for these rr✓.onings as well as the appropriateness of the proposed mne for each parcel The justification for the rezoning of Parcel 1 is explained in great detail in the request for amendments to the Structure Plan that accompanies this Rezoning Petition. The rczoning of Parcel i to I:M-N will make the zoning of the Property consistent with its Structure Plan land use desiLttation. In addition,the rezoning of all five parcels complies with the following standards for quasi-judicial rezonin_s set forth in the Land use Code at Section 2.9.4(I-1)(2)and (3): The rezoning is consistent with the C'ity's Comprehensive Plan. The underlying themes and purposes of the City's Community Vision and Goals, SrruGnre Picot and Principles and Policies,reflect the desire of the community to have compact land use pauems consisting of a series of functional districts and activity centers to provide for the employment, service, civic and social needs of its citizens. It is envisioned that these districts .•. Tim ❑V. l`irx-tic-tits t nu u4: 11 Yrl I will be accessible by all modes of travel, while protecting the desirable attributes of our community. Furthermore, the correction of the mistakes and iaegularitics as to the small pockets ofproperty (Parcels 2,3,4 and 5) and the consolidation of these parcels into existing zoning districts which have been found appropria1—will more effectively accomplish the land use goals for the overall area, giving consideration tathe existing development,road alignments and natural features. 11he rezoning of all of the parcels to allow for a more balanced neighborhood and mix of uses will advance the Comprehensive Plan's overall vision and,more specifically, will be consistent with the following Principles and Policies: AN-2.1 LU-2.1 T-4.1 T-5.1 LMN-1.3 ECON-1.4 LMN-2.1 HSCr-1.1 FD-1.4 HSG-1.4 TC-4.4 ENV-1 21 NOL-1 2 Gh1-7.1 AN-1.1 The rezoning will he compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the Property and is the appropriate zoning district for the Property. The challenge in this area is to incorporate land uses which are compatible both with intensive 1-25 commercial uses as well as large-lot County uses. The proposed rezoning of Parcel I does this well by keeping the U-E buffer and gradually transitioning to the more intense uses of T.-Ni-N, F. and C. Rezoning of the four remaining parcels as proposed will eliminate the small pockets of incorrectly and inappropriately zoned property,allowing the entire tract to develop under one comprehensive plan. The rezoning will not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment or the functioning of the natural environment. In fact,the rezoning,because it a l]provide better transition uses to the many significant natural areas within and adjacent to the Property,is expected to have less of an impact on the natural environment. Also, due to the City's buffer and mitigation rrquirements in this area, which apply to development in all zones,there should be no significant adverse impacts. The rezoning will result in a logical and orderly development pattern. 7'hc rezoning of Parcel I from E to L-NI-N will provide a logical and very orderly land use transition between the County large-lot developments and U-L zone to the F.zone. The rezoning ol'the four remaining parcels as proposed corrects prior mistakes and irregularities, possibly eliminating some of the planning and design challenges that could result from the existing zoning configunuion. I ATTACHMENT E w 161� F 6 ROL ROL �6i RO MMN CC LMN r NC LMN a G E. berry Rd. cc GG RV LMN f ROL* u UE :9 IE CG GC E UE E. Pros t Rd. GG GC � ROL ROLAt � e � ' E Iw wlwj ` 14►son 6 m EXISTING STfRUCTURE PLAN I ATTACHMENT F � b LU S Q1 E � 9 � � N 'v w 13 o Q Z CO i o IL � 0 z w � S rn .� Q Z 7 Z ti Gvwi-I Rio Z Olen a,e,a lul • U U U w ly o fL z 'ui91 W z IL €w U iim ..............................n.....w.......q..o..................n....n (1/ i SUMMARY OF SITE ZONING ATTACH ENT G ZCNF EXISTING PROPOSsD --� _ . E`"P'_OTF:ENT 104.It AC. 605: AC. -43bt AC. Lt^IJ - LCIU-DENSf.T HIXED•USE 15.11 '. 68.11 AC. .53IDt AC. C • C.^ , ERCIGL Wt Ac. 52=?G. •' 1 y ' - TRANSITION 65t AC, O AC. -b5t AC. i. � wP+rxxra�er UE UR9AN ESTA= 313t AQ-NO CNANGe NO CHANGE— IL 2 y e LY-�<r-a, `••�w i� • /�� '\ I n to / i _ _• --iaZi`" '.wNi y ey.oa x •.\ a 1 a 1 55721Apa• >; 4-1 >3 l e k° \\�� .emu I n I n I l �:, I t C \\r.+\\\ Cam• h... . L----J679.71 ' ! �p:a t.•x \ \ �aS Ufa ��"xn m\\ac �....awKe— _J I . Qrv— °• 1 a°.+Iea�°9 \.` 'OOt013 mw R—Ai ' n �Q MR, \ 0\ \•Yw\ii"F ♦ R- MA Cnt SEC. *Hatched areas illustrate eadsting inning districts. Interstate Land Existing & Proposed Qi�lwll Tgcv Zoning Boundaries " MR-eRowa —_ GROUP w�ww.��uc >+.eee�+•e••�.•�s�.u..r.m.r�•N tee...a..a.ww.ta.rp+nmv.•e•.e ..�..... G�� �a ZONING MAP OF INTERSTATE LAND REZONING A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH. RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 8TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, `-��==%�=-'�-•»'�--`"�"'"' COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. 1p1.1.11. .-.-.-._------------------ .-.-.-.-.---------.-.-.-- r u.. INTERSTATE - 26 _ - -- "•^�'•'•'•••^•",�-••-•• _.•�• 0_0 P -- Ne.N' Pnte *eaTAT! r .-__ eT /. me..s•..mm AID T 0. I�FIM W �] / Iw ��Sr '•r�p.:�.,•Yi,r..r ' 9 aW paQa � 0.'►�./ j r.rru •� Py/ ,PACT x x wr000' lmam« y.�_ . IS ` " $EXISTING ZONE UE '!____y°�•,e a,.?T?'Z.�"-�--� '� j ' ------- ----------- Y ----�-"---"------ nvsd -- -'•�'v 1O1,m'«„.: - ..Z w_;:"w.'�';,."...a;e%:T.- n I o � ql ul ul w;nl,el Nlm ___. - • � _ eMIPPY lIP1YE � � pj I i i s>rn�rr"'uia,�m,n by „ n - 3 ' 39 " 0 R, °6,9a 1 1 n'Y°'«' _MISTING ZONE, UEEEas ' E -------------- _____-___ pp1[ B [aTA[g _Z_;AbTiP!l10 s I i_C_'____i 1__ _� .ter r ,• _ € ' lk tt� 1 A PFDLAl W*L,;Ta ui a e .AIBLAT T Love a a e —` � Q T�BRON7N ddd aA TIN LOTS S.e!3OF waLO a ar ft_ !3 aeNo euxevl0l eneT P9ar9 ara,w P:1�v e'er ATTACHMENT I Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 r' • Page 1 ) I 1 e, a u ..r•,! U !J Project: Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, # 34-88D Project Description: Request to change the zoning designation of five (5) parcels totaling 65.32 acres within an approximately 155.57 acre site located at the northwest corner of Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The changes would also include an amendment to the Structure Plan Map. Recommendation: Denial of the Structure Plan Amendment to extend a major transit corridor along Prospect Road. Approval of a Structure Plan Amendment to extend a feeder transit corridor along Prospect Road. Approval of the Structure plan Amendment request to change the Plan's land use designations. Approval of the rezone requests. • Hearing Testimony, n Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ron Fuchs, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He reported that the current Structure Plan designation is predominately commercial, employment, low density mixed use neighborhood and urban estate. The applicant is proposing three Structure Plan amendments. One Structure Plan amendment would expand the UE zone into currently LMN zoning. He stated that his staff report did not reference it, but the narrative did refer to it. The applicant is also proposing decreasing the employment area and re-designating it low density residential. The third Structure Plan amendment is extending a major transit corridor along Prospect Road north and south along County Road 5 and then connecting up to Mulberry (Highway 14). Planner Fuchs stated that the applicant was proposing two rezones. One is increasing the size of the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Zoning District to the east and incorporating some of the employment areas. Also, increasing the E, Employment District with lands from the presently zoned commercial area. The requests includes cleaning up some legal descriptions. Planner Fuchs stated that Staff recommended approval of the Structure Plan amendments and the rezone requests, except for the applicants proposal for a major transit corridor. Staff recommends that it be referred to as a "feeder line". . Member Craig asked why staff was approving this. She stated that when this came before the board in 1997, staff approved employment, and now she was wondering why Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 2 staff was approving going back to LMN. She asked why staff felt this was better than employment. Planner Fuchs responded that staff was recommending approval because there has been a number of changes that have been occurring since the subject property was zoned. There was a potential use of the surrounding area and farther to the east, there is a proposed school. Staff feels that there should be more residential zoned properties. Staff also felt as though the applicant has justified the proposed changes. Member Craig asked if just because the School District bought some land and are speculating putting a school there was justification enough to change the zoning designation on the Structure Plan Map. Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard responded that the purchase of the high school property is not the sole reason. The applicant in his request for the Structure Plan amendment also cited a number of City Plan policies and staff felt they were valid. He stated that it was staffs feeling that while there is a changed situation, there are policies in City Plan that can support any number of plan designations, including the expansion of single family residential. Member Craig asked if staff was saying that there are City Plan policies that can justify employment and then there are City Plan policies that can justify LMN, but staff felt strong enough about the school property that they felt the LMN was more appropriate. Director Blanchard replied that it was a question— he did not know whether it was feeling strongly enough about the purchase of the property, but that was one element that indicated that there were some changes in the area that were anticipated that we need to plan for. That warranted using the plan policies that supported single family to expand that area to a certain degree. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed changes. He gave a history of the zoning on this property and the changes that were made during City Plan, and how the zoning that is in place today was arrived at. Mr. Ward stated that the policies support a mix of zoning in this area. City policies do not specify "x" number of acres of employment versus low density mixed use residential, which is not all residential. Mr. Ward noted that in looking back at the Planning and Zoning Board minutes for this rezoning in 1997, the board comments stating the opinion that the zoning would be better if the LMN area was larger. He stated that the reason they have come forward at this time, was because last fall the owner was approached by a potential developer of . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 3 the site. He agreed with the conclusion that a larger residential district was needed to make a real neighborhood consistent with the goals of City Plan for this area. Mr. Ward stated they did hold a neighborhood meeting on the proposed changes, and the potential developer of the property dropped out shortly before the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors were told that the likelihood of an imminent development proposal is not as high as they thought it was. Mr. Ward noted that there still is interest in this property. Mr. Ward stated that there were a large number of positive comments about the direction that they were headed with the change in zoning and creating the opportunity to have a large enough residential area to do a good mixed use neighborhood with density stepping down toward the neighborhood. Mr. Ward concluded by saying that based on their evaluation, the work they have done with staff, previous board comments, and the results of the neighborhood meeting; they feel that their request for both the Structure Plan Amendment, with the modification that staff has recommended of, "feeder transit" rather than "high frequency", and their zoning request are appropriate and are a positive change in this area. Member Craig asked Mr. Ward to explain what the current zoning on the property is by acreage, and what they are proposing by acreage. Mr. Ward responded that the Urban Estate Area is unchanged both in area and configuration, the existing E, Employment District is just over 104 acres, the existing LMN District is only 15.7 acres, the existing C, Commercial is 8.1 acres. The proposed C, Commercial, with the proposed boundary line changes is 5.2 acres. The proposed change would be 68 acres of LMN and 60.5 acres of E, Employment. PUBLIC INPUT Lloyd Warrington, 713 Verde Avenue spoke about his concerns with transportation and safety problems. He was concerned with the amount of traffic on Prospect Road and the 1-25 interchange. He was also concerned with additional traffic in Sunrise Acres when this property is developed. Mr. Warrington was also concerned with the canals and the safety of the children that would be living out there. He felt streets and roads should be looked at before development occurs. Phil Oaks, 3438 Boxelder Drive spoke about his concerns with drainage in the area. He spoke about the ground water being high in this area and was concerned with developing this area and where the water would flow. He asked the Planning and Zoning Board to consider working into the plan some kind of improved drainage plan into the Cooper Slough area. Mr. Oaks shared his neighbors concerns with the increased traffic on Prospect. Mr. Oaks stated that the Boxelder Estates homeowners Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 4 oppose any kind of connection or extension of Boxelder or any other drives from Boxelder subdivision to any development to the east. Walt Cummings, lives on Sherry Drive, spoke about his concerns with the ditches and flooding in the area. Mr. Cummings also commented about traffic safety in the area. Public Input Closed Vice Chair Gavaldon asked Director Blanchard to explain what criteria is to evaluate this project. Director Blanchard reviewed the Land Use Code criteria for the board. He reminded the board that the Structure Plan amendments must be approved prior to voting on the rezoning request. Vice Chair Gavaldon offered the applicant a rebuttal to the citizen comments. Mr. Ward stated that they had their traffic engineer look at the developable area within this property and look at the difference between expected development under the existing zoning pattern, and the expected development under the proposed zoning pattern. The average daily trips were expected to be about 30% less with the proposed zoning pattern than with the existing zoning pattern. They were lowering the intensity of development. Mr. Ward added that these are the issues that would be looked at at the time of the project development plan. Mr. Ward stated that they are aware of the issues raised by the neighbors and would address them at the time of a development proposal. Member Carpenter was concerned about the employment area and that there had been problems finding large enough sites within the city to designate as employment areas when the Structure Plan was created to set aside real employment districts for the larger employers. This property to her, was one of them. It concerned her to carve it up and bring it down to a smaller size. Member Craig asked Mr. Ward what they were using as their justification for the change of conditions within the neighborhood. The reasons why this property should not be zoned employment and should be zoned more LMN. Mr. Ward replied there were three areas they looked at for a change in condition. One, largely through the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan, looking at balancing jobs and housing. If you look at the 1-25 Corridor area, there are massive areas of commercial, industrial, and employment ground. Precious few opportunities for residential neighborhoods. What that implies is that all the people who are working • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 5 and shopping areas will have to drive across town to get there because we are not providing any opportunities for people to live closer to these jobs in these commercial areas. The change in condition is an awareness of trying to come closer to balancing jobs and housing. • The second, as was commented on earlier, was the likelihood of having a high school site. • The third is some further definition of the natural areas and open space requirements and floodplains, the Cooper Slough, the area between the ditches and Boxelder Creek and the likely need to buffer those areas. They see this as a change in condition because it is something that was not known three years ago. It is still being defined, but it is clear that there will be some open space buffers out there that will impact the viability of that existing LMN area. Member Carpenter asked Mr. Ward if part of the existing LMN would be buffering, the 15.727 acres. • Mr. Ward replied that the confusion is that in the Land Use Code, it states that there should be a 300 foot buffer from the Cooper Slough natural area. This site is impacted by the Cooper Slough floodplain, but their biologist, that has reviewed the area, states that there is no viable habitat there. So the Land Use Code says there should be a 300 foot buffer, obviously the buffer is there to protect the habitat, but the experts are going out and saying that there is no habitat to protect. Mr. Ward stated they did not know what they have. The buffer area would take a large bite out of the LMN area, less than half the area. Member Craig asked about connectivity, and asked whether connectivity can be made with this LMN area, and whether the 5 acres purchased by the Cooper Slough Association to buffer themselves would allow the city to cross to make connectivity. Director Blanchard replied that at the neighborhood meeting, they had indicated that we would have to look at the document, that was the result of the purchase of the 5 acres. We are still in the research phase and we are not sure if we can proceed with connectivity there or not. There was the presumption, given the information and the homeowners purchase of that property, that connectivity could not be made. We have learned, through discussions with the City Attorney's Office, that it is illegal to purchase a small piece of property for the exclusive reason to avoid a road going through and connectivity happening. In this case if is a more substantial piece of property that has been purchased and we are still in the process of looking at the document and researching the documentation. �I • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 6 Director Blanchard stated that if there is a legal right to connect, that there will be either be a development plan that provides for connectivity or there will be a modification that comes to the Board, which is required in the Code. Member Craig asked if connectivity is required whether this property is LMN or Employment. Director Blanchard replied that the Code would require connectivity even if it was employment. Connectivity is not just specific to residential development. Member Craig moved to recommend the request for the Structure Plan amendment; 1. That the board recommend approval of the applicant's request for the amendment to the Structure Plan from Employment District to Low Density Mixed Use Residential with the following condition: A. That the irregular zoning district boundaries shall not be used as justification for any future development proposal. 2. Denial of the applicant's request for reclassification and extension of a major transit corridor for East Prospect Road. 3. That the board recommend denial of the "Feeder Transit Corridor" for East Prospect Road. Member Craig stated that her reason to recommend denial of the "Feeder Transit Corridor" is that we already have a transit plan in place and it does not have this "Feeder Corridor" in it. She thought that this would come up again in 2002, and she feels like just adding a "Feeder Transit" without going through the Transportation Board and the process that it would should go through, she was not comfortable doing it as a recommendation. Vice Chair Gavaldon seconded the motion. Planner Fuchs asked if the motion also included what he noted in his presentation, that the Structure Plan also included a change from the LMN to UE as noted in the applicant's narrative Number 2. Member Craig added that to the motion. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 7 Vice Chair Gavaldon would support the motion including the denial of Number 3. He felt there was a process for the Master Street Plan and how it is to function. He felt this may put a wrench into the system. He could not support any recommendation on any transit corridor without a it going through a process. Member Carpenter stated she would also support the motion. She was still somewhat uncomfortable losing the big piece of employment. She would trust at this point that staff has looked at it and that we have enough pieces of employment area left. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Craig moved to recommend approval to City Council staffs recommendation of the applicant's rezoning petition, to request to rezone the subject area from commercial district zoning to employment district zoning; and also the request to rezone the subject area from employment district zoning to low density mixed use residential zoning with the condition: A. That the irregular zoning district boundaries shall not be used as justification for an future de velopment ment proposal. Y P P P Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.