HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/15/2002 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2002, AMENDIN �M 7 77
�� �R�� -
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 27
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 15, 2002
FROM: Bob Barkeen
SUBJECT :
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2002, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Taft
Hill/Hull Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Ordinance No. 148, 2002. which was adopted 4-3 on October 1, 2002, rezones the northeast
corner and intersection of Taft Hill Road and Hull Street, south of Drake Road from the
LMN—Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone to the MMN—Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zone. On October 1, 2002, Council also adopted Resolution 2002-096 by a vote
of 5-2, amending the City's Structure Plan Map to reflect the rezoning change.
ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2002
. 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 TAFT HILL/HULL REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code 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; and
WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning
against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code.
• NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code, and the
same hereby is, amended by changing the zoning classification from "LMN",Low Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood Zone District, to "MMN", Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone
District, for the following described property in the City known as the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning:
All of Lot 2, all of Lot 3 and Lot 4 (excluding that portion of Lot 4
that was taken for the widening of Taft Hill Road), according to the
Plat thereof as filed under File Number 244742 on November 8, 1922
in Book 4, Page 55, in the public records of Larimer County,
Colorado
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land
Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above-described
property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. 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 1st day of
October, A.D:2002, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day o, ctober, A.D. 2002.
'Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of October, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-B
DATE: October 1, 2002
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM
• Bob Bazkeen
SUBJECT :
Items Relating to Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning..
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Bo reco ends ion of th Resolution and of the Ordinance
by a vote of 4 to Z. Staff reco ds t y cil de a requested Structure Plan Map
amendment and rezoning request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2002-096 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Hearing and First ReCngo inan . 1 , Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collia ing t gClas fication for that Certain Property
Known as the Taft Hiz o
This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan and rezone three parcels of land at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Hull Street, south of Drake Road. The
existing designation is LMN—Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, the proposed designation
is MMN—Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The three parcels total 15.3 acres. The
property is accessed from Hull Street, and each lot has a single-family residence with several
outbuildings. Spring Creek traverses the northern portion of the site. The sites are designated as
Low Density Mixed Use Residential and Stream Corridor on the City of Fort Collins Structure
Plan. 100*1 00-4%6 Dy
APPLICANT: Steve ter
225 East onroe, Sut e 4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS: Wilber and Barbara Aanes
1926 Hull Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Edward J. Jaerger Revocable Trust
901 Alexa Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
c o er 1,
DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
BACKGROUND:
The Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 19,
2002. The Planning and Zoning Board found the existing Structure Plan designation for this
property is in need of change; and the proposed changes would promote the public welfare and
be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan to the designation of the
property. Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the amendment and rezoning to
the City Council by a vote of 4— 2 (members Craig and Colton dissenting, Carpenter absent).
Staff's position differs from that expressed by the majority of the Planning and Zoning Board
members. Staff contends that 4 n e e nstr ' n of need to change the City
Structure Plan. In addition, ty Plan olicie e rd' t N designation, on the whole,
would not be adequately met the re St. e t e Struc re Plan was originally developed,
the property was not designate locat thin 1/4 mile of a supermarket-
anchored Neighborhood Commercial Center, which lacks the typical surrounding MMN
designation. This was mainly because of disconnections and discontinuity resulting from
existing development patterns and the Spring Creek corridor. The same reasons still apply. Staff
recommended denial of the Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning to the Planning and
Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board decision was focused primarily on the economic
aspects of developing the property and the perceived location next to transit corridors. Staff
contends that economic factors associated with developing a particular piece of property should
not be a primary reason for ap i g a onin licYr
ditionally, transit serving the
site is not within an enhanc- trav rrid r er ed a bus route with limited
service.
The Property
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: MMN; Undeveloped; Single Family Residential
S: FA (County); Single Family Residential (estate)
E: RL; Single family residential
W: POL; Undeveloped
The property was annexed kfopyngbrook and Springbrook Two
Annexations.
Context of the Proposed Structure Plan Amendment
The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning decisions. An amendment is a
prerequisite to this rezoning request.
To recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board must find
that: (1) the existing Structure Plan is in need of change; and (2) the proposed changes would
promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of
City Plan. These are the applicable criteria,contained in Appendix C of City Plan.
DATE: October 1, 2002 3 ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-B
The Structure Plan currently shows Spring Creek as a Green Corridor. This Corridor separates
MMN designation on the north side from LMN designation on the subject property on the south
side. Current designations resulted from the 1997 City Plan adoption. The two different
designations across the Creek were based on existing development patterns and the presence of
the creek as a corridor to be protected and enhanced.
Evaluation of the Proposed Structure Plan Amendment
The decisive points in the analysis are:
a. As an MMN Dist rict, p u fi
transition and a link between
surrounding neighbor ods' an then g or dnercial district". Nor would it
"function together w sumo ing ensity borhoods and the commercial
core" in an integral w Tfies u entalies for accommodating higher
JI density housing in MMN areas.
1
b. It would not form a "unifying pattern of streets and blocks" due to disconnections in
existing development and Spring Creek. In fact, the subject property does not have two
points of access. Disconnections due to the creek and existing development will pose
constraints on the ability to gain multiple access and connectivity. This works against
the idea of upzoning to allow more housing units in an area essentially accessible as a
large cul-de-sac only.
�~
C. Applicants have cited ertain b efits i uYfrom rezoning to MMN as an
expansion of existing n t nort Spring Creek. The benefits
would come from increased ability to assemble both sides of the creek into a single
development property. The main tangible benefit cited is that a street bridge would be
more feasible to unify the larger MMN area.
However, staffs position is that a unified higher density development on the entirety of
this property is not necessarily a desirable objective in this particular situation. The creek
is deliberately shown as a Green Corridor defining different land use designations. In
this location, staff contends that the integrity of the corridor is more important than
increasing the feasibili tr r e e g need for it with an extension
of MMN zoning. A eet andIffridgelto uir or disturbance and change the
character of the corrid
d. Another problem created by the proposed arrangement is that it leaves the single parcel
of LMN zoned land to the east of the site between this parcel (to be zoned MMN) and the
adjacent RL zoning, developed as low density, single family residential. This parcel may
not be difficult to develop into a land use that provides a connection to both the adjacent
MMN and RL zoned land.
e. The sloping landform adds another constraint to an intensive, well-connected
neighborhood meeting the minimum density of 12 units per acre with a pattern of sweets
and blocks. The constraints of the site may make development difficult even under LMN
zoning, but MMN zoning would increase the likely conflicts.
DATE: cto er 1, 2002 4
ITEM NUMBER:
f. General principles and policies supporting infl. and density have been cited and
discussed. However, they do not mean that infill in this specific area should be under
MMN density, rather than LMN density. In other words, those policies can be met with
development at LMN density in this case.
g. Expanding the zoning to this property in order to prevent a "strip" of MMN development
on the north side of the creek has been advocated. However, in reality the north side
would develop the same whether or not the south side develops under MMN or LMN
zoning, because of the creek corridor.
In evaluating the requested S P en ® ff considered and discussed a
number of other points that c be in fa r a e an a the Structure Plan. These
are acknowledged below:
a. The property is "within a 1/4 mile of NC zone" (quote from City Plan), and arguably
"within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district" (quote from Land Use
Code).
b. There is no other property meeting these criteria available to accommodate MMN zoning
in association with the NC district in this area, and the 14 acres of MMN on the north
side of the creek along Drake is less than typically envisioned in a more ideal situation.
C. "Buildings, streets, pa ope ces, d ar [c configured to form an inviting
and convenient livin environ nt" u om C). In particular, walking and
bicycling are favored t in re trail w h weaves through here with 2
crossings.
d. As a general principle, higher density infl. is more efficient in the use of land, water,
infrastructure, energy, and all other resources. From a broad city-wide perspective, this
opportunity for multi-family housing could be captured despite the imperfect fit with
MMN policies, if a degree of flexibility in applying the policies can be provided.
e. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to
thread LMN, MMN, Op
isi ed, this is not unprecedented
where barriers exist.Cooan tual project would require the
developer to come as
f. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to
thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unprecedented
where barriers exist. Later design of an actual project will be required to come as close
as possible given the constraints.
Rezoning Request:
In order for the City Council to approve this proposal, Council would have to find that the
rezoning is: (1) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (2) warranted by changed
conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property."
DATE: October 1, 2002 1 5
ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-B
The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code, which defines
mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial Rezoning. In addition, the following subsection
2.9.4[H][3] lists additional factors that may be considered along with the mandatory
requirements for this type of quasi-judicial rezoning, as follows:
"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 a os drn -thelubject land, and is the
appropriate zo. distri t ' r the
b. whether and the to t oposedendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but
not limited to, water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife,
vegetation, wetlands and the natural environment; and
C. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
a logical and orderly development pattern."
Staff Analysis - Rezoning RCeCitys
Is the request consistent withoompr
Ply'
No, for the reasons explained above in the evaluation of the Structure Plan amendment.
Have conditions changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning?
The applicant contends that recent expansions of Drake and Taft Hill Roads, extension of the
Spring Creek Trail, and the expansion of anchor tenants in the nearby shopping center, are
changed conditions warranting revised land use designations for higher density housing.
Staff disagrees with the conCinafe
t se c dit s that create a need to change
the zoning. Street widens are n c co ' tons -- City Plan was based on
these things happening. In d these a 'mply inc mental build-out of the Structure
Plan. Nor do tenant change en reate a to change the zoning to higher
density on the subject property. To illustrate, those tenants could change their minds — would
the Structure Plan then need to be changed back again? Is the rezoning request compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is it the appropriate zoning district
for the land?
Not to an adequate degree, for the reasons explained above in the evaluation of the Structure
Plan amendment.
Will the rezoning have adverse effects on the natural environment?
Potentially yes. Part of the cited need for the change has been to create a larger unified MMN
area covering both sides of Spring Creek, to facilitate a larger development plan with a street and
DATE: October 1, 2002 6 ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-B
bridge over the creek. The increased intensity, partly justified by a more likely street and bridge,
could create more impacts on the creek corridor.
Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern?
No. The disconnections and discontinuity explained above in the evaluation of the Structure
Plan amendment outweigh any benefits of the higher density.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the Taft Hill o ' d t Structure Plan, File #31-02,
staff makes the following fin : gs of a and c c sio as arced above:
1. This request for a Struc an oes no uately demonstrate a need to
change the designation. Such a change would not be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
2. This rezoning request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, based on the
Structure Plan designation and the policies for MMN designation.
3. The proposed rezoning will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment —
specifically the Spring Creek corridor.
4. The proposed rezonin(Re
d r It in o d o rly pattern.
Planning and Zoning Boardmmen ton
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that City Council approve the Taft Hill/Hull
Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, File #31-02, Amendment to the Zoning Map from
LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood to MMN — Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood District.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City funcilf tha es rePlan Map amendment and
rezoning request. ,.w