HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/15/2002 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 217, 2001, AMENDIN AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 11
DATE: January 15, 2002
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM:
Clark Mapes
SUBJECT :
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 217,2001,Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City of Fort Collins
by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Front Range
Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Ordinance No.217,2001,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 18,2001.
amends the Zoning Map by changing the zoning classification for the Front Range Rezoning.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
DATE: December 18. 2001
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM:
Clark Mapes
SUBJECT :
Items Relating to the Amendment of the City's Structure Plan and the Front Range Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION: Vi
"a
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinances# Fust Reading n The Planning
and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to recommend adoption of the redo
x ,
,<.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2001-171 Amending the City s' ture Pori Map.
B. Hearing and First Reading f,Q dinance No. 21 ,.0 , Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins by a Classi t on for That Certain Property Known
as the Front Range =oning. a •.r '
t
The request is to amend tacres on the City Strue we Plan Map, and rezone approximately 39
acres.
The Structure Plan Map amellment is larger than the�Tezoning because it incorporates a 4-acre
''out parce1.7pghta1'th@NW o Trilby and College,which is not yet annexed. When annexed.
ff
its zoning would match the prop '` mg. k
The~)darning and Zoning Board did not consider the placing of the subject property into the
Neig , rhood Sign District, as e' lained later.
A� x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The curra;� Structure PaatFdesignation is Commercial Corridor District, current zoning is the
corn spon i,ng .; ;xnuereial Zone District.
Proposed Structure Plan designations include 21 acres of Neighborhood Commercial Center(NC)
at the College/Trilby corner,and 22 acres of Medium Density Mixed-Use Residential Neighborhood
(MMN) extending north to Skyway. 14 acres of the subject property would remain in the current
C — Commercial District along south College.
Proposed zoning is the corresponding NC-Neighborhood Commercial District together with MMN
-Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. The configurations of these designations
are shown on the attachments.
DATE: December 18, 2001 2 I ITEM NUMBER: .34 A-B
The essential issue behind this item is whether the City Structure Plan needs to be changed to
designate a supermarket-anchored Neighborhood Commercial Center, to serve the needs of
surrounding neighborhoods consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan).
Three main considerations underlie staff support for this request:
(1) the site is relatively well-suited and unsurpassed as a central location for NC
designation,with relatively direct access from surrounding neighbgrhoods in all four
directions;
(2) the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to an adeq a degree given
physical constraints of existing development in the vicinity; and
(3) changing to the NC designation does not result sri u 'pity cost due to
the reduction of the current C Commercial Corridor
Staff believes these considerations adequately justify ion that the tru ture,Plan needs
to be changed in response to this request, starting n' esignation. ".41
Adding the MMN designation then follows logi based on Plan policies that interrelate it
with NC. �k
m
The remaining questions are: (a) whether the C d' on should be eliminated entirely,
presumably to be replaced by I and (b) e configuration should be. This
proposal reflects thorough examination o stions oven Last 2--1/2 years with site visits.
meetings, and other discussions among staff applt tS. and applicants consultants.
OF
Staff is also recommending that if this request is a ed, the entire 53-acre subject property be
place into the Residential Neighborhood Sign District: A map amendment will be necessary if
approved.
1
BACKGROU 1-1y
INE
1. S 'ect Property
The z erty proposed for rezoning currently has one home and several outbuildings, with the
maj _ f the site in open fields. The additional parcel included in the Structure Plan Amendment
is a 4" of with a house, sheds and outdoor storage, currently in commercial use. It is expected
to be oon and be incorporated into the overall NC development if this request is approved.
Adjoining exi and land uses are as follows:
N: Latimer County C, FA; suburban subdivision: highway commercial strip
S: Larimer County C. FA; large lot subdivision: 2 lots converted to commercial
E: Larimer County C; highway commercial strip ('Kelmar Strip')
W: Larimer County FA; suburban subdivision; supported living facility
The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the Timan First Annexation on
June 7, 1988. It was first placed into the current C —Commercial designation
DATE: December 18, 2001 I 3 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
2. Proposed Structure Plan Amendment
Requirements for the Amendment. The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning
decisions. This Amendment request is a prerequisite to the rezoning request.
To recommend approval of this request, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have to 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 policaes of City Plan.
These are the applicable criteria, contained in Appendix C of City Plan
Neighborhood Commercial Center Designation. As noted previously, NC designation is the
essential issue. NC is a key strategic land use designation integral to the Comprehensive Plan. (It
is also known as the 'red dots on the City Structure Plan). It istoprovide essential. frequently
..;
neecled commercial services and community focal points for surroun orttiaodS.
3. Staff Evaluation - Structure Plan Amendment
Neighborhood Commercial Center. The Structureh`I„ c(erehl acknowledges the needl`arNC-
type commercial services in this general area its NC zt designation at the northwest
quadrant of College and County Road 32. one the southeirrently undeveloped).
Thar. designation resulted from the 1997 Ciry Plana gtrpn and rezoning, which honored the land
use designations in development projects m progress prtttrtnCity Plan. Prior to that time,the City
did not have the same erpectat as street; onnechvttyCreate integrated neighborhoods as
envisioned under City Plan , i �WW�
As a result of existing development patterns. thei4 ,}�o alternative locations suited to serve this
t
need off College Avenue. +
The subject location offers.(a),a location central to residential development: (b)the opportunity for
eood collector,street access(Sk way Drive)to and from neighborhoods east and west; and(c) good
non CoU Avenue access (T; and from neighborhoods east and west.
ThisARcation for an NC Center at the intersection of two arterials (College and Trilby, with Trilby
classed as a Minor Arterial west of College) has raised questions about Policy MMN-3.2 on page
158 df City Plan, which states thai"residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the
need t6,jose an arterial." Direct, integral neighborhood access, as opposed to sole orientation to
Arte rta),lhftic, pervades policy and standards on this key topic.
In this p X., the pattern of existing development hinders full realization of the focused,
com tected netghbt)nd pattern envisioned in City Plan.
However, in answer to the questions, this location would be able to capture traffic from numerous
maj or residential developments, with a large number of homes within as short a radius as possible
given the existing pattern. This location offers the possibility of non-arterial trips on Skyway Drive
lipfora significant amount of residential development.
Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. If the NC is supported. then some MMN designation
naturally follows. Ciry Plan clearly calls for MMN to be co-located in conjunction with NC. The
DATE: December 18, 2001 4 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
only question appears to be whether to change all of the remaining 37 acres of the subject property.
The proposal is for 22 acres of MMN, with 14 acres of the existing Commercial Corridor
designation to be retained adjacent to South College.
Remaining C designation. After considering the alternatives, staff believes that the remaining C
designation is acceptable on two main grounds. First, because the City has already found this site
to be acceptable as part of the South College Commercial Corridor on the current Structure Plan:
and second.because introducing the new NC and MMN designations doesn't nec arily render the
C incompatible. Policies and standards for C districts adequately address pe an scale and the
transition to adjacent neighborhood development.
Loss of a large parcel of C zoning. Besides the remaining Commercial designation under the
proposal, many of the uses permitted in C are also permitted in NC and MMN. 'JT there is any
particular loss of commercial opportunity under this proposal, 0sYhat ail Establishments
will not fit under the proposal.
Staff believes this is not a significant loss, because the sitelffigebeen found ill-suited to qof
mow:. , t
development, due to the sloping topography, irrigattorr wetlands. and condition access
w
roads. Partial evidence of this is the Hugh M ods PUD, approved in 1996. It was approved
despite pointed debate about its poor adaptabtClf} O:the sloping site. requiring massive cuts, fills,
and retaining walls including one 18 feet high. E y,the project was dropped,apparently due
in large part to millions of dollars in excavation and g,wall costs, along some other reasons
f
as well.
n
n
After considering the issue,staffis convinced is no persuas Opportunity cost. Because most
of the permitted uses overlap:$etween the existiitgarndproposed zoairig;the particular loss of Large
Retail Establishment oppQitunity can be considered,against the'particular opportunity of a
Supermarket added to themes permitted on the propeity.
Question of Conflict Between Existing NC Designation at County Road 32/S. College Avenue
and the Sublept Property 1i's has been a consideration since the original Structure Plan
designation' were assigned ase City Planprocess. The two sites were closely debated as
candidt3tes for the needed NC 'dt"s d iwthis area, and ongoing discussion has been nearly
cont.'sous since then. dr g4q``
AF
ffla
At this oint, staff has concluded that the subject request is supportable on its own merits regardless
of comparisons of the two sites. A case can be made in favor of both sites. Neither site is ideal.
Comp ''_ s have not yielded aclear or quantitative answer.
Concerns regarding the two 'red dots' a mile apart on south College Avenue.
One is that or'' ' Planning has generally encouraged non-College locations for grocery
stores for a number of reasons. (Granted it has not been a hard and fast rule given the exceptions.)
In answer, staff believes that no off-College locations are feasible in this particular case given
existing development.
Another concern is the question of undermining the viability of the existing NC designation with
this new one. In answer, staff believes that if: (1) the existing designation was clearly the better
location to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan Principles and Policies;and(2)it was clear that the better
DATE: December 18. 2001 5 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
location needed to be protected from competing sites to protect its viability, then this proposal
should indeed be opposed as the concern suggests.
However, at this point, staff believes this location is at least as well suited for the NC designation
as the existing site; and the applicants claim that market evaluation indicates that both sites may be
viable within the foreseeable future.
4. Rezoning Request
The applicant initially filed a rezoning petition with the City on January- 14. 2000. The current
request is to rezone a 39-acre portion of a larger, 53-acre parcel, from C —Commercial to 17 acres
of NC — Neighborhood Commercial and 22 acres of MMN — Medium Den§#ty Mixed-Use
Neighborhood, leaving about 14 acres in C - Commercial.
r
In order to recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the"Planiting and Zo"49oard would
have to find that the rezoning is: n
s
(a) consistent with the City's Comprehensh�e Plan,and/or
(b) warranted by changed condittonsithm the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property
The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][21 uflhe Land Use Code outlines mandatory
requirements for quasi-judicial {tmgs -addition the 609wing subsection 2.9.4[H][3] lists
additional factors that may be onsidered alOn��Y th the mandatory requirements for this type of
quasi-judicial rezoning as follows:
'In determining whether fi .recommend approval ofatiy such proposed amendment, the Planning
and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors:
(1) whether and thCextent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and pSed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone #rtef for the land;
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% and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
kigtc._ 4ind orderly development pattern."
Purpose Statements of the Zone Districts. For convenient reference. the purpose statements of
the three zone districts in question are listed below.
• Purpose of the NC —Neighborhood Commercial District:
The purpose of the NC District (Section 4.19 of the Land Use Code) is to be "a mixed-use
commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and transit stop. The main
DATE: December 18, 2001 6 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
purpose of this District is to meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services,with
an emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically including a Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. In addition to retail and service uses, the District may include
neighborhood-oriented uses such as schools. employment, day care,parks. small civic facilities. as
well as residential uses.
This District is intended to function together with a surrounding Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood, which in turn serves as a transition and a link to larger surrounding low-density
neighborhoods. The intent is for the component zone districts to form an intealown-like pattern
of development with this District as a center and focal point; and not merely a series of individual
development projects in separate zone districts."
• Purpose of the MMN—Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Dis ict.
The purpose of the MMN District (Section 4.5 of the Ladd Use setting for
concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial distn ndarily,
a neighborhood may also contain other moderate-inten elementary and supports uses
Ow
that serve the neighborhood. These neighborhoa� O1rm transition and a link,between
surrounding neighborhoods and the commerciai_c9re' with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks.
Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths openNZO
park¢ will be configured to create an
inviting and convenient living environment
• Purpose of the C—Commercial District: ; r'
Sti�Ml� L
The purpose of the C Distr ��(Secho'n� 'ixf the La�U; Bode) is to be "a setting for
�»ma - .a
development, redevelopmYand infsll of a wt4dekrinye of community and regional retail uses.
offices and personal and business services. Seconary, it can accommodate a wide range of other
uses including creative foiriYs of housing. r
,
E
While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other
auto onentecj u it is the Ctty°s tntent that the Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient
personal iffibilsty ininany fo lannsng and;design that accommodates pedestrians...
5. Staff Evaluation - Rezoning Request
Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan?
Yes sfthe!Structure Plan Amendment is supported, then the zoning logically follows.
v rvtlyu :
kP � i
Have con iYtr ehuxl gd in the neighborhood to warrant the re=oning?
��ts ri r
This is not a factor in staff s evaluation.
Is the re::oningrequest compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and
is it the appropriate=oning district for the land?
Yes. as covered by evaluation of the Structure Plan Amendment.
Will the re=oning have adverse effects on the natural environment?
DATE: December 18, 2001 I 7 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
No. Under either existing or proposed zoning. the same standards for protecting the natural
environment will apply. The "loss" of a large-format retail opportunity as explained above may be
seen as a positive effect.
Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern?
Yes. As explained under the Structure Plan amendment. the rezoning will result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
6. Explanation—Neighborhood Sign District Recommendation by Staff _?
Concurrent with the rezoning request. staff is recommending that this property be included in the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District. This designation was established to reduce visual impacts
of commercial signage in neighborhood areas where size, arno� 'i ... i' of commercial
signage could create excessive impacts. n F H
This is an issue that arose after the Planning and Zonio .B and Hearing on this request ' Staff is
confident that this Sign District designation is fully consistent nv f --the overall nature of the request
and onsistent with the Planning and Zoning Board's discussiotiapd action on the request.
7
Attachments
1. Site Map with existing zoning
2. Existing Structure Plan I p 5ic specific)
3. Proposed Structure P lart�Nlap (site speck a u
4. Proposed zoning of property
G ti
R3 Il I
y,�-�
tiyff,�s
S fi;
�FaTe
n j M. '3
Y t 2
f
y r
q.yt�y� 'eyM�y 1