Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE REZONING & STRUCTURE PLAN AMEND. - 3-00 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (6)Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 23 neighborhood center and that a grocery store should go there. He has tried over the years to get a grocery store in there and she felt that the developer deserves that because we have said all along since 1997 that they would get to put the grocery store in. She felt that nothing has gone on to warrant a change in the Structure Plan. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Member Colton was absent. Member Bernth moved to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, MMN, and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood as outlined on the maps provided. Referencing 2, 3, 4,-and 5 on page 8 of the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Member Colton was absent. There was no other business The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 22 Development Plan showing a grocery store neighborhood center component and multi- family. He felt that the Structure Plan was designated as such, because of an approved Overall Development Plan, which was not atypical of how the Structure Plan designation decisions were made. Also it is correct that there has been several conceptual reviews on the remaining portion of the Shenandoah property in the last year, most recently in the last two months. It has been for the remaining 40 some acres and includes a grocery store based neighborhood center and multi family residential. A neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for that site for the 27th of November, which typically indicates that a formal development proposal will follow shortly thereafter. Planner Mapes added that over the last two years, proposals on the Shenandoah site have come and gone. In the meantime staff was asked to evaluate the merits of this site and came to the conclusion that we would support the proposal. After that the Shenandoah site did come in again with another conceptual review and is now a live project. Staff determined that it did not change our position because we were not going to get involved in playing off of one site versus another. We want to focus on the merits of this request of this site and was this a good site for a NC and was it a good enough site to change the Structure Plan. Staff is in the odd situation of having both sites proceeding and we would like to have each one continue to proceed on its own merits. Member Craig commented that it bothered her that we would put two NC's so close to one another and she wondered if that would happen in other areas of the city. Planner Mapes replied that it was considered and staff is supporting it because we asked ourselves if there was any policy or any reason that suggests that two NC's could not be with in a mile of one another. These exist within the city and having two of these districts within a mile did not become a reason to oppose this. Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department commented that there is some issues with ferruginous hawks on this site and staff is working with the applicant on that. There will be some buffer areas, but again these are issues that need to be taken up at the PDP stage of the plan. Member Torgerson moved to recommend approval of the proposed Structure Plan Amendment, based on a need as laid out by staff and finding that it is consistent with City Plan Principles and Policies. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion, she feels that the Structure Plan is something that property owners should be able to use for predictability. It sounds like the property owner at the Shenandoah site has honored that there is to be a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 21 Planner Mapes replies yes, and he believes that any development on this site would instantly trigger that street. This proposal has been explored for about two and a half years now, and it has always been based on a street. All City Plan policies and Land Use Code Standards would have called for the north/south street. Now it is even reinforced by the Access Control Plan. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner added that the north/south connection is a critical piece for this area regardless if it is NC or Commercial, that connection through this area is important. The question about what would be required when the grocery store came in would be that all the specific requirements in terms of how much and which improvements get built will be determined when the transportation impact study is done when the project comes forward as part of the PDP process. Member Craig stated that she understood that, but this collector was being used as a justification because it gets the neighborhoods to the store better than if it wasn't there at all. Her concern was that you put in the grocery store and it does not warrant that connection you still have people on Skyway that have to go down College to get there. From the west to the east there are no connections. That is one of the things she likes about the Shenandoah site, there are all kinds of off of College connections to that site, which.we don't have on this site. The only one is the north/south connection. That is why she believes it is important. Ms. Reavis responded that she was not saying that the north/south connection would not have to be built as part of the grocery store, it most likely will be. What she wanted to be cautious about is that we don't get into specifics about what would come in with each phase of the project at this stage in the game. Certainly the north/south collector is very important for access to the neighborhood. Also Skyway is a collector and Trilby is a minor arterial and those do provide alternative access into this site from the east and from the west. There are multiple ways to access this location, in addition to local streets on the north side. Mr. Hendee spoke that the applicant was willing to commit to the construction of the north/south road as a condition of approval. Member Craig asked Planner Olt to talk about the Shenandoah property and the fact that a conceptual review has come in on that property. Planner Olt referred to Mr. McCory's handout on page 2, referencing under Colorado _ Law and the statement that Shenandoah gave up allowed uses for its property when it was designated NC, MMN under the 1997 plan. He pointed out that the 1997 plan that is being referenced designating that section of the Shenandoah property NC and MMN was done specifically because at that time that property had an approved Overall Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 20 just needed to respond to the request. He felt it should be needed on some rational basis of fact. Planner Mapes responded that the finding of fact is the last page of the staff report and is a formal section that is always in the Structure Plan and rezoning reports. The reason it says it that way is because the rest of the report gives the reasons why. The first finding of fact could be changed to be consistent with the rest of the staff report and provide a reason besides that we believe it is justified. For example it could read, "the request for a Structure Plan Amendment adequately demonstrates the need to change the Structure Plan to provide a strategic NC District and is the best location for it." The other criteria for the Structure Plan change are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That is where the -access, the configuration with the NC and MMN all fits together — that we feel that it is consistent with the Comp Plan. The . essential question is, "does the Structure Plan need to be changed," and the reason staff is supporting this. Member Craig asked about the change in the staff recommendation from June (which was denial) to November (approval). . Planner Mapes replied that the June staff report recommended denial clearly and strongly stated that the denial was because of the specific configuration that was being proposed for the NC, MMN and the remaining commercial. It had very little MMN on it. Member Craig asked about the staff analysis on the June 7th staff report, and if the request was consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. The staff report states that, "the rezoning is not consistent with City Plan for several reasons explained above." That tells her that it was more than just the MMN. Another question was, "will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern?" At that time the staff report states, "the NC district at two arterials is with no continuous access through surrounding neighborhoods and then the remaining commercial district sandwiched in the neighborhood pattern." It sounds like there were a few more concerns than just the MMN. Planner Mapes replied no, all those comments are geared toward the configuration. This was NC, with pretty much the rest of the site as C, Commercial preventing neighborhood access from the north to the degree staff felt would be needed to justify the NC and to provide the adequate amount of MMN. The reason for that recommendation was the configuration. Member Craig asked if the grocery store came in on NC, would that warrant the collector from north to south and it would get built. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 19 they live directly north of the property. Having a mixed residential area next to the residential area that is existing, makes more sense to him, that it would be all commercial. The one concern he does have is the Skyway grading and how the roads would be accessed there and winter driving. Public Input Chairperson Gavaldon offered the applicant rebuttal from citizen input. Mr. Hendee responded that he would not be rebutting as much trying to provide some clarity. He thinks that the issue with Mr. McCory is one that just needs to be decided based on the appropriateness of their plan. Mr. Hendee reported that their project will not affect the Access Control Plan, the Access Control Plan is being developed independently and he thinks that their project will have to conform with what the Access Control Plan provides. Their north/south road that they have shown, will provide greater enhanced access to the Deli Works. Certainly it is not our intent to cut off access to Deli Works. With respect to the Baptist Church, the Planning and Zoning Board knows that the developer pays for the road improvements and that there are additional street oversizing fees which are paid for by the city. There would not be any cost for development that happens with this particular property. With respect to Mr. McCory, their thought has been what is best for the community, what makes sense for the community, and where is the best location for the community. They have not tried to look at this as one site versus another site, as much as they have at what makes sense and what is the right location. This property is surrounded by residential and most of it has been there for years. Mr. Hendee concluded his rebuttal. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that his main concern was with the Boards first finding of fact and conclusion in the staff report and to the comments that they received from Mr. McCory. City Code mandates that the Board can consider a rezoning request and a change in zoning upon request only if that request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or warranted by changed conditions. It is true that changed conditions can warrant a zoning change. Also, a zoning change can be warranted in order to bring the zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which is why there is a request now to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Structure Plan Map. He was not too comfortable with the first finding, that says "this request for a Structure Plan Amendment adequately demonstrates a need to change the designation in response to the request." That seems to be a circular sentence and it may be that Planner Mapes or the applicant could give the Board a better justification than that it is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 18 Mr. McCory asked the Board to refer to page two of his handout. As a property owner, they began this property acquisition in 1994. They bought the property from Del Webb. He referred to the Del Webb Plan and that it was a valid plan at the time they bought the property. That plan was since changed when City Plan was passed. Their property consisted of 107 acres, and the majority of the property was zoned office, retail and office r & d. That was later replaced by the Structure Plan, but in the mean time they went ahead and processed various uses. They put Fossil Creek Nursery in, 111 homesites called Shenandoah, 3 finished building sites for office, daycare, retail and they preserved the historic barn. The remainder of their property was approximately 47.3 acres. That parcel they have zoned and received under City Plan, NC, approximately 19..4 acres and the balance in apartments. They have two applicants under contract, one is a retail shopping center developer that has relied on that zoning, the other is an apartment developer who has relied on that zoning and then there is the property owner. They have already gone through Conceptual Review, they have gone through secondary and third meetings with city staff. They have also structured a neighborhood meeting for the 27th of this month. Upon resolving some of these plans, they will be submitting the actual structure. Not only has the property owners and the two developers relied on this, but also so has the tenant, Albertson's. He referred to Albertson's report in the packet of information he handed out starting on page 7 and then the market study, which are the grounds that the Planning Department has recommended approval for the change in the Structure Plan and the rezoning. What is interesting is in the files, there is a staff report on. this site processed by the Planning Department dated June 21, 2001, recommending denial. The Board has one in front of them dated in November, recommending approval. The basis of this being changed from denial to approval is a market study that is attached to the Boards report. He suggested that the Board look at it, who supplied it and where was the expertise. In conclusion, he referred to page two of his report. He read, "Under Colorado law, property owners have a right to rely on existing zoning if there is no material change of conditions. Clark v. City of Boulder, 146 Colo. 526, 362P.2d160. 163 (1961)." Shenandoah has relied on current plans, designated and zoned for the area. Shenandoah gave up all allowed uses for its property when it designated the NC and MMN zoning districts in 1997. Shenandoah has expended substantial time and money, as has the user and the apartment people. Their plans are already in process and will be submitted as soon as they finish their neighborhood meeting. David Martin, owns property at 6024 Mars Drive stated that the proposed mixed use, he and the homeowners association finds more aesthetically pleasing to the property adjacent to the lots. A commercial property is not something he would like to see and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Alman stated that he has heard repeatedly that their five points have been addressed as often as he has heard "that we will take that into consideration and it is under advisement." Their five points have been addressed and dismissed by the Transportation Department. The Transportation Department has predicted that the Plan will take 20 years to implement. If the South College Access Plan encompasses these objectives as part of the goal, in all its phases, they will find virtually no opposition to the plan. He asked the Board to question why the Transportation Department is so unwilling to adopt these points at the same time they claim to be seeking their input. Mr. Alman stated that there was a response from the city to their five points. He presented a copy to the Board. He also sent notice to Council that he was going to come to this meeting and make this statement. He also has emailed repeatedly with Mr. Fischbach. He also has a draft of 4/3/01 South College Access Plan — Short Term Plan, which also highlights what he has talked about, especially the two examples. What you see here, is what the applicant promoted and is a blatant attempt by this Access Plan to put them out of business. Mr. Alman again asked that their five points be incorporated into the Access Control Plan. (Citizen), Representing the Baptist Church next to the property. He was not there to speak in opposition to the grocery store. They only have two concerns. One would be that they would allow a liquor store to come in there right on their front porch. The other concern is that they have been there since 1983 and right now the traffic is a difficult thing. There other concern is the traffic and that this development is going to create a lot of traffic and when it is time for them to come into the city, they do not want to bear the burden of having to take care of all the traffic. Jim McCory, lives in Castle Rock and is the Manager of the Partnership that owns the parcel that is currently zoned NC. He was there to speak against the rezoning. He passed out a document to the Board. Mr. McCory stated that the Shenandoah and Front Range sites are approximately 1 mile apart. The Shenandoah site is designated on the City Structure Plan and adequately zoned NC for the grocery store. The Front Range site is not, it is designated and zoned C, Commercial. The issue is that the rezoning is not appropriate when it is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The Front Range request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so it seeks to amend the Structure Plan to conform to its request. He has listed on the front page of the handout four reasons why this should be denied, and there should be one added to make five. In the staff report the Board received, there is no reference to the impact of the apartments that would be generated from the rezoning of this site. The impact of that quantity of apartments in conjunction with what is on the Shenandoah site, and what exists next to the car dealership, which has been approved, but not built. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 16 with this file. He was there to bring attention a relationship and subsequent rezoning and development of file #3-00 to the proposed South College Access Plan. The monies for the South College Access Plan will come from development and redevelopment such as file #3-00. Without this development or redevelopment, there is no South College Access Plan. The final development approval for any property will have to comply with the South College Access Plan, therefore, in his mind, the South College Access Plan needs to be drawn and approved before any rezoning or development takes place. This is a case of the cart before the horse and possibly defacto acceptance of a proposed South College Access Plan without debating the consequences or the judgement of its merits. The South College Access Plan was last publicly proposed May 15th at a meeting at the Deli Works was incomplete and highly flawed. The Plan is proposed in phases. Under phase 1, there remain questions of safe access to both north and southbound lanes of College (Hwy 287). Two examples are: • East side businesses directly opposite this development will have according to the plan as laid out, will have no safe access to south bound lanes of College, because the frontage road will be closed off and a median in place on College (Hwy 287). • His business on the west side of College and just north of Skyway is cutoff from access to Skyway, which has the traffic light, which was shown by the applicant. That would make their customers, vendors, and delivery people access College by Saturn, which is a very dangerous and uncontrolled intersection. At some time the South College Access Plan will be put in place. As a group representative of businesses and property owners they have presented five points to the City Transportation Department and CDOT which they hoped would be encompassed with any goal of the South College Access Plan. They wish to provide safety to customers and vendors to protect the value of their property and have the viability to remain in business. These five points are the rights to safe entry to both north and southbound lanes of College (Hwy 287). • The frontage roads along College remain the means of conveyance to existing businesses. • Entrances and egresses to businesses are not indirect, confusing, or circuitous. • Developers and development that result in required improvements to'existing infrastructures be required to compensate for any mandatory costs of alterations. • Economic impact study of a usage change that is proposed. • The final draft of the South College Access Control Plan Update will be divided by area into three meetings, November 20th, December 6th and December 12th Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Hendee spoke on the access into the property. They are suggesting moving the road as far from College Avenue as possible, clear to the west end of the property. By doing that, they provide better queuing distance at the intersection of Trilby and College Avenue. It is about 900 feet and the minimum that the city suggested is 600 feet. This road alignment helps to alleviate some issues on Trilby Road and it also meets the city's Access Control Plan intent for College Avenue. Dan Clayton, Safeway Inc. spoke to the Board. He stated he was the Real Estate Manager for Safeway and was there to speak in support of the rezoning application before the Board. Their company has identified the property at College and Trilby as a good candidate for a Safeway anchored neighborhood center. They have arrived at that conclusion by way of.a market study, which -was done. by their market research group. They studied the south Fort Collins area as well as the north Loveland area. They looked at three locations, one on the north side of Loveland, one that is one mile south of the subject property at County Road 32 and the subject property at Trilby and College Avenue. The results of the study were very clear in that the College and Trilby location was the best opportunity for a successful grocery anchored center. Mr. Hendee committed that the property would be developed with integrity and with a high quality image to help improve a gateway into Fort Collins. This is an infill project and there is housing 360 degrees around this property. There will be direct access to this through the neighborhoods, keeping traffic off of College Avenue, and bike trails that would also take you into the center. Mr. Hendee stated that three different grocery stores have looked at this site over time and said that it makes sense as a site. It makes sense because it enables us as an NC zone district to break the size of the buildings up and have smaller sizes and not tear the site apart, like what would happen with the existing zoning district that is there today. They recognize the wildlife issues and they know that there is more work to be done. They are committed to the MMN zone district and the intent of the neighborhood commercial which looks to integrate the two together. They also think that this development will help the city improve an intersection that is in need of improvement, which is the Trilby intersection with College Avenue. Part of the development here will finance improvements on that intersection. Public Input Ray Alman, owner of Deli Works at 6001 South College spoke to the Board. Mr. Alman was there to speak on the access project on South College. He wanted to give the Board a "heads up" about what is going on with that project and how it will affect the people down there. They are not in opposition to rezoning or development associated Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 14 Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Clark Mapes, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Mapes reviewed slides of the site, showing the 4 acre parcel at the northwest corner of Trilby and College and reporting that it was the difference in the acreage of the Structure Plan Amendment and the rezoning request. He stated that the essence of the proposal and the essential question is locating a NC, Neighborhood Commercial Center District at the corner of Trilby and College and getting a supermarket anchored. The Neighborhood Commercial Center District is a very strategic land use and they are very carefully located throughout the city. The question is whether to change the C, Commercial. designation on this site to allow the addition of NC and MMN on part of the site. He stated that staff was supporting the request for three main reasons: • That there is a demonstrated need for this use in this area. Evidence of that is an existing designation of the NC District a mile to the south of this property. • This site looks like the best location to put this strategic use. • The opportunity cost, if there is loss associated with taking a large 53 acre parcel of C, Commercial and dividing it down so there is not a single large parcel remaining if this goes through. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, representing the applicant, gave the applicant presentation. He stated that the proposal was to have 22 acres for MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, 17 acres for NC, Neighborhood Commercial and 14 acres that would be retained with its existing zoning of C, Commercial. He stated that they were not here tonight to oppose the site that is at County Road 32, but rather they think the site they have here makes sense for a grocery store. He stated that the long- term market analysis that has been done has indicated that in the long run, there will be an appropriate market base here for the potential for two grocery stores. Mr. Hendee spoke about the surrounding uses and neighborhoods. Mr. Hendee stated that there were some very significant trees and topography. In preliminary master planning they have looked at where the north/south' collector road would be. The site slopes from west to east and it is about a 60 foot slope, which is about a 6 to 10% slope. There are a series of cottonwoods on the site and also there has been some discussion about hawks and roosting on this site. They do want to preserve the trees. The issue of the hawks should be discussed at the Project Development Plan stage when they would be able to get a little more detail on it. They will agree to do the additional evaluation at the PDP stage. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Moore replied that staff has tried the best they could by trying to blend that in with the area between the homes and the prairie where the walls are occurring with the landscaping. Staff has worked very closely with the applicant on that and with the buffer zone in between where you see the landscaping. Staff will still be working with the applicant to scale back the landscaping some because he believed that it was too heavily planted to blend in with the environment. Chairperson Gavaldon asked Planner Olt to address the citizen input regarding lighting. Planner Olt replied that it has not been requested to his knowledge. They are public streets and the city Light & Power Department will install the standard lights in this development. The project referred to, Hearthfire, had requested a variance which was approved by the Director of Engineering for approval to decrease the lighting levels. A variance for this project has not been requested. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the variance request to the city Solar Orientation Ordinance No. 142. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Harmony Ridge PUD, 2"d Filing, Preliminary and Final based on the findings of facts and conclusions. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: CEFont-Range Rezoning and-Structuce_P-Ian [Amen_dment,=#.3-00 Project Description: Request to amend 43 acres on the City. Structure Plan, and rezone 39 acres, located on the west side of College Avenue from Trilby Road to Skyway Drive. The Structure Plan amendment is a little larger than the rezoning because in incorporates a 4-acre "outparcel" right at the NW corner of Trilby and College, which is not yet annexed.