HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE REZONING & STRUCTURE PLAN AMEND. - 3-00 - P&Z PACKET - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT (5)Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment - #3-00
June 7, 2001 P& Z Hearing
Page 8
There is an existing Structure Plan and NC zoning designation at the NW
quadrant of College and County Road 32, currently vacant. This designation
resulted from the 1997 City Plan adoption and rezoning honoring the land use
designations in LDGS projects then in progress. Prior to that time, we did not
have the same expectations for street connectivity and block standards to create
integrated neighborhoods as envisioned under City Plan.
In light of extensive information and discussion raised during review of this
proposal, the subject property at Trilby appears to be a better location than the
existing C.R. 32 location. It offers: 1) the opportunity for a collector street
connection (Skyway Drive) to and from neighborhoods to the east and west; and
2) a location more central to residential development.
However, the subject request is for a pattern that the staff cannot endorse. The
NC portion of the request does not adequately take advantage of the collector
street opportunity, and the MMN portions do not appear to be adequate.
Thus, neither the existing NC -zoned property at County Road 32, nor the subject
request, are ideal sites for supermarket -anchored centers. At the same time, the
area needs these services.
This proposal also raised another larger issue that is worth noting: appropriate,
large sites for Commercial zoning are rare, and the City as a whole may have an
interest in retaining the existing zoning for its own sake. Staff did not reach a
conclusion on this issue and it is not a deciding factor in the recommendation of
denial. Yet it is a secondary consideration worth noting in a complete discussion
of the subject request.
The staff recommendation of DENIAL is made in the context of these larger
issues, and understanding that additional study may be necessary to arrive at the
best land use pattern for the City of Fort Collins in this area.
2. An option for the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council to
A decision to deny this request could also include direction to study the options
for Structure Plan and zoning changes to better serve the need for an NC District
in this area of the city.
Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment - #3-00
June 7, 2001 P& Z Hearing
Page 7
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
- After reviewing the Front Range Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan,
File #3-00, staff makes the following findings of -fact and conclusions as
explained above:
1. The Front Range Rezoning is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The applicant's request for an amendment to the structure plan does not
adequately justify changing the structure plan designation from "commercial
corridor district" to "neighborhood commercial center" and "medium density
mixed -use residential neighborhood", and such a change is not supported by
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed NC — Neighborhood Commercial and MMN — Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning Districts are not appropriate for this property
under the proposed arrangement.
4. The proposed rezoning would not result in significantly adverse impacts on
the natural environment.
5. The proposed rezoning would not result in a logical and orderly pattern.
LARGER ISSUES BEYOND RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL
Examination and discussion of this proposal highlighted larger issues regarding
neighborhood commercial services in this whole sector of the City, south of
Harmony Road and west of the UP railroad track.
This section explains the situation and offers an option for the Planning and
Zoning Board and City Council to consider, along with the recommendation of
denial.
1. Explanation of Larger Issues.
Residential areas in this part of the city are underserved by neighborhood
commercial services, and staff sees the need for an additional supermarket
center to serve the area. The applicants conducted market studies that confirm
this. As a result of existing development patterns, there are no locations to serve
this need off College Avenue.
Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment - #3-00
June 7, 2001 P& Z Hearing
Page 6
6. Staff analysis - rezoning request
Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan?
The rezoning is not consistent with City Plan for the same reasons explained
above regarding the Structure Plan amendment.
Have conditions changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning?
Residential development in this whole sector of the city has increased market
pressures for a supermarket and neighborhood commercial services.
The changes may or may not be significant enough to warrant a change in
zoning to allow a supermarket; but they do not warrant this particular change as
requested.
Is the rezoning request compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding
the subject land and is it the appropriate zoning district for the land?
The request would not be compatible with the remaining C — Commercial land
use designation adjacent to the north of the proposed rezoning, between the
proposed neighborhood uses and the subdivisions along Skyway Drive.
Will the rezoning have adverse effects on the natural environment?
Staff has not found this to be a factor. The site appears to have some mature
trees and wetlands with natural resource value, but under either existing or
proposed zoning, the same standards for protecting the natural environment will
apply.
Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern?
As with the Structure Plan amendment, the rezoning will not result in a logical
and orderly development pattern. This is a deciding factor in the staff
recommendation. The three main aspects of the proposal are contrary to a
logical and orderly pattern: 1) the NC District at two arterials with no continuous
access through surrounding neighborhoods; 2) the marginal MMN District; and
3) the remaining Commercial District sandwiched in the neighborhood pattern.
Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment - #3-00
June 7, 2001 P& Z Hearing
Page 5
To provide background for staff comments with a convenient reference, the
purpose statements,of the three zone districts in question are listed below.
• Purpose of the NC — Neighborhood Commercial Zone 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 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 integral, town -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 Zone
District:
The purpose of the MMN District (Section 4.5 of the Land Use Code) is to be a
setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a
commercial district. Secondarily, a neighborhood may also contain other
moderate -intensity complementary and supporting land uses that serve the
neighborhood. These neighborhoods will form a transition and a link between
surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a unifying pattern of
streets and blocks. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, open spaces and
parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment.
• Purpose of the C — Commercial Zoning District:
The purpose of the C District (Section 4.17 of the Land Use Code) is to be a
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.
Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment - #3-00
June 7, 2001 P& Z Hearing
Page 4
4. Rezoning Request
The applicant filed a rezoning petition with the City on January 14, 2000. The
request is to rezone a 28-acre portion of a larger, 53-acre parcel, from C —
Commercial to 16.6 acres of NC - Neighborhood Commercial and 11.4 acres of
MMN — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood.
In order to recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the Planning and
Zoning Board would have to find that the rezoning 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."
The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code
outlines mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. 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 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'; and
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern."
Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment - #3-00
June 7, 2001 P& Z Hearing
Page 3
Secondary reasons have to do with questions about the loss of one of the few
remaining, large parcels of C zoning, balanced against what would be gained by
neighborhood development.
Specifically, three particular problems stand out:
• The proposed Medium Density Neighborhood is too small to have adequate
integrity as a place. In fact, its 11 acres are not likely to all be developable
due to a canal with mature trees and a low-lying wetland area. It appears to
be a marginal element to the plan that does not significantly complement the
Neighborhood Commercial Center, nor provide justification for it.
• The remaining Commercial Corridor designation ends up sandwiched
between lower density County subdivision development along Skyway Drive
and the proposed medium density neighborhood. This arrangement
interrupts the transition and linkage through neighborhoods which is key to
the City's integrated neighborhood planning approach. The simple concept is
evident on the City Structure Plan, and explained in Principles and Policies on
pages 155 and 156 of City Plan, which state that medium density
neighborhoods should form a transition and a link between the neighborhood
commercial core and surrounding lower density neighborhoods. As
proposed, the remaining C - commercial development could be extremely
intrusive and inconsistent with this neighborhood pattern. Note that C allows
highway -oriented, vehicle -related, intensive commercial uses of a community
and regional nature. While impacts would be mitigated in the design process,
it could still tend to isolate the proposed neighborhood zoning from
surrounding neighborhood development to the north and east along Skyway
Drive. This reinforces the proposed NC center as a freestanding destination
oriented mainly to arterial traffic.
• The location of the NC District at the intersection of two arterials (College and
Trilby) raises questions about Policy MMN-3.2 on page 158 of City Plan,
which states that "residents should be able to easily get to the Center without
the need to use an arterial. Staff acknowledges that any location for a
grocery store serving this part of the City will require some residents to use
arterials. Plus, the issue is mitigated by the fact that Trilby Road is
downgraded to a Minor Arterial on the west side of College. Nevertheless,
the primary orientation is mainly to the arterials, given the isolating effect of C
— Commercial development separating the proposed center from Skyway
Drive. This is contrary to the whole approach toward these centers, which is
to encourage walking, bicycling, and orientation to neighborhoods.
- l
Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment - #3-00
June 7, 2001 PS Z Hearing
Page 2
City Plan calls for walkable residential districts with a hierarchical transition from
the NC District, through medium density neighborhoods, to low density
neighborhoods. The proposed MMN district, at 11 acres, is too small to function
effectively, and the remaining C zoning ends up as an isolated parcel of zoning
that interrupts the transition.
BACKGROUND AND EXPLANATION:
1. The Site:
The site is currently an occupied farmstead, with one home and several
outbuildings.
The adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: City C; undeveloped land,
S: Larimer County C, FA; large lot sub; 2 lots converted to commercial
E: Larimer County C; highway commercial strip
W: Larimer Countv R2. FA: suburban sub; supported livinq facilitv
The property was. annexed into the City. of Fort Collins as partof the Timan First
Annexation -on June 7, 1988.
2. Structure Plan Amendment
The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning decisions. Because the
proposed zoning is clearly inconsistent with the existing Structure Plan, an
amendment is essentially a prerequisite to the rezoning request. The applicants
recognized this and added the amendment proposal to their initial rezoning
request.
To recommend approval.of this proposal, 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 policies of City Plan. These are the
applicable criteria as contained in Appendix C of City Plan.
3. Staff Analysis - Structure Plan Amendment
The primary reasons for the recommendation of denial have to do with the
arrangement of the designations, which staff has not found to be consistent with
City Plan.
ITEM NO. 5
MEETING DATE 6 7 01
STAFF Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Front Range Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment,
APPLICANT: Front Range Limited Partnership, MAIA Corp. , g
4720 North Campbell Avenue, Unit M
Tucson, AZ 85718
OWNERS: Front Range Limited Partnership, MAIA Corp.
4720 North Campbell Avenue, Unit M
Tucson, AZ 85718
This is a request to an amend the City Structure Plan and rezoneX�cres of
property located near the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Trilby
Road. The�B"acres are part of a larger (53-acre) vacant parcel, which extends
to Skyway roe. Tlve ce 4xv%3dL Ito 1z.42exr-ow ^6 KG-0G.ACaU& kOt
A lQ•siocrs33 MMN ^ Mcstiv�1 Mtk44• 0*t,
a
RECOMMENDATION:
�eqponcluig_A: uommerclal u►s mt.
Pla signations c bine a Nferal
ood Com erciE
i Mixed -Us idential Neihood. P osed
ling C - N bor ood Co stri o gwi
Mi ed- a Neigh orho zone
Denial, with options explained for further study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Front Range Rezoning is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The requested Structure Plan amendment/rezoning is not justified because the
proposed arrangement does not adequately form a medium -density, mixed -use
neighborhood or the pattern, linkages, and transition of land use described in City
Plan.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
PLANNING DEPARTMENT