Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE REZONING & STRUCTURE PLAN AMEND. - 3-00 - CITY COUNCIL PACKET - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTDATE: December 18; 2001 1 7 1 'EM 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, amount, and lighting of commercial signage could create excessive impacts. This is an issue that arose after the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing on this request. Staff is confident that this Sign District designation is fully consistent with the overall nature of the request and consistent with the Planning and Zoning Board's discussion and action on the request. Attachments 1. Site Map with existing zoning 2. Existing Structure Plan Map (site specific) 3. Proposed Structure Plan Map (site specific) 4. Proposed zoning of property DATE: December 18, 2001 6 I '_7M 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 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 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 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. 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." 5. Staff Evaluation - Rezoning Request Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Yes, if the Structure Plan Amendment is supported, then the zoning logically follows. Have conditions changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning? This is not a factor in staffs evaluation. Is the rezoning request compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is it the appropriate zoning district for the land? Yes, as covered by evaluation of the Structure Plan Amendment. Will the rezoning have adverse effects on the natural environment? DATE: December 18, 2001 5 -TEM 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 Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, leaving about 14 acres in C - Commercial. 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: (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and 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 1 4 1 rrEM 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 necessarily render the C incompatible. Policies and standards for C districts adequately address pedestrian 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. If there is any particular loss of commercial opportunity under this proposal, it is that Large Retail Establishments will not fit under the proposal. Staff believes this is not a significant loss, because the site has been found ill -suited to that scale of development, due to the sloping topography, irrigation canal, wetlands, and condition of access roads. Partial evidence of this is the Hugh M. Woods PUD, approved in 1996. It was approved_ despite pointed debate about its poor adaptability to the sloping site, requiring massive cuts, fills, and retaining walls including one 18 feet high. Eventually, the project was dropped, apparently due in large part to millions of dollars in excavation and retaining wall costs, along some other reasons as well. After considering the issue, staff is convinced there is no persuasive opportunity cost. Because most of the permitted uses overlap between the existing and proposed zoning, the particular loss of Large Retail Establishment opportunity can be considered against the particular opportunity of a Supermarket added to the uses permitted on the property. Question of Conflict Between Existing NC Designation at County Road 32/S. College Avenue and the Subject Property. This has been a consideration since the original Structure Plan designations were assigned as part of the City Plan process. The two sites were closely debated as candidates for the needed NC designation in this area, and ongoing discussion has been nearly continuous since then. At this point, 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. Comparisons have not yielded a clear or quantitative answer. Concerns have been discussed regarding the two `red dots' a mile apart on south College Avenue. One is that for years, City 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 ( 3 -rEM 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 policies 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 is to provide essential, frequently needed commercial services and community focal points for surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Staff Evaluation - Structure Plan Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Center. The Structure Plan currently acknowledges the need for NC - type commercial services in this general area with its NC zoning designation at the northwest quadrant of College and County Road 32, one mile to the south (currently undeveloped). That designation resulted from the 1997 City Plan adoption and rezoning, which honored the land use designations in development projects in progress prior to City Plan. Prior to that time, the City did not have the same expectations for street connectivity to create integrated neighborhoods as envisioned under City Plan. As a result of existing development patterns, there are no alternative locations suited to serve this need off College Avenue. The subject location offers: (a) a location central to residential development; (b) the opportunity for good collector street access (Skyway Drive) to and from neighborhoods east and west; and (c) good non -College Avenue access (Trilby) to and from neighborhoods east and west. This location 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 of City Plan, which states that "residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an arterial." Direct, integral neighborhood access, as opposed to sole orientation to Arterial traffic, pervades policy and standards on this key topic. In this part of the city, the pattern of existing development hinders full realization of the focused, connected neighborhood pattern envisioned in City Plan. However, in answer to the questions, this location would be able to capture traffic from numerous major 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 for a significant amount of residential development. Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. If the NC is supported, then some MMN designation naturally follows. City Plan clearly calls for MMN to be co -located in conjunction with NC. The DATE: December 18, 2001 . 1 2 EM NUMBER:' 34 A-Ba 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 neighborhoods in all four directions; (2) the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to an adequate degree given physical constraints of existing development in the vicinity; and (3) changing to the NC designation does not result in a crucial opportunity cost due to the reduction of the current C Commercial Corridor designation. Staff believes these considerations adequately justify the conclusion that the Structure Plan needs to be changed in response to this request, starting with a new NC designation. Adding the MMN designation then follows logically, based on City Plan policies that interrelate it with NC. The remaining questions are: (a) whether the C designation should be eliminated entirely, presumably to be replaced by NC and MMN; and (b) what the configuration should be. This proposal reflects thorough examination of these questions over the past 2-1/2 years with site visits, meetings, and other discussions among staff, applicants, and applicants' consultants. Staff is also recommending that if this request is approved, the entire 53-acre subject property be place into the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary if approved. BACKGROUND: 1. Subject Property The property proposed for rezoning currently has one home and several outbuildings, with the majority of the site in open fields. The additional parcel included in the Structure Plan Amendment is a 4-acre lot with a house, sheds and outdoor storage, currently in commercial use. It is expected to be annexed soon and be incorporated into the overall NC development if this request is approved. Adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows: N: Larimer 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 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITLrA NUMBER: 34 A-B FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 18, 2001FROM: Clark Mapes SUBJECT: Items Relating to the Amendment of the City's Structure Plan and the Front Range Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinances on First Reading. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to recommend adoption of the request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 2001-171 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 217, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Front Range Rezoning. The request is to amend 43 acres on the City Structure Plan Map, and rezone approximately 39 acres. The Structure Plan Map amendment is larger than the rezoning because it incorporates a 4-acre "outparcel" right at the NW corner of Trilby and College, which is not yet annexed. When annexed, its zoning would match the proposed zoning. The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the placing of the subject property into the Neighborhood Sign District, as explained later. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current City Structure Plan designation is Commercial Corridor District, current zoning is the corresponding C — Commercial 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 ofthese designations are shown on the attachments.