Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGENCY LAKEVIEW - PDP & APU - PDP120013 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (18)City Structure Plan Forms I .I,` FoncaiNs QOMOd.,IPI Du acts NmaRpomoods fgp�( Qi"„""..MA (Ftti.In.n l.Fnty I�e+�f a1MF "`%�/4„44111�jj� u�,MA CrUFnvF+ lrF nil deCm�nuM [<x.nprrl llnx! wOwA/r MUFe UFF G/rMr4 Cmnwdv Q✓V{� Mwm Mpv MrO.IFV L �j 11 ' e ry Inm j NFv(fP1nM L.mp.wl IMRrtI T C4nip 0AIR� +Vlw.vf nl.��,dq Air YYMPPY Wrzr p n.p.M.P poWrrYIAM Wlr Xrl cantlon -F✓m�uMl Sp4yd `�" �Jnen L/M n/Av wq W4s CinMo-. ryUPF � 4dMpl Pyx l.O�gp R✓41/W� �'FAwFn11.p4 Cam lfrpYl , Figure LIV 3 •O.,W F.Wu f! IN? I/wYlFO F4PRMy IS 2011 R w w mM Addition of Permitted Uses section, the Board should deny the Regency request to build an apartment complex in a Low Density Residential neighborhood. The Regency development is not one which would have little to no impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and the Addition of Permitted Use should not be allowed. Additionally, such an unpredictable change, in direct contradiction to the City Structure Plan Map, would erode the community's confidence in our City officials and their interpretation of City Structure Plan Map and the intended implementation of the Addition of Permitted Uses section. Sincerely, 5"Andrew Lewis 2707 Brookwood Court Fort Collins, CO 'http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/studenthousing.phi), Student Housing Action Plan, Development Projects List, June 28, 2012. "http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=show related&vid=72&dt=SUMMARY+AGENDA&rid=June +3%2C+2008, Agenda for City Council meeting June 3, 2008, First Reading of Ordinance No.73, pages 11-14 of 39, Staff Report. "' http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?vid=l 7&cmd=search&scope=doctype&dt=MINUTES&q=JLJN-03- 2008, City Council Minutes, June 3, 2008, Page 19 of 26. '" City Plan Fort Collins, February 15, 2011, pg. 9. "City Plan Fort Collins, February 15, 2011, pg. 66. and soccer fields which the Church has been renting to the Storm Soccer Club for the past year. The Regency's proposed use would be to add 175 dwelling units, thus increasing the hours of use, traffic, lighting, evening and nighttime noise and have other unwanted impacts on the neighbors. This sort of change is not predictable and unfairly impacts the neighbors that live here and have relied upon the Land Use Code as an assurance that the place they choose to live would remain a peaceful and private neighborhood. City Structure Plan Map: a guide for future development and zoning decisions Just one year ago, on February 15, 2011, the City of Fort Collins adopted its most recent City Plan. This comprehensive plan was created after input from city officials and the community to "provide direction for the vision for the next 25 years and beyond."" As part of this vision, a City Structure Plan Map was approved and adopted. See attached City Structure Plan Map, from the City Plan, page 71. As stated: "The City Structure Plan Map provides direction about how the City will change over time — how to grow, where to develop, and how to shape growth so that it benefits overall quality of life. It focuses primarily on the physical form and development pattern of the City, serving as a blueprint for the community's desired future. The City Structure Plan Map provides a geographic depiction of how these City Plan Principles and Policies are to be applied throughout the City.` Page 68 of the City Plan discusses the application of the City Structure Plan Map and indicates that the City Structure Plan Map "establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community's desired future." It further states that it represents "a guide for future land use" and "guidance for future zoning decisions." A review of the City Structure Plan Map shows us that this particular area has been designated for future use as "Low Density Mixed -Use." A review of the Land Use Code, reveals that under this designation, the maximum units allowed in a multifamily dwelling is 8 units, with a maximum of 9 dwelling units per acre. The Regency proposal does not fit within the "low density" criteria and greatly exceeds it in both the number of units per dwelling and the overall density allowed per acre. Since predictability is a goal of our City, and the City Structure Plan Map is to be used as guidance for "future land use" and "zoning decisions" it is clear that the Regency development proposal is not one which should be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Acceptance of this proposal would be in direct contradiction the City Structure Plan Map, and eliminate any predictability and guidance for which it was created. Conclusion In adopting the amendment to the Addition of Permitted Uses section, there was concern that predictability would suffer at the cost of flexibility. The Staff contended that introducing such flexibility in limited situations would not reduce predictability and would not undermine the City Plan or the City Structure Plan Map. The examples given showed that it could be used to allow a change in current use in circumstances where there would be little to no consequence to the surrounding community. Further, the City Structure Plan Map is the guide for future land use and future zoning decisions. That Map specifically designates this particular piece of land as Low Density Mixed -Use. Given these guiding principles and the intended purpose of the be an acceptable use of land. However, with predictability came a level of inflexibility concerning new emerging uses or changing market conditions." To address this inflexibility, an amendment to the Addition of Permitted Uses was proposed. In support of the proposed amendment, the Staff contended "that introducing flexibility, on a limited basis via the Addition of a Permitted Use, does not come at the expense of predictability" and that it "will not undermine" the City Plan and the Structure Plan Map. As an example of why the amendment was needed, the Staff gave examples of proposals in which houses, located on arterial intersections and operating "small businesses that may fit the specific property" are not allowed because the use would be inappropriate to allow throughout the entire zone district. The Staff specifically listed eight different properties by way of example: (1) a drug and alcohol treatment center to be used as a group home, child care center or small private high school; (2) a large nursing home attracting uses that would exceed the maximum allowable clients for the zone; (3) a wholesale distribution center that had to be vacated because it was no longer allowed in the area as zoned; (4) a building used by a sheet metal contractor could not be changed to allow whole sale distribution; (5) a single family home with a detached office on a nine acre plot, located next to railroad tracks and a shopping center, which had to reject proposals because they would slightly exceed the Home Occupation Limits; (6) a single family home on the corner of Taft and Harmony was denied becoming a bicycle repair shop; (7) a preexisting home fronting Prospect that had been used as a machine shop and transitioned to a small company that restores homes after flood and fire damage would no longer be allowed in that zone; (8) a preexisting home that had been used by a photographer operating a home business and transitioning to other small business related activities that would no longer be allowed under the area as zoned. Of note, each of these examples are of preexisting properties being used as businesses and, due to a change in zoning or a change in use which would have "few" to no consequence on the surrounding community, could no longer be used in that location as zoned. The Staff ended the proposal with this: the proposed revision would provide for a reasonable approach that would allow properties with unique attributes to be eligible for a wider range of land uses subject to conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Board" and "would allow existing buildings to adapt to changing market conditions over the life of the structure." Based on these Staff comments, we can see that the stated goals of the amendment was to allow some flexibility to the Addition of Uses without sacrificing predictability and without undermining the City Plan and City Structure map. In fact, this concern for predictability was reiterated by council member Kelly Ohlson, who in comment to the proposal stated that City Plan "was developed to provide predictability to developers and neighborhoods" and questioned whether allowing such additions not currently allowed on a particular parcel might remove the predictability provided by the City Plan."' Indeed, Mr. Ohlson's concern for predictability would seem to be at the heart of the development Regency is requesting: allow an apartment complex with three story buildings and a density of 16 units per acre to be placed into an area zoned as Low Density Residential and directly adjacent to single family homes. Was this the intent of the passage of the amendment to the Addition of Uses section? Is this dramatic change predictable? Surely not. Taking the examples given by the Staff as to potential uses for the Addition of Permitted Uses and comparing them to the Regency proposal leaves no doubt. In the examples, a current use would have been modified to a slightly different use with little impact to the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, there is no existing building and under the Regency proposal they would be adding multiple 2 and 3 story buildings onto the property. Similarly, the current use of the property is as a place to play sports. There currently exits a baseball diamond June 28, 2012 TO: Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Council Member, a Andy Smith, P&Z Board Chair iiD 3 Gino Campana, P&Z Board Vice Chair-Member �y� Jennifer Carpenter, P&Z Board Member John Hatfield, P&Z Board Member Kristin Kirkpatrick, P&Z Board Member Brigitte Schmidt, P&Z Board Member Butch Stockover, P&Z Board Member CC: Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director; Ted Shepard, Chief Planner; Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor; Darin Atteberry, City Manager Dear City Representatives, I am writing to you concerning the upcoming planning and zoning hearing concerning the development project known as the Regency Lakeview. This project is seeking to put apartment complexes on the 11 acres adjacent to the Sherwood Lake neighborhood located along Brookwood Drive and Drake. Currently, this 11 acre parcel, located between the Christ Center Community Church and single family homes, is a grassy field which has been traditionally been used for playing soccer, flag football and baseball. The Regency is seeking to build 175 units on adjacent to this neighborhood even though the lot in question is specifically zoned as Low Density Residential. The Regency is asking the City to approve this project as an Addition of Permitted Uses pursuant to the Land Use Code § 1.3.4. While I believe that a medium density apartment complex (at 16 units per acre, this would be more than double the minimum density of 7 units per acre listed for developments under 20 acres as listed in a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood) is not "appropriate in the zone district" and that it would increase negative factors above an "amount normally resulting from other permitted uses listed in the zone district," thus disqualifying this project based on the requirements of § 1.3.4(A)(1-5), the focus of this letter is to address the history behind the adoption of the Addition of Permitted Uses and its role within the City Plan of Fort Collins. What was the purpose or goal behind the Addition of Permitted Uses? Was it intended to be used in such drastic fashion? Wouldn't the acceptance of this proposal run counter to decisions already made by the City, not only in zoning this area as Low Density Residential, but contrary to future expectations and the desire for predictability? Currently, the City has under review 20 different development projects to build 2,741 units.' Why should this project, at a location which is not zoned for apartment complexes, be allowed? Those are questions I sought to answer for myself and now seek to share with you. Adoption of the Amendment to the Addition of Permitted Uses, July 2008: Predictability v. Flexibility The current form of the Addition of Permitted Uses was adopted in July, 2008. A review of the Staff Report concerning the amendment to the then pre-existing Addition of Permitted Uses section indicated that goal of the Land Use Code was predictability concerning what would