Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAFT HILL/HULL - REZONE & STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT - 31-02 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTTaft Hill/Hull Rezoning September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Page 7 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Front Range Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan, File #31-02, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained above: 1. This request for a Structure Plan amendment does not adequately demonstrate a need to change the designation. Such a change would not be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. This rezoning request is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, based on the Structure Plan designation and the policies for MMN designation. 3. The proposed rezoning would potentially result in adverse impacts on the natural environment — specifically the Spring Creek corridor. 4. The proposed rezoning would not result in a logical and orderly pattern. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council deny the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, File #31-02, Amendment to the Zoning Map from LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood to MMN — Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. J Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Page 6 5. Staff analysis - rezoning request. Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? No, for the reasons explained above in the evaluation of the Structure Plan Amendment. Have conditions changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning? The applicant contends that recent expansions of Drake and Taft Hill Roads, extension of the Spring Creek Trail, and the expansion of anchor tenants in the nearby shopping center, are changed conditions warranting revised land use designations for higher density housing. Staff disagrees with the contention that these are changed conditions that create a need to change the zoning. Street widenings and the trail are not changed conditions -- City Plan was based on these things happening. In other words, these are simply incremental build -out of the Structure Plan. Nor do tenant changes in the Safeway Center create a need to change the zoning to higher density on the subject property. To illustrate, those tenants could change their minds — would the Structure Plan then need to be changed back again? Is the rezoning request compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is it the appropriate zoning district for the land? Not to an adequate degree, for the reasons explained above in the evaluation of the Structure Plan Amendment. Will the rezoning have adverse effects on the natural environment? Potentially yes. Part of the cited need for the change has been to create a larger unified MMN area covering both sides of Spring Creek, to facilitate a larger development plan with a street and bridge over the creek. The increased intensity, partly justified by a more likely street and bridge, could create more impacts on the creek corridor. Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern? No. The disonnections and discontinuity explained above in the evaluation of the Structure Plan Amendment outweigh any benefits of the higher density. 0 Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Page 5 g. While Staff acknowledges these supporting arguments, they are not clear or relevant enough to overcome the problems with the request. Also, the support of owners, both on the subject property and adjoining properties, is acknowledged. The desire to have the land upzoned before they sell it has been discussed, and it is understandable. Despite these considerations, there is not an adequate policy basis to implement this request, and the owners' support does not create a need to change the plan. 3. Rezonina Reauest: In order for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of this proposal, the 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, which defines 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." Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Page 4 same whether or not the south side develops under MMN or LMN zoning, because of the creek corridor. In evaluating the requested Structure Plan Amendment, Staff has considered and discussed a number of other points that can be made in favor of a need to change the Structure Plan. These are acknowledged below: a. The property is "within a 1/4 mile of NC zone" (quote from City Plan), and arguably "within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district' (quote from Land Use Code). b. There is no other property meeting these criteria available to accommodate MMN zoning in association with the NC district in this area, and the 14 acres of MMN on the north side of the creek along Drake is less than typically envisioned in a more ideal situation. C. "Buildings, streets, paths, open spaces, and parks [can] be configured to form an inviting and convenient living environment' (quote from LUC). In particular, walking and bicycling are favored by the Spring Creek trail which weaves through here with 2 crossings. d. As a general principle, higher density infill is more efficient in the use of land, water, infrastructure, energy, and all other resources. From a broad city-wide perspective, this opportunity for multi -family housing could be captured despite the imperfect fit with MMN policies, if a degree of flexibility in applying the policies can be provided. e. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unprecedented where barriers exist. Development review of an actual project would require the developer to come as close as possible. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unprecedented where barriers exist. Later design of an actual project will be required to come as close as possible given the constraints. 0 Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Page 3 in an integral way. These are fundamental policies for accommodating higher density housing in MMN areas. b. It would not form a "unifying pattern of streets and blocks" due to disconnections in existing development and Spring Creek. In fact, the subject, property does not have two points of access. Disconnections due to the creek and existing development will pose constraints on the ability to gain multiple access and connectivity. This works against the idea of upzoning to allow more housing units in an area essentially accessible as a large cul-de-sac only. C. Applicants have cited certain benefits which would result from rezoning to MMN as an expansion of existing MMN zoning on the north side of Spring Creek. The benefits would come from increased ability to assemble both sides of the creek into a single development property. The main tangible benefit cited is that a street bridge would be more feasible to unify the larger MMN area. However, staff's position is that this is not necessarily a desirable objective in this particular situation. The creek is deliberately shown as a Green Corridor defining different designations. In this location, staff contends that the integrity of the corridor is more important than increasing the feasibility of a street bridge by increasing the need for it with an extension of MMN zoning. A street and bridge would require major disturbance and change the character of the corridor. d. The sloping landform adds another constraint to an intensive, well- connected neighborhood meeting the minimum density of 12 units per acre with a pattern of streets and blocks. The constraints of the site may make development difficult even under LMN zoning, but MMN zoning would increase the likely conflicts. e. General principles and policies supporting infill and density have been cited and discussed. However, they do not mean that infill in this specific area should be under MMN density, rather than LMN density. In other words, those policies can be met with redevelopment at LMN density, in this case. f. Expanding the zoning to this property in order to prevent a "strip" of MMN development on the north side of the creek has been advocated. However, in reality the north side would develop the 0 Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Page 2 located within '/a mile of a supermarket -anchored Neighborhood Commercial Center, which lacks the typical surrounding MMN designation. This was mainly because of disconnections and discontinuity resulting from existing development patterns, separations caused by major arterial roads and the Spring Creek corridor. The same reasons still apply. BACKGROUND AND EXPLANATION: 1. The Property N: MMN; Undeveloped; Single Family Residential S: FA1 (County); Single Family Residential (estate) E: RL; Single family residential W: POL; Undeveloped 2. Context of the Proposed Structure Plan Amendment The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning decisions. An amendment is a prerequisite to this rezoning request. To recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board must 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. The Structure Plan currently shows Spring Creek as a Green Corridor. This Corridor separates MMN designation on the north side from LMN designation on the subject property on the south side. Current designations resulted from the 1997 City Plan adoption. The two different designations across the creek were based on existing development patterns and the presence of the creek as a corridor to be protected and enhanced. 3. Evaluation of the Proposed Structure Plan Amendment The decisive points in the analysis are: a. As an MMN District, the property would not form "a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the neighborhood commercial district".) Nor would it "function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods and the commercial core" ITEM NO. q MEETING DATE 2 STAFF Bob Barkeen Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, File #31-02 APPLICANT: Steve Pfister 225 East Monroe, Suite 4 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNERS: Wilber and Barbara Aanes 1926 Hull Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Edward J. Jaerger Revocable Trust 901Alexa Way Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan and rezone three parcels of land at the northeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Hull Street, south of Drake Road. The existing designation is LMN—Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, the proposed designation is MMN—Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The three parcels total 15.3 acres. The property is accessed from Hull Street, and each lot has a single-family residence with several outbuildings. Spring Creek traverses the northern portion of the property. The property was annexed in June, 1985 as part of the Springbrook and Springbrook Two Annexations. RECOMMENDATION Denial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds no adequate demonstration of need to change the City Structure Plan. In addition, City Plan policies regarding the MMN designation, on the whole, would not be adequately met by the request. When the Structure Plan was originally developed, the property was not designated MMN, despite being COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT