Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAFT HILL/HULL - REZONE & STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT - 31-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 18 The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the negative. Project: Timan Property Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #3-00B Description: Request to amend City Structure Plan designat ns on a 57-acre property, located on the west s' a of \ South College Avenue, from Trilby Road t Skyway \\ Drive; and to rezone accordingly. The endment is \ essentially a north -south -flipped rear ngement of the designations currently in place on a site. The resulting change mo/rrent borhood Commercial designanorthwest corner of College/Trilby to therner of College/Skyway. Thgnations were recently approved, o 2002. The proposed Neighborho9�d College/Sk"i Recommendation: t site; and` C) along the Avenue. Approval ¢6signations include about 18 acres of Commercial Center (NC) at the y corner; about 18 acres of Medium Use Residential Neighborhood (MMN) h to Trilby Road on the western half of )out 21 acres of Commercial Corridor Apt half of the site fronting College Clark Mapes, Oy Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending approval of the rezoning. P nner Mapes gave a visual presentation of the property. Bruce,! -vendee, BHA Design and applicant on the project stated that they did\not have a pre station. This was something that staff has supported and is a logical choice that rks f or the applicant as well. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 17 Member Colton wanted to make sure that the Board stuck to things in the Code when making their decisions. Like a developer needs to have the economics to make it work and that was not a criteria they have. If the Board was going to use justification, he thought they should use something, other parts of the plan. He did not think that it was the Board's role and the elements of City Plan should be looked at to make a decision and not on the economics. The motion was denied 2-4 with Members Meyer, Torgerson, Bernth and Gavaldon voting against the denial of the Structure Plan Amendment. Member Colton and Craig voting for the denial. The motion fad Member Bernth moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Structure Plan Amendment. He did feel there was change in the area that warranted the change, that it would be in the best interest and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and he did not think that it was in violation of the Principles and Policies of City Plan. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Colton asked for the motion maker's reasons and why this change would be justified. Member Bernth replied that it comes back to infill and density. Economics is just one of his considerations. He was not concerned with Spring Creek because there is a 100- foot buffer and he thought that would be handled appropriately. He also thought that it was a shame that a 100-foot buffer was not required east of Lemay when that development occurred. He thought that this was what we are trying to accomplish with City Plan. increased density, infill development and he did not think that it would impact Spring Creek with the 100-foot buffer. The motion was approved 4-2, with Members Colton and Craig voting in the negative. Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the rezoning request from LMN to MMN based on the fact that it is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Member Bernth seconded the motion and added that the potential rezoning would not potentially result in adverse impacts on the natural environment — specifically the Spring Creek corridor. Also the proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly pattern. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 16 Planner Mapes added that the trail goes through the area and crosses the creek twice in this parcel. There will be two pedestrian bridges over the creek within the area that is shown on the map. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that there are three crossings in the Prospect Lemay area within a mile. Member Bernth stated that he would be in favor of the restructure. There is a 100-foot buffer required on Spring Creek and there are already two bridges across it. He felt that Spring Creek would be mitigated before it gets to the Board on a PDP. He believes that there are changed conditions. We have gone from a two lane road to a four lane road and to him that is changed conditions. He was sure that Mr. O'Donnell on the corner would say that those are changed conditions. This is an infill site and we are increasing density, two things that are important in City Plan. Unfortunately economics are important in any development plan and you have to consider the economics of a plan and infill is more expensive to develop. The fact that someone wants to develop this site is a positive rather than a negative. Member Colton stated that even though a bike trail crosses the creek twice he still thought that was a big difference between what we see over at the Prospect and Lemay area. The natural environment has been degraded there to a significant extent. That was an existing condition and just because that does exist, does not mean we should go ahead and impact the natural environment just as much in this location because we did it somewhere else and does already exist. Member Craig added that the area around this is zoned RL, which is existing neighborhoods with relatively low density. Usually when we have a MMN, we like a transition section of some kind. She thought that the LMN represented the transition from the MMN to the RL. She could not help but think that was possibly the thinking at the time that the original zoning was put in. She still thinks the LMN has many possibilities especially with as many developments that Mr. Hendee has done that there is a way that he can take the LMN and get the higher density by the MMN and keep the lower density by the existing residents which are RL. She would be supporting staff. Member Meyer stated that one of the things that she has trouble making a consideration on was whether a piece of ground is developable. She felt that someone with a vision could make this happen and she applauded people with that kind of vision. She does not have a problem with the MMN or the LMN, but she agrees with the economics of the MMN and she agreed with Member Bernth on how that works. Member Bernth was looking at the zoning map and argued that MMN is next to RL all over the city and he felt that would be a tough argument. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 15 into other land uses in the area. Just because this "could" be a good MMN location for some reasons, does not mean that it has to be a MMN location or should be MMN. He did not see why this "has" to be all together just because of financial reasons. Member Colton felt that we value natural areas along creeks and rivers and he could not think of any where in the city that we have MMN on both sides of a creek or river. He felt that changing the zoning on this property would compromise the natural area. Chairperson Gavaldon asked what the zoning was at the corner of Prospect and Lemay for the neighborhood center and the apartments that are between Prospect and Stuart Street. Planner Mapes replied that was NC for the neighborhood center and MMN for the apartments. It was probably similar to what you would be talking about here. Chairperson Gavaldon thought that was what he was leaning on. He felt there was a similar situation as this by Edora Park. Planner Mapes replied that there has been an excellent policy debate on both sides. Staff's recommendation of denial and that both arguments are very much in the interest of City Plan. He agreed that there was precedent in other areas where you have development on both sides of the creek without the network of streets. One thing a speaker mentioned was that his findings of fact were not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant's contend that it is. His statement would be better if he would say that staff found that it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan on balance. It is to a degree on many of the policies. The key ones are the unifying pattern of streets and blocks that lead right into the NC district, plus the cul-de- sac nature of the site right now. There is only one point of access and no real good way to see to get others. Swallow may go through some day, which looks to be full of problems. There is no street requirement to go out to Drake, but there is a very heavy bias in the MMN zone to have this network of streets and blocks that are part of an integral pattern with the NC district. On balance, it was those policies combined with the fact that it would be hard enough to get LMN on this site given the slopes and creeks and existing big trees that are around the existing houses. It looks like zoning it for higher density could create conflict, in addition to this not really meeting the policies for strategically meeting MMN. The existing MMN is not perfect and this is even less perfect. Chairperson Gavaldon was leaning into not supporting the denial. He again referenced the area of Prospect and Lemay and how that is working so well there. Swallow Road is on the Master Street Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 14 a very difficult configuration to build it that way. If you assemble the parcels, you are able to develop that coherently then a complex could be created that works overall. Member Torgerson asked if they were looking at a density of 12 units per acre. Mr. Hendee replied that was the required minimum density for the MMN standard, they have not looked at the density to this point. Member Torgerson pointed out that they could develop under the LMN density if they were to do 12 units per acre and make 10% of that affordable. Mr. Hendee replied that was the required minimum for MMN and they would have to start at that and go up. The developer that Mr. Pfiester mentioned would anticipate developing at least at 16 dwelling units per acre. They would have to achieve at least that. There is a lot of site development costs that will be associated with this parcel. In order to make it effective, you really have to have enough density to be able to off set the infrastructure costs. There will be substantial set backs from Spring Creek and the road improvements will be significant. It is also a sloping site and the infrastructure costs will be higher and should be a significant consideration as well. Member Meyer asked how they plan to mitigate for Spring Creek under MMN which she felt would be incredibly expensive, and still make an infill project that is not prohibited in cost. Her biggest concern is that they are going to hurt Spring Creek. She felt that if the project goes forward and they cross Spring Creek, there will have to be some issues that will have to be addressed. Mr. Hendee agreed. If they cross Spring Creek that will be a significant issue. If they don't cross Spring Creek and they create more of a campus setting, then he did not think the protection issue is as significant. The infrastructure costs whether it is LMN or MMN will be significant because of the topography and the site considerations. In order to off set that cost you have to have a higher density to make it work. Member Colton move to recommend to City Council denial of the requested change to the Structure Plan. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Colton made the motion because staff as well as Mr. Hendee talked about some reasons why it could be changed under the City Plan. Staff also had good justification for why we had the existing Structure Plan. In looking at the balance of those two, he feel that there was good reasoning for why the Structure Plan was made in the first place. Significantly, some of the things talked about like Spring Creek and the topographical issues, the lack of connectivity to other neighborhoods, and feathering Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 13 Wilbur Aanes, owner of the property stated that for many years he felt this would be a good place for higher density projects. This property has been in his family for 68 years. He thought that with the developments that have occurred with the widening of Drake and widening of Taft Hill and the trail being finished along Spring Creek if would afford good access to the trail and would be within a mile and a half of the University. He felt it would reduce the amount of traffic on the roads as an infill. Lloyd Thomas, owner of property in the area that would abut Hull Street. Mr. Thomas was surprised that staff was not supporting this project. He thought most of the criteria was met other than the fact that it is a little inaccessible to the neighborhood center. He thought that if you don't have medium density in this area, you won't have any medium density at all around this whole center. This is it. Everything to the north, east and west is already residential. There is no medium density around this area. He was not looking to develop at this time, but felt this developer has done very quality developments. He thought that if they had a quality medium density mixed use development here, they would certainly be for it as property owners of the adjacent area. AI Sedlack, 1925 West Drake, owns another MMN property in the area along with Mr. O'Donnell, which is adjacent to the property we are talking about tonight. He concurred with what has been said tonight. He stated that there were 7 or 8 properties in the area that could be developed as MMN. He supported the application. Planner Mapes referenced a stack of emails that have come in from neighbors in the area that live in several different developments that was handed out to the Board prior to the meeting. There are a couple of them that are in favor of the proposal on the grounds of the rights of the owners to maximize the value of the property. The rest are all opposed to this application on the grounds of increased traffic congestion at the Drake and Taft Hill intersection. There is also a fact sheet on the traffic included. (Exhibit 6) (A portion of the tape is missing) Member Colton asked the applicant why they could not have a unified project with the zoning the way it is now. Mr. Hendee replied because of the parcelization. The way the site lays out right now and you look at the development of a typical MMN product and to have an apartment complex that works effectively have an onsite manager, you need to have about 100 dwelling units. At 12 dwelling units per acre, you would need approximately 10 acres in size, more than that with detention and so forth. The way the parcels work, it would be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 12 4. The proposed rezoning would not result in a logical and orderly pattern. Mr. Hendee disagreed with that. He thought that it would result in an orderly pattern of development because it exactly meets what is envisioned on the Structure Plan for almost every other intersection, major arterial to arterial intersection within the city. The property to the south is in the County, but is also becoming an enclave and at some point the city will annex that and then the zoning would be a good transition between MMN and LMN. Steve Pfiester, 531 Del Clair, co -applicant on the project stated that he had four meetings with Clark Mapes to prepare for this rezoning request. Mr. Pfiester addressed the Board on behalf of the developer and informed the Board that this developer has worked previously with other properties that had sensitive wetlands and was prepared to put in the extra it takes to be sensitive to that matter. He felt that the problems that staff sees with this property, they see as opportunities. This property is in the hole of a donut, it is in the city, and it is infill and is mostly developed around it. Yet, it doesn't have connections, which they agree with, but they feel that is their job to solve those disconnections. How to make this all come together and work so it does fit divisions of City Plan. The developer wants to be sensitive to the creek and they want to preserve the natural character of the creek and the developer feels that it is an amenity of the project. Mr. Pfiester went on to say that you won't find a better site than this for MMN. You won't find a site that has this much available land in the city, close to a shopping center, trail or as many multi -modal transportation opportunities. He would like for the Board to consider what would happen if this site is not rezoned MMN and it would stay LMN. Mr. Pfiester explained for the Board about the adjacent 4 property owners and how they would also try and find their own way of developing. There is not just one property that could solve the connectivity problems. There is too much expense in this particular area dealing with the creek and the connections. PUBLIC INPUT Pat O'Donnell lives at the corner of Taft Hill and Drake Road. He commented that he had been to a lot of meetings and he felt the infill process in Fort Collins should be looked at. This is an infill project. He supports this plan. Mr. O'Donnell stated that part of Spring Creek goes through his property. With all the changes that have occurred in the area, he felt that it was time for him to leave and the property should be developed. All he has now is a lot of traffic. He felt that the developer has a good plan and a good start for the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 11 is part of the Land Use Code and would be impacted at the time of a project development plan. He thought that at that time you could accomplish that. Mr. Hendee went on to say that there are major transportation corridors on Drake and Taft Hill Roads. Neighborhood shopping within a quarter of a mile, very easily accessible by the new Spring Creek Trail. When talking about pedestrian crossings, one of the issues is how much arterial street do you have to cross? You would have to cross one; you would have to cross Drake. You can get direct access onto the Spring Creek Trail, which has an on ramp that goes right up to Taft Hill Road and you can get to the intersection where it is signalized and have a safe crossing to Safeway. Mr. Hendee spoke about the staff report. He spoke about the facts and conclusions that were written in the staff report: 1. This is a 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. Mr. Hendee thought that this site was very consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and he thought that there were changed conditions out there. While the staff indicates that this is simply an implementation of the Structure Plan, the implementation is causing change. In addition, Safeway is about to undergo a major renovation and enlargement. There are some things happening out there and the trail now goes through, so there are changed conditions. In a real scenario, where you don't have the environmental conditions that were mentioned, you want a larger MMN zone district here. 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. He thought that he had already made this point. 3. The proposed rezoning would potentially result in adverse impacts on the natural environment — specifically the Spring Creek corridor. Again, his point was that the Land Use Code covers that. We don't necessarily have to have a crossing there. It may take the property a little longer to develop and it may not happen right away, but it still meets the criteria and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Structure Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 10 commercial center. Typically these MMN, Medium Density neighborhoods are located close to the NC zone districts. In this particular case, the disconnections and the discontiguity between this property and the neighborhood commercial center, which results from existing development patterns and from Spring Creek were enough to convince staff at the time, that despite the proximity, these parcels should not be placed into the MMN zone. The same reasons staff did not do it in the first place still apply. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design. applicant on the project addressed the Board. He stated that one of the things they needed to do was to demonstrate that the MMN zoning is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding, including the subject property. Mr. Hendee read and referenced the Land Use Policies and Principles that they felt applied to this request to the Board from City Plan. Mr. Hendee reported that a neighborhood meeting was held and they met with the adjacent property owner. When they met with him, he understood what was happening and he understood the long-term. Mr. Hendee went on to say that in addition to Swallow being extended, the city's Parks and Recreation Trail Master Plan shows the trail going down Spring Creek, which is almost complete, and at that point you would be able to ride your bike all the way to Colorado State University and directly to the NRRC which is located in the Centre for Advanced Technology as well as the employment base that is over there. Direct reduction in vehicle miles, which is in complete correspondence with the Land Use Policies. By having MMN here, you will be encouraging a reduction in vehicle miles traveled because the people who live in this housing will be able to access directly transit and bike lanes. Mr. Hendee spoke about one of the points that were made in the staff report, which has to do with patterns and street connectivity. One of the things that he believes is a very valuable asset of City Plan is the requirement for connectivity. In particular the 600-foot spacing for streets, and that is a very good policy. In this case it may be very difficult to do that and they may have to ask for a modification at the PDP stage. That would not be unwarranted. If there were site specific conditions then a modification request would be an appropriate one to make. You don't have a street connecting through to have higher density on both sides of Spring Creek. The road does not have to go through for it to be successful. Mr. Hendee stated that one of the most sensitive issues is the natural areas. If you look at City Plan Principle EN1, "air quality objectives reduce the rate of total vehicle miles traveled." They are meeting that one. One of the key issues for him is how to protect Spring Creek corridor. If you were to develop this site with a road that is not going through the middle, the only thing you are left with is meeting the setback criteria, which Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 9 Member Torgersnn mo_ vo recommend to of zoning from I, Industrial to C£-N,__omr�ur case #30-02. �� Member Bernt"econded the motion. r y_ uncil approval of the change Commercial North College for The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Craig and Gavaldon voting in the -negative. Project: Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #31-02 Project Description: 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. Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Clark Mapes, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this was a request to amend the City Structure Plan and rezone three parcels of land near the northeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Hull Street. Just south of Drake Road. The existing land use designation is LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and the requested designation is MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Planner Mapes reviewed a visual for the Board showing the site. Staff is recommending denial of this application due to staff not finding an adequate need for the change to the Structure Plan. The change would also have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Mapes showed a visual of the Structure Plan and explained that when the Structure Plan land use designations in place were originally developed, this property was deliberately not designated in the medium density district which has been requested. Planner Mapes went on to explain that there were some attributes of this site which — for example, it is within a quarter mile of the supermarket anchored neighborhood Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Colton, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth and Gavaldon. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wamhoff, Moore, Mapes, Stringer, Stanford, Manci, Alfers and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. 2. Discussion: 3. #30-02 4. #31-02 5. #3-00B 6. #31-95 7. #37-02 Minutes of the April 4, August 15, and September 5 (Continued), 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. Resolution PZ02-07 — Easement Vacation. 1225 Redwood Street Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Timan Property Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing — Final. 701 Wagner Drive — Modification of Standard. Member Torgerson moved for approval of Consent items 1, less the September 5th minutes and item 2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Project Description: 1224 Redwood Street Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Requesfto rezone 1225 Redwood Street from I, Industial, to C-C-N, Community Commercial North College: -The parcel is 5.5 acres in size and located on the northwest corner of Conifer Street and Redwood Street.