HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAFT HILL/HULL - REZONE & STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT - 31-02 - REPORTS - FIRST READING*00_ Ro (H RO (RD O..
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 disconnections and discontinuity explained above in the evaluation of the
Structure Plan amendment outweigh any benefits of the higher density.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the Taft Hill/Hull 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 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, based
on the Structure Plan designation and the policies for MMN designation.
3. The proposed rezoning will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment
— specifically the Spring Creek corridor.
4. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly pattern.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that City Council approve 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.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested Structure Plan Map amendment
and rezoning request.
*V0-AO461R.7 U 1 MAO.
i.M
(RO.NO. f n
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 Rezoning. 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, storm water
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."
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 widens 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?
yry101M
f. General principles and policies supporting infl. 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 development at LMN density in this case.
g. 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 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 infl. 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.
f. 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.
Rezoning Request:
In order for the City Council to approve this proposal, Council would have to find that the
rezoning is: (1) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (2) warranted by
MOK)4041
P
IRD.M. , fka
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.
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" 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, staffs position is that a unified higher density development on the
entirety of this property is not necessarily a desirable objective in this particular
situation. The creek is deliberately shown as a Green Corridor defining different
land use 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. Another problem created by the proposed arrangement is that it leaves the single
parcel of LMN zoned land to the east of the site between this parcel (to be zoned
MMN) and the adjacent RL zoning, developed as low density, single family
residential. This parcel may not be difficult to develop into a land use that provides
a connection to both the adjacent MMN and RL zoned land.
e. 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.
Ro
` LTA
UMNO. 1
BACKGROUND:
The Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on
September 19, 2002. The Planning and Zoning Board found the existing Structure Plan
designation for this property is in need of change; and the proposed changes would
promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies
of City Plan to the designation of the property. Planning and Zoning Board recommended
adoption of the amendment and rezoning to the City Council by a vote of 4 — 2 (members
Craig and Colton dissenting, Carpenter absent).
Staffs position differs from that expressed by the majority of the Planning and Zoning
Board members. Staff contends that there is not an 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 located within 1/4 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 and the
Spring Creek corridor. The same reasons still apply. Staff recommended denial of the
Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning
and Zoning Board decision was focused primarily on the economic aspects of developing
the property and the perceived location next to transit corridors. Staff contends that
economic factors associated with developing a particular piece of property should not be
a primary reason for approving a rezoning application. Additionally, transit serving the site
is not within an enhanced travel corridor, rather it is provided a bus route with limited
service.
The Property
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: MMN; Undeveloped; Single Family Residential
S: FA1 (County); Single Family Residential (estate)
E: RL; Single family residential
W: POL; Undeveloped
The property was annexed in June, 1985 as part of the Springbrook and Springbrook Two
Annexations.
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.
'@'&° r
Ro Ill
R
uro.Ro. i ii.VG
25 A-B
October 1, 2002
Bob Barkeen
Edward J. Jaerger Revocable Trust
901 Alexa Way
Items Relating to Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Taft
Hill/Hull Rezoning.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinance by
a vote of 4 to 2. Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested Structure Plan Map
amendment and rezoning request.
A. Resolution 2002-096 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2002, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the
Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning.
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 site. The sites are designated as Low Density
Mixed Use Residential and Stream Corridor on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan.
APPLICANT: Steve Pfister
225 East Monroe, Suite 4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNERS: Wilber and Barbara Aanes
1926 Hull Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
■ "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."
o Proposal for higher densities is compatible, there are intervening
arterials or open space on all side sides of the property which
eliminate issues associated with adjacent residential incompatibility
o Because of adjacent services at DRAKE CENTER a grocery store
anchored shopping center higher density zone district is compatible
■ "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment......"
o No additional impacts different than would occur with single family
■ " Whether and. the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in a logical and orderly development pattern."
o An infill project, makes sense to allow as development.
V
0
Article II Section 2.9.4 "Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures" states
that a rezoning map amendment change must meet the following criteria:
■ "must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan" and/or
City's Comprehensive Plan views this general area of the City as a
suitable area for higher density projects. The subject property is
immediately adjacent to land already zoned MMN. Rezoning the
subject property to MMN would enlarge the MMN existing zoning area
to make it more compatiable. Expanding the existing MMN zoned
area presents the opportunity for an approximately 20 acre area
instead of an approximately 6 acre area to allow a size and scale of
project consistent with the intersection of two arterial streets (eg Drake
and Taft Hill)
■ warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject proPerty.
o Loss of ROW has made the property, and adjoining property to the
north, unsuitable as a Single family. Specifically:
■ ROW acquisition on Drake (adjacent to property already
zoned MMN)
■ ROW acquisition on Taft Hill
■ Trail easement for Spring Creek Trail and shoulder grading
on Taft Hill
■ Size of property is ideally suited to higher density residential
and not to single family e.g. The Preserve Apartments 16
acres
■ Single family properties are not appropriate at this location
adjacent to the intersection of two arterials. Widening and
expansion of Taft Hill and Drake has changed the character
and suitability by adding noise, and cars
In addition to these criteria the code indicates the Planning and Zoning Board
and City Council may consider the following additional criteria:
Taft Hill / Hull Rezoning
Reasons for Request
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the City Zoning Map and to Structure Plan,
to the extent deemed necessary. The 15.3 acre parcel is lot 2, lot 3 and lot 4 of a 1922
platted subdivision known simply as "Plat of Subdivision of part of West half of
Northwest Quarter Section 27, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 61h P.M.,
Larimer County, Colorado". This area was platted into approximately 5 acre lots in 1922
and has retained its "country" atmosphere as higher density single family subdivisions
have developed to the east and south of this 1922 "country" subdivision. The existing
zoning, which is LMN, would allow a continuation of similar single family development
as exists to the east and south..
Since existing zoning was established, expansion of Drake Road and Taft Hill Road
(including the new pedestrian trails, tunnels and bridges along Spring Creek) AND
expansion of the Drake Crossing shopping Center have changed.the Character of the area.
We believe it is in the best interest of the community to recognize these changes and
establish a new framework that is more compatible with recent developments. This area
is directly accessible by pedestrian trail to Rollin Moore Park to the northeast and across
Taft Hill / Drake intersection from the Drake Crossing shopping center. These
connections to the park and to retail services and employment are well suited to higher
density land uses as prescribed in the MMN zoning classification. If approved this
rezoning would result in the enlargement of an already existing MMN zoned area that is
across the intersection from an NC zoned area.
We believe the level of existing development in the surrounding area warrants that the
subject property be viewed as an "in -fill" project in an area that is highly urbanized and
needs higher density to benefit from the advantages of being adjacent to multimodal
forms of transportation, shopping, employment, parks, open space, schools, churches, day
care and other amenities that are within a short walking distance.
In addition to the above activity centers the subject property is relatively close to the
South College Avenue commercial corridor, to Colorado State University and to the
Centre for Advanced Technology. We believe it would be a missed opportunity for the
subject property to remain in the LMN zoning category.
r�
The proposed rezoning of Taft Hill / Hull does not create any adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Spring Creek runs along the north boundary of the subject property
and City Parks and Recreation has completed designs to construct trails and bridges along
the north edge of the property that would be compatible with higher density land uses.
Please refer to the attached legal descriptions, map of the area, and comments regarding
Article II Section 2.9.4 of the City's land use code.
,r
No Text
No Text
K11,0,0"00
Drake RO* ad
DRAKE ROAD
B 99 41 E 636.00
• 66 qoll
GEORGETOWN
6�06. GEORGETOWN 6Laa.
TOWNHOUSE l
17 CONDIMINIUMS Too
( �jT'0�p1�
Vl aLOO. 2 m
n
O
m z
° o
o
o
6La4. 3
aLo6. a O110
1B® ® 15® '
C
-
a _o
O
OD
-Ico
WW
m e ®
_
mF
®
r
u
m
00014
m
6
GEORGETOWN52�
p
so AD
o^
=:
0
:
CONDIMINIUM 15
D
= oo
=
o
NO .
S G. C.
O
= =
s
6 G(L
19. P
o
G e`F
D7.oB
322.5
339.0
N
380.4-
87.0 62.0
O
78 )9 D a0 al
a
-.�o 077 7Ds ER 07 ❑® p®
LeT y
LOT 3
LOT
r
= 119•D
I^
3
2
1
76 62.
MD
®
mo
t 75 )M >] 78
aby� W00
(0
22.E 66.9 6®2•D
159 1
6O
.-
r
D MD o®
66a6
O
00 10.FREMO2N
H
SUBDIVIS
ART OF
ON�F PART
•=
11
THE W
ST 1/2p
_
= as 6.
OF THE N
RTHWEST 1/4
(HD
.0
v
oOF
E'
SECTION
27
ao
``aQ
F.•I
16® 58.
6.7 66.0 66.0 66.0
322.5
309.0
I
O
2 3 6
V L N
0 O® Q, m03) n 004 00
•
Taft Hill / Hull Rezoning
Legal Description
All of Lot 2, all of Lot 3 and Lot 4 (excluding that portion of Lot 4 that was
taken for the widening of Taft Hill Road), according to the Plat thereof as
filed under File Number 244742 on November 8, 1922 in Book 4, Page 55,
in the public records of Larimer County, Colorado
�"V 0 0
No Text
•
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
October, A.D. 2002, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day ctober, A.D. 2002.
'Mayor'
ATTEST:
I'L & ,N)l h 1�'A A
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of October, A.D. 2002.
Mayor = .'
City Clerk C�)
ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2002
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN
AS THE TAFT HILL/HULL REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of
the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should
be rezoned as hereafter provided; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning
against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code, and the
same hereby is, amended by changing the zoning classification from "LMN", Low Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood Zone District, to "MMN", Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zone
District, for the following described property in the City known as the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning:
All of Lot 2, all of Lot 3 and Lot 4 (excluding that portion of Lot 4
that was taken for the widening of Taft Hill Road), according to the
Plat thereof as filed under File Number 244742 on November 8, 1922
in Book 4, Page 55, in the public records of Larimer County,
Colorado
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land
Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above -described
property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance. ,
;�...T.�,-h-
•
RESOLUTION 2002-096
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone certain property located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Hull Street, south of Drake Road, which
property is presently zoned in the "LMN" Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District,
which rezoning request is known as the "Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning"; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning complies with the
Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of the City's
Structure Plan, but does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City's
Structure Plan Map for that location; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposed Taft Hill/Hull rezoning is in the
best interests of the citizens of the City and comports with the City's Comprehensive Plan except
for the City's Structure Plan Map; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should
be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map
is in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the visions, goals, principals and policies of City Plan
and the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 1st day of October,
A. D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE:
M NUMBER:
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 disconnections and discontinuity explained above in the evaluation of the Structure
Plan amendment outweigh any benefits of the higher density.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the Taft Hill/Hull 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 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, based on the
Structure Plan designation and the policies for MMN designation.
3. The proposed rezoning will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment —
specifically the Spring Creek corridor.
4. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly pattern.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that City Council approve 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.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested Structure Plan Map amendment and
rezoning request.
DATE
NUMBER:
The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code, which defines
mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial Rezoning. 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, storm water 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."
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 widens 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
DATE:
NUMBER:
f. General principles and policies supporting infl. 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
development at LMN density in this case.
g. 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 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 infl. 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 captureddespite 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.
f. 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.
Rezoning Request:
In order for the City Council to approve this proposal, Council would have to find that the
rezoning is: (1) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (2) warranted by changed
conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property."
ZUUZ
DATE: c o er 1,
M NUMBER:
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
I designations across the Creek were based on existing development patterns and the presence of
the creek as a corridor to be protected and enhanced.
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" 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 a unified higher density development on the entirety of
this property is not necessarily a desirable objective in this particular situation. The creek
is deliberately shown as a Green Corridor defining different land use 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. Another problem created by the proposed arrangement is that it leaves the single parcel
of LMN zoned land to the east of the site between this parcel (to be zoned MMN) and the
adjacent RL zoning, developed as low density, single family residential. This parcel may
not be difficult to develop into a land use that provides a connection to both the adjacent
MMN and RL zoned land.
e. The sloping landlord 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.
DATE:
EM NUMBER:
BACKGROUND:
The Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 19,
2002. The Planning and Zoning Board found the existing Structure Plan designation for this
property is in need of change; and the proposed changes would promote the public welfare and
be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan to the designation of the
property. Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the amendment and rezoning to
the City Council by a vote of 4 — 2 (members Craig and Colton dissenting, Carpenter absent).
Staff's position differs from that expressed by the majority of the Planning and Zoning Board
members. Staff contends that there is not an 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 located within 1/4 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 and the Spring Creek corridor. The same reasons still apply. Staff
recommended denial of the Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning to the Planning and
Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board decision was focused primarily on the economic
aspects of developing the property and the perceived location next to transit corridors. Staff
contends that economic factors associated with developing a particular piece of property should
not be a primary reason for approving a rezoning application. Additionally, transit serving the
site is not within an enhanced travel corridor, rather it is provided a bus route with limited
service.
The Property
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: MMN; Undeveloped; Single Farnily Residential
S: FA1 (County); Single Family Residential (estate)
E: RL; Single family residential
W: POL; Undeveloped
The property was annexed in June, 1985 as part of the Springbrook and Springbrook Two
Annexations.
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.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
ITEWNUMBER: 25 A-B
DATE: October 1, 2002
FROM: Bob Barkeen
SUBJECT:
Items Relating to Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinance
by a vote of 4 to 2. Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested Structure Plan Map
amendment and rezoning request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2002-096 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2002, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property
Known as the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning.
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 site. The sites are designated as
Low Density Mixed Use Residential and Stream Corridor on the City of Fort Collins Structure
Plan.
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
901 Alexa Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524