Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE DEVELOPMENT REZONE - 1-01 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 18 Member Torgerson would be supporting the motion mainly because the CCR district does allow every housing type conceivable. LMN does not restrict the parcel to housing and neither does the CCR. He felt the purpose statement meets this property to a tee, and the LMN purpose statement does not. He felt that CCR was the logical choice. Chairperson Gavaldon had concerns about this. He felt that the Downtown Plan based on the hierarchy does dedicate the parcel to housing. The motion for approval was denied with Members Colton, Craig, Carpenter and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Craig recommend to City Council approval of LMN zoning and that was based on the Downtown Plan which takes precedence. She felt as though the plan wants housing there and she felt that the LMN would give them housing and that we can still get a neighborhood center there. If the Board follows the Downtown Plan, it feels appropriate to zone it LMN. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Meyer would not be supporting the LMN zoning. Planner Shepard stated that there is no LMN zoning next to downtown. There is NCB, NCM and NCL. Those are all the buffering neighborhoods. The downtown is buffered by zone districts that are specifically geared toward buffering downtown and they are not LMN. Member Craig stated that in the LMN zoning, you can have commercial, but it has to be in a neighborhood center. Planner Shepard replied that was true, except if there is already an established LMN neighborhood center within 3/ mile of another LMN zone district. You can do offices, financial and clinics and free standing stand alone uses in the LMN. The motion for LMN zoning was approved 4-3 with Members Meyer, Bernth and Torgerson voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 17 Member Carpenter asked what was in staffs minds when the Downtown Plan concept map was done which clearly labels it housing. Planner Shepard replied that the concept plan was not meant to be exclusive. If you read the map with the text, you cannot just read the map. The map is accompanied by text. The text clearly calls out for a mix of land uses. The CCR zone is a better zone than the RC. The RC was put on this property to implement the Downtown Plan. The CCR zone is a result of City Plan. Zoning is the implementation tool of sub -area plans. Member Craig still felt like the intent was to take the Buckingham neighborhood and turn it into a neighborhood, so the Buckingham Park would be part of the neighborhood, there would be more housing there, and would have more of a neighborhood feel. Planner Shepard replied that staff has been advised by Advanced Planning that this parcel is a downtown fringe parcel, it is not an extension of the Buckingham residential neighborhood. It is not an LMN parcel. It has a relationship to the downtown and the river and there is only one zone for that and it is CCR. That is staffs opinion. Member Meyer moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Poudre Development Rezoning from T, Transition to CCR, Community Commercial Downtown District. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. If you look at the area as a whole, it could be LMN; there could be a neighborhood center. Advance Planners will admit one of the things lacking is housing and there is already a neighborhood park. She felt this could easily be LMN and connect to the Buckingham neighborhood, which is LMN on the Structure Map. Member Colton would not be supporting the motion either. He felt that the Downtown Plan strongly encourages and desires more housing in this area. Not only in the concept plan, but also in a lot of the language in the document. He felt that the CCR zone allows too many uses that are not consistent with more of a residential feel. He felt it would be more appropriate as LMN. Member Carpenter would not be supporting the motion. When Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the Downtown Plan took precedent, she felt there was a conflict between the Land Use Code, City Plan and the Downtown Plan. She felt that the Downtown Plan clearly wants housing on this parcel. Nothing presented tonight has shown her that this was not supposed to be housing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 16 retirement housing." These appear to him as to being equal. He does not see housing as rising to the surface. Planner Shepard pointed out that if you read the purpose statement in the Land Use Code under LMN, it states that typically low density neighborhoods will be clustered around and intregal with a medium density mixed use neighborhood with a neighborhood commercial center at its core. For the purposes of the LMN division, a neighborhood should be considered to be approximately 80 to 160 acres with its edges typically consisting of major streets, drainageways, etc. Staff does not see these 21 acres, which is surrounded by employment and industrial and RL, to be LMN. It does not have the intregal relationship with MMN and NC. It is not part of the three things, that staff feels that work together intregally. Staff feels that it is a downtown fringe parcel that is designed to support the downtown, not compete with downtown, and offer a mix of land uses. If you read the purpose statement of the CCR, there are specific references to properties in the Cache La Poudre River Corridor area that have both public street and river frontage. That is this parcel. Staff is recommending the CCR district. Member Colton looked at the concept plan, which has land use opportunities and has an H on this property, which is housing. Planner Shepard replied that the map has to be read with the text. The map does not take precedent over the text. Staff feels that it is a mixed -use zone. Member Colton asked what in the zoning would encourage some housing here and not a big commercial type development, which is what the Downtown Plan says, would be a special opportunity for this particular parcel. Planner Shepard replied that zoning does not have that function. The zoning is based on the Downtown Plan, which clearly states that this is a downtown fringe property and it is not an LMN property. The Structure Plan calls for it to be Downtown and the text supports mixed land uses. Housing is allowed. If the question is how can we say that if we allow CCR, how can we prioritize housing over the other permitted uses, he did not feel that we could do that. Member Colton felt that housing was stressed in the Downtown and he believes that it should be LMN because it more encourages a mixture of different types of housing with supportive commercial. He felt that it would be a more appropriate zoning. Planner Shepard replied that staff disagrees Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 15 Planner Wilder responded that was because in the Land Use Code, it is not given a specific district, because it is a zone transition. There was not one applied. He stated that the Downtown District is referring to the description of the Downtown District in _City Plan. Member Craig asked if this was the only piece of property that we have to go to the Principles and Policies. She did not remember any other district that they can't go to the Land Use Code and find. Chairperson asked that the hierarchy of the Structure Map be discussed. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that he felt that the discussion was headed in the direction of whether the Structure Plan Map is correct, or should it have been drawn differently. In the process of rezoning, you look at your step 8 standards. Is the proposed rezoning in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or are there changed circumstances to justify the rezoning. That is in the Land Use Code. If you have a regulation of general application and another conflicting regulation of local or specific application, first of all you try and reconcile. If you cannot reconcile the two and give effect to both, then the local or specific one trumps the general one and controls. In this case the Downtown Plan is a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Downtown Plan is more local and more specific than the Structure Plan. The Structure Plan Map is more general than the Principles and Policies. First you look at the local Downtown Plan and then there would be the Principles and Policies, Structure Plan, then the Vision and Goals. Member Colton stated that there is a map included in their packets that is very specific, that show housing as the desired use on this property. There are also a couple of references in the Downtown Plan where is says that housing is encouraged in specific areas and also to have uses that are compatible with housing. His biggest concern is that this parcel should be an LMN instead of River Corridor. There are uses within the CCR which are more intense than what the Downtown Plan specifies, regarding housing and what they are showing as desired uses, desire to have housing in the downtown area would lead him to believe. Planner Shepard stated that he did not get that majority concept. When he reads the Downtown Plan, every reference to the Poudre River Corridor, for instance under the Letter S, on page 69: "permit destination retail uses, light manufacturing, research and science laboratories, and similar uses in locations within the Poudre River Corridor District." Letter T, on page 70 says: "to encourage the development of a special river front area that mixes hospitality, hotel, recreation, entertainment, culture and some limited retail land uses in the Poudre River Corridor District." Letter U: "encourage new single family detached and attached units, medium density residential uses and elderly Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 14 Member Craig stated that the Structure Plan Map shows this property as Downtown District where as all the other property that was in the Downtown Plan was marked as Poudre River Corridor is shown as Poudre River Corridor. She asked for clarification as to why this particular piece of property on the Structure Plan was not made Poudre River Corridor. Planner Shepard replied he did not know, it did not think it was done in error. He thought what the Downtown Plan says it that this is a fringe area, but it is still downtown. We wanted this to be a fringe supporting land use to support the downtown. The way he reads it was that it is part of the downtown, but a fringe area to offer a supporting function and not compete with downtown. He does not think the Structure Plan is wrong. Member Craig did feel that it was a mistake, and felt the Structure Plan was in error and it should be zoned Poudre River Corridor. Planner Shepard reflected what was discussed last night with the Natural Resources Advisory Board that Ken Waido of the Advanced Planning Department attended. They addressed the Board for about 30 minutes and he could say very clearly, that it is Mr. Waido's opinion that the Structure Plan is not in error. Member Craig felt that the Structure Plan should reflect the property as River Corridor the same as the Link N Greens piece is. It goes nowhere as a Downtown District and it does not even show this property in the Downtown Map. Timothy Wilder, Advanced Planning Department tried to address the question through City Plan. The plan talks about the Downtown District, which includes three different types of areas. One is the Canyon area, the Old Town Areas and then the Poudre River sub -district area of downtown. This property is identified in the Poudre River sub- district, therefore, by extension, this area would be in the Downtown District area, however, the sub -district categorization in City Plan is for that Poudre River sub -area. Planner Wilder stated that this area actually falls under two different areas in City Plan. One is the Downtown District in City Plan, and of that description, the Principles and Policies section. As well as the Poudre River Corridor description as well which this property fall under as well. Member Craig asked if he was telling her that it is in the Policies and Principles, but it is not in the Land Use Code under both of those. In the Land Use Code it shows the Downtown Districts are Canyon Avenue, Old City Center and the Civic Center. It does not show the River Corridor at all. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 13 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this was a continued item from the last Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He stated that staff was recommending approval. He reported that a neighborhood information meeting was held, and the minutes have been distributed. Also, at the request of a Board Member, staff has met with the Natural Resources Advisory Board and discussed this item as well. It was an informal discussion with no formal action taken. The consensus seemed to be that the CCR Zone was appropriate. They talked about future development, flood plain regulations and the commitment to the neighborhood that we made to come back and do additional neighborhood meetings upon the submittal of a Project Development Plan. Tom Peterson, Planner, representing the applicant gave a presentation. As he testified at the last meeting, they agree with the staff recommendation to the Board. He stated that they notified property owners within 1500 feet and not the required 500 feet. They attended the neighborhood meeting last week. At this point in time there are no development plans on this property. It is the intent of the property owners to continue to wash concrete trucks there. At such time that there is some desire to develop the property, the owners have no problem going through the required neighborhood meetings. Public Input Member Craig noticed that on the Structure Plan Map, this property was put down as Downtown District, it was not even counted as Poudre River Corridor. She asked if that was intentional. Planner Shepard replied that the Downtown Plan preceded the Structure Plan. The Downtown Plan designated this area as River Corridor. In fact the River Corridor preceded the Downtown Plan. The evolution was that it was the RC zone based on the Poudre River Corridor, it is part of the Downtown Plan, and it is part of the fringe area of the downtown. The Downtown Plan refers to it as the river corridor area, and the result of the zoning that came out of that was to zone it RC. The result of the City Plan and Structure Plan zoning was to keep referring to it as downtown, because it is part of the Downtown Plan. The Structure Plan then reflected that sub -area plan. When it came time to recommend a zoning back in 1997, staff looked at the sub -area plan, the River Corridor zone, and that it was incorporated within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, and the CCR zone was the replacement zone for the RC zone. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 12 Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01 based on the criteria that the amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That the amendment to the zoning map was warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property because of the overrght. Also, that the zoning proposed amendment was compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; and that the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig thanked the neighbors for comity tonight and she hoped the Board addressed their concerns. She encouraged them to stay in touch with the process when a PDP does come in. She would like their concerns to be addressed, but that could not happen until a development proposal comes in. Member Carpenter would support the motion, and encouraged th4 neighbors to continue to participate at the PDP level. Member Colton also did not like when erroneous information or multiple types of information goes out when people rely on that to make a decision. He does believe that this was best for the community and does fit with what we are trying to do with City Plan. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Poudre Development Rezoning, #1-01 Project Description: Request to rezone the Poudre Development parcel from T, Transition, to CCR, Community Commercial River. The parcel is 21.7 acres in size and located on the east side of the Poudre River bounded by Linden Street, Buckingham Street and First Street. Recommendation: Approval Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Meyer and Torgerson. Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Grubb, Olt, McCallum, Moore, Jakson, Stringer, Jones, Wilder and Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18, November 16 and December 7, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #3-90H Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing - Final Discussion Agenda: 3. #4-01 Ridgewood Hills Rezoning 4. #1-01 Poudre Development Rezoning 5. #40-98 Cathy Fromme Vt Natural Area Annexation & Zoning 6. #40-98A Cathy Fromme 2Id Natural Area Annexation & Zoning 7. #43-98 Coyote Ridge 1:t Annexation & Zoning 8. #43-98A Coyote Ridge 2"d Annexation & Zoning 9. #43-98B Coyote Ridge 3rd Annexation & Zoning 10. #43-98C Coyote Ridge 4th Annexation & Zoning 11. #43-98D Coyote Ridge 5th Annexation & Zoning 12. #43-98E Coyote Ridge 6th Annexation & Zoning 13. Referred Minor Amendment to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center. Member Craig pulled Item 2, Westbrooke PUD, Second Filing for discussion. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent Item 1, May 18th only. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.