Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM (CSU) ZONING - 56-98/A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 12 Member Carpenter commented that there may have been a mistake when City Plan was done in that maybe it was not clear that, while this is our blueprint, it really is not in concrete. It really is the spirit of what is on the Structure Map that matters. She felt it does address the spirit of the Structure Plan. She hoped we continue to make these kind of changes because she did not think that those who worked on the Structure Plan thought that this is the way we have to do it. They knew that when it got down to site specific there would be some changes. Member Davidson commented that he also felt this was a living document and it is changeable. His problem is that the compromise is always in favor of development and open space always gets the short end. Member Gavaldon felt that they should be flexible in their decisions. He believes in the process and that we have to come out ahead for the benefit of the community and the tax payers, which developers are also taxpayers. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Davidson voting in the negative. Project: Recommendation to City Council for changes to the La Use Code for Affordable Housing Projects, #55-95S. Recomm dation: Staff and the Affordable Housing Board recor►fiend adoption. Ann Watts, City Planner g\the staff presentation. (A portion of this tape for this project was damaged n� d is missing). Member Gavaldon asked if a financial'ba'is has been done on the trade-offs from going from 30% to 10% on past units, and developments. Ms. Watts replied that staff is4oing to try to look at'andexpand the financial impact analysis before it goes to Council. They are considering trying to putt a number on what it is going to cost with all the affordable housing projects that they know are in development novv The challenge is that they don't have any wa-0guessing how many developers are going to look at this and say they can do 10% affordable, no problem. It is hard to predict what the impact will be. M atts stated that what will be looked at will the number of affordable housing rojects that she knows about that are being planned and figure out what they might Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 11 1. That the rezoning be conditioned so that as long as title to the property is vested in the State Board of Agriculture, and the property continues to be used for educational research extension and related support services, this rezoning will not apply. 2. That no more that 232 dwelling units be located on the portion of this plan that is presently located in the area marked Urban Estate and to be changed to LMN on the presently existing Structure Plan. That there be no dwelling units in the public open land area below. Member Weitkunat moved to recommend to Council approval of the amendment to the city structure map regarding the Rigden Farms/Spring Creek, #56-98A. The change would be from UE to LMN and ROL on the Structure Map. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Davidson voting in the negative. Member Weitkunat moved to recommend to Council approval of the Rigden Farms/Spring Creek Rezoning #56-98A to LMN and RC zoning with the condition that it meets the CSU condition as stated earlier, the condition that the LMN parcel previously stated restructuring be limited to no greater than 232 units, and that the RC zone will extend from where it is being proposed to the south and will tapper from a minimum of 100 feet on the north down to possible 0 on the south where the road connects to the existing road. That this is both consistent and compatible with the City Plan. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Davidson stated that he did not see enough justification to change the Structure Plan as it exists in this area and would liked to have seen more buffer. He would not be supporting the motion. Member Craig commented that she felt the spirit of all the work that went into developing the Structure Plan was being broke. She felt the reason that the developer brought this project in, the reason that they told everyone what this was going to be was to sway the Board's decision. If they had just come and asked for a higher density and a rezoning to LMN, the Board might not be so quick to fragment what was intended in this area. She would not be supporting the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Miller replied that this issue came to him yesterday. The NRAB had a limited opportunity to discuss this issue and where they were going with the broad paintbrush theory in tinkering with the Structure Plan. They did not know the details, as preliminary as it is, of a development proposal. The relocation of County Road 9 to the west of the ditch provides about as adequate of a buffer you can get. He predicts that the future of Western Mobile would be to come into the natural areas system. Mr. Miller felt the 20 acre RC would be a stormwater retention pond and there was no intent for that area to come under city ownership, it would still be private, so it was not like it was creating a new natural area with public access. Mr. Miller stated that he believed in the Structure Plan, but did not feel it was meant to be concrete, but felt this was still setting a precedent that he was uncomfortable with. Member Carpenter asked if the UE on south would like up so there is no break with LMN coming right up against the UE to the east. She felt that there should be a way to continue the buffer so there is a continuous buffer and not a break. Mr. Sell explained on the map where they would have to tie in at a certain point, but would immediately begin tapering away, so there would be a continuation into the open space area. It would open up to 100 feet or more. Member Carpenter asked if they would but that on the record for tonights proposal. Mr. Sell stated he would Chairperson Colton asked about the clustering and would they be doing a cluster within the 80 acres away from the river. Mr. Sell replied that it was integrated. It is clustered in the 80 acres to remove the density that was in the LMN that would be next to the RC. Chairperson Colton commented that during City Plan it was determined that there should be lower density development on the bottom side of the whole bank. He has not seen a real good justification or why we should change it out of hand. He stated that the conditions here have not changed since doing City Plan and he also has concerns about changing things. He would like some assurance, if approved, that they will be meeting the intent of it as a transition area and that it will be around 2 units per acre and no more than 232 units. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that there could be conditional zonings. Mr. Eckman read into the record the condition that is already being required of the rezoning request, and the proposed condition. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 9 Member Weitkunat commented that the amendment that is before them, is better than what was originally intended for this area. She says that because of the plan that is in the background, but the conditions there and looking at the development in the area, the new idea tends to fit better than the old idea. She stated that leaves 10,700 acres of Urban Estate to develop on, some of which is in this area. She personally likes the RC in that corner because she sees that corner developing in a greater scheme than what we originally intended or saw. She felt that the beauty of City Plan is that it is a living document changing with the needs of the city, and she felt that this was appropriate for what is going on here as it evolves and develops. Member Craig disagreed. This area was in the Poudre River Study Corridor and in looking at this she felt that the Structure Plan was their blueprint to work off of. Member Craig stated that this area is a conservation open lands, "this river segment posses abundant, highly significant natural and historic resources." " Land uses in this area should emphasize open lands conservation to assure protection of significant resources." She felt that it was well thought out when they put this in and thought of this as a buffer. Her fear is that, not that their project is not excellent, but if we do it for your project, then the piece of land to the north is going to come in and spend two hours convincing them that their project is wonderful and pretty soon they will have worked their way through all the Urban Estate and we will not have the buffer that was meant to be there. Member Craig stated that the NRAB has put together a memo to remind them that it was not staff that made this Structure Map, it was not CPAC alone that made the Structure Map, it was many boards, people and a lot of time. She would like to stick with the blueprint that is in front of them. She would like to keep it Urban Estate. Member Davidson commented that the 20 acres is not enough because it cuts the Urban Estate in half. What it does to him is justify developers to the north in the future to rationalize that is should not be Urban Estate because there will be nothing compatible with it, it has already been broken in half. He has to look at what impact this will have on the Structure Plan. When you change this, you change the designation of what was planned there, and there maybe some room for compromise, but at this time what he sees is not enough. Member Davidson asked the NRAB representative, Mr. Miller, how concerns from the NRAB, in regards to this being zoned LMN, with the RC in the corner, to be more specific and maybe add to what has been offered here for other options. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Davidson would like to lock an increase to the RC now as to have it in concrete. He asked Mr. Sell if they could give up more to RC now to make it more workable. Mr. Sell replied that the developer is willing to put in a tree farm between the development and the canal that would be at least 50 feet. Chairperson Colton asked why it could not work with Urban Estate, when there is only a difference of 32 units. Mr. Sell replied that in Urban Estate, you cannot exceed 2 units per acre and lot sized have to be '/z acre or larger. What they are saying is that this area has been identified for the affordable housing. Mr. Eckman added that under the Cluster Plan, the minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Board provided that the average density of the proposed development does not exceed 2 dwelling units per net acre and the density of the Cluster Development does not exceed 5 dwelling units per acre. Director Blanchard stated that there are still dimensional standards for the lots, so even if you do cluster, there are still certain minimum dimensional standards that could affect the design. Mr. Sell stated that they looked at the criteria during the break, and they cannot even achieve even 200 units if they do it that way. He was not opposed to doing clustering in the Urban Estate District, but it looks like the only way they can achieve what they need to do is to go with the change of the zone. Mr. Sell pointed out that immediately to the south of the area of concern is urban level housing that is adjacent to this same area. That is a compatible kind of extension of what the land pattern already is. Mr. Sell offered to consider Mr. Davidson's suggestion and move the road away from the ditch to create a buffer. They can get it at least 100 feet away from the ditch going north, but they will have to do it in a transitional way because it is an arterial street. They are willing to do that and plant it heavily with trees and possibly some berms. Mr. Sell also pointed out that this is an exception, this is not a typical situation that the Board faces with rezoning because the land owner, Colorado State University has said that if the plan, that they are watching over our shoulders, developing on their land, does not get done, and these developers do not do it, this deal does not happen, the zoning goes back to no zoning at all. So, if they eliminate even 32 units, the Board is saying that they are willing to eliminate 32 affordable housing units. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 7 anyway. He did not think that needed to be a condition of the zoning because it would be looked at under the historic preservation criteria of the Code. Director Blanchard stated he would reflect that concern on the record when he does the staff report to the City Council if the Board requests that. Member Carpenter agreed. The motion was approved 7-0. Chairperson Colton asked for comments on Item #8. Member Davidson was concerned about the 20 acre extension of the River Corridor. He thought that the parcel was isolated and fragmented and should be larger by 10 or 20 acres as to not be surrounded entirely by roads. Mr. Sell replied that the level of traffic was small there because of the sewer plant and the Environmental Learning Center. You still would have a service drive connection. Member Davidson thought that when the parcel to the north of this RC comes before the Board, the Transition Zone, we would have to think how this ties into this as to not fragment the RC areas. He was concerned that the Environmental Learning Center would become more popular with time and with the increased population here, it will become more used. He would like the RC areas to blend together and not be fragmented. Member Davidson asked what the developers vision is of the RC area as a finished product. Mr. Sell replied that they were surprised that the NRAB was in opposition to this. His impression was that the opposition was further to the south. Mr. Sell stated that they met with Tom Shoemaker of the Natural Resources Department and he wanted a wetland buffer between this use and the lake. What he is certain will happen is during the development process, is that they will be working with the Natural Resources Department as that is designed so the wetland component and the lake component will be in balance with what they want and what they feel is appropriate. Member Davidsons thought was that if we could increase the RC District somewhat, then it would give some contiguity from one Urban Estate stretch on the south to the Urban Estate stretch to the northwest that shows up on the Structure Plan. With the proposed triangle, he did not think that was accomplished. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 6 Plan. She does have some concerns with the historic structures on the corner of Drake and Timberline. There is a whole farm complex there that are all eligible not only locally, but nationally under criteria A and C, and perhaps B, broad patterns of history, architecture and important individuals. She was concerned with a change in the zoning at this point that does not already address that. She asked Mr. Sell to address what is planned for that piece. Mr. Sell responded that his understanding at this point was that intersection would be rebuilt as part of this development. What will happen is that the road will need to be widened to the east and there are some very large existing trees. Mr. Sell met with the LPC last night and was asked to save the trees which would mean that the house has to be moved. The LPC position is that they would like to move it 20, 30 or 40 feet and leave it up in that location. Their position is that since they will have it loaded, to move it to a more pastoral setting surrounded by open space and adjacent to the foothills basin, instead of the very intense, busy intersection. Director Blanchard added that the LPC will provide a recommendation at the time of the Project Development Plan on the design of the intersection. It does entail saving the majority of the large trees. They also passed on discussing where it may be appropriate to move the building until there is a specific proposal during a Project Development Plan. Member Weitkunat asked to deal with the two parcels separate. She suggested they start with Item #7. Chairperson Colton asked the Board for comments on Item #7. There was none. Member Weitkunat recommended to City Council the approval of the Rigden Farm/Spring Creek Rezone, #56-98. That it is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, the zoning is compatible and the proposed districts are appropriate for this property. It is a logical and orderly development pattern. The current zoning is T, Transition and the requested zoning is NC, MMN and LMN. She found this consistent with the City Structure Plan. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Carpenter proposed a friendly amendment that they somehow recognize the historic structures and the importance of the historic structures and that we recognize that there will be adaptive use of them. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that was an issue that would have to be addressed when the Project Development Plan came before the Board because it is in the Code Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 5 Martha Roden, lives in Timberline Village near the proposal. Ms. Roden's concern was with the impact on the natural habitat. Mrs. Roden asked the developer to keep in mind that the houses that they build and the roads they build to provide access take away from the homes of the species that live there now. She feels that the open space proposed is too small. She disagrees that this development will not have an impact on the species that already live there. Carole Schriefer, 2642 Blackstone Court stated that recently the Board reviewed the Wal-Mart proposal and denied it in part because of the impact that the traffic would have on an area that is largely commercial. The area that the developer is talking about improving is almost completely residential. With the number of homes they are proposing to put into this area, the impact will be phenomenal on the traffic patterns that not only exist now, but in the future when this project is built out. In addition, she thinks there will be a tremendous impact on the pristine area there now by the Poudre River. She believed that needed to be considered. Candace Krick, future resident of Stoneridge stated that her concern was with what would be built there if this project does not go through. She was concerned that it will become a hodge podge development. Right now there are developers working together and there are a lot of benefits with that. Mickey Willis, resident of Fort Collins since April stated one of the first things he did when he moved to Fort Collins was pick up a copy of City Plan. He stated that if this project does not meet those codes and projections and visions of the city, then he really doesn't know what does. They create more open space than any development that is presently in place. As far as traffic, the design that City Plan has was to decrease transportation by residential design. This with the mixed use of commercial and retail spaces creates an atmosphere of a village that people don't have to use their cars. Mr. Willis urged the Board to approve this proposal. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Gavaldon asked about the Western Mobile mining operation and how would it be buffered from the residential area. Mr. Sell replied that there is an existing use that may cause some conflicts. It is there, its big and you cannot miss it. A Realtor cannot mislead you about what is currently existing and operational. If anyone buys there, it won't be out of ignorance, they will know that the condition does exist. Member Carpenter stated that having served on the City Plan Advisory Committee, she is excited to see a project like this come through that does appear to work with City Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 4 existing importation channel. It would stay on the west side. For the short-term, County Road 9 would stay a service road to accommodate an operating gravel mine, but in the future it may become a bicycle and pedestrian path. Relocating the road works well with the cluster concept because it creates a sharp edge next to the housing, it also moves urbanism away from the Environmental Learning Center and the river. The setback from the existing river corridor would be 780 feet. The gross density would be 2 units per acre, the gross density including the open space would be 2.32 per acre. Open space on the current Urban Estates would be 0, there is no requirement for open space in the Urban Estates District. Open space on this 100 acres would be 17 to 20 acres. Buffer between the existing RC District and the housing is 0, and the proposed buffering is 780 feet. Mr. Sell reviewed the Principles and Policies that support this proposal. The Board had them listed in their packet. PUBLIC INPUT Bill Miller, Representing the Natural Resource Advisory Board, which met last night and generated a memo that the Board was given tonight. Mr. Miller stated that it was a well planned development but had concerns if it would remain the same as the project develops. What would guarantee that the densities would remain what they are. Mr. Miller spoke about the existing natural areas and their concerns that the development on the west side of County Road 9, as proposed tonight, conceivably sometime in the future could be adjacent to what may become a natural area. Their concern that the higher densities that are proposed in the LMN as opposed to the Urban Estate conceivably would lead to several problems. One is the higher disturbance from household pets from the developed area. Secondly, this proposal would cut the Urban Estates into two segments and their concern is that there was a 2 year process to create the Structure Plan and it is alright to tinker with it. Marty Schriefer, 2642 Blackstone Court in Stoneridge spoke about the proposal. He concurred with the fact that they all expect to see development in this area, but his concern is with the size of this project and the traffic impact they will face. Mr. Schriefer questioned how much of this land is developable because of several drainageways and an irrigation ditch. He would like to know what the buffer zone for that should be and if the buffer zone and the natural drainageways are considered acreage in determining densities of houses for this proposal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 3 • In addition to enhancing what is already there, they plan on another parallel corridor that goes from the neighborhood commercial area through the project down to a core area in the single family portion of the project where the community building will be. • How the existing structures would be used at the corner of Timberline and Drake Road. They would relocate those structures and turn them into a community center and recreating a farm environment. • The flavor of the core commercial area and a component where they would like to create an active streetscape more like an area in old town Fort Collins. Architecturally it would be very rich with a lot of things going on. • There are some planned alleyways, not everywhere. Mr. Sell explained that this project was unique in that the request for rezoning and modification to the Structure Plan Map has a contingency attached that is based on a relationship with the owners, CSU. Mr. Ron Baker, Director of Facilities Management at Colorado State University stated that the sale of this property is part of the funding for moving the farm to be coincidence with the farm located south of Wellington on the east side of the interstate. He stated that they had several offers on the property and were pleased to offer the property to local developers who have a quality project. The contingency that Mr. Sell was referring to deals with sovereignty issues of the State Board of Agriculture and their land with the city zoning, that is why the property has no zoning at this time. They are submitting this rezoning on behalf of the developer, but the contingency would be for this sale, and whatever zoning is approved would be for this sale only. Mr. Sell stated that the contingency would be for the CSU portion. The balance after the 80 acres at the corner are taken out. Mr. Sell stated that the rest of his remarks would be related to the portion that is proposed to be modified. Mr. Sell presented a comparison of the northeast corner, where Drake Road and County Road 9 border the property. The Board was asked to consider a modification that would allow the Urban Estates to be changed to a combination of LMN, and RC. There are about a total of 100 acres involved that is currently showing Urban Estates. At the density that is allowed, the maximum number of units that could be developed is 200 units. What they are proposing is to break the 100 acres into 2 pieces. They are proposing clustering on the LMN 232 units on 80 acres and that would leave about 20 acres that would be RC. In their plan that would have a lake and wetlands. County Road 9 and a portion of Drake Road would be relocated to avoid two existing one -lane bridges and therefore, County Road 9 would never cross the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 2 Project: (7) Rigden Farm/Spring Creek Farm Rezone, #56-98 (8) Rigden Farm/Spring Creek Farm Rezone and Amendment to the Structure Plan Map, #56-98A Project Descriptions: (7) Request to rezone approximately 80 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road. The current zoning is T - Transitional. The requested zoning is NC, Neighborhood Commercial, MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. (8) Request to amend the Structure Plan Map and initially zone approximately 228 acres of property located south of Drake Road and west of County Road 9. The requested amendment to the Structure Plan Map designation is from Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed Use Residential. The property is currently unzoned since it is owned by CSU. The requested zoning is Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the rezonings and Structure Plan Map amendment. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning gave a staff presentation on both applications, recommending approval of both projects. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Architects gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Sell gave a slide presentation to the Board and showed work that the design team has done in Fort Collins. Bill Neal, Developer of the Project spoke to the Board about their vision of the project. Mr. Sell reviewed the site and spoke about the following: The Foothills Basin Drainage way that goes through the property. It was starting to take shape in terms of an environmental look. Natural Resources has been involved and has invested money to make it more attractive and to provide more environmental opportunities. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1998 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Glen Colton Vice -Chair: Sally Craig Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201 Phone: (H) 484-9417 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Glen Colton. Roll Call: Carpenter, Gavaldon, Craig, Davidson, Meyer, Weitkunat and Colton. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Ludwig, Bracke, Schlueter, Wamhoff, Blandford, McCallum, Shepard, Watts and Macklin. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas.- 1 Minutes of the September 17, October 1, and October 15, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ98-30 Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ98-31 Easement Vacation. 4. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 5. #59-98 Salvation Army Church - Project Development Plan, Special Review. 6. #23-98 Fort Collins Loveland Water District - Project Development Plan 7. #56-98 Rigden Farm/Spring Creek Farm Rezone (Moved to Discussion Agenda) 8. #56-98A Rigden Farm/Spring Creek Farm Request for Rezone and Amendment to the Structure Plan Map (Moved to Discussion Agenda) 9. #55-95R East Prospect Rezonings (Continued) Discussion Agenda: 10. #65-93C Harmony Village P.U.D. - Preliminary 11. #55-95S Recommendation to City Council for Changes to the Land Use Code for Affordable Housing Projects. Director Blanchard stated that Items 7 and 8 would be moved to the discussion agenda. Member Gavaldon moved to approve consent agenda items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.