Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHNSON FARM - REZONE - 24-00 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 8 Member Craig moved to approve Timberline Learning Center, Project Development Plan with two conditions. One, being the maximum number of children to 12. Also the hours of operation being 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. closed holidays and weekends. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Torgerson had a hard time believing that 12 could work economically and asked the applicant to respond. Ms. Schlotz responded that economically 12 would work for them, but 16 is the ideal number for them. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Johnson Farm Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, #24-00 Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 55.35 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road. The property is currently zoned T, Transitional. The Structure Plan designation for the entire property is Employment. The applicant is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to change 18.56 acres to Low Density Mixed - Use Residential, 29.62 acres to Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential, and to maintain 7.18 acres as Employment. The applicant is also requesting to rezone the property to a combination of LMN, MMN, and E to correspond to the requested Structure Plan amendment. Recommendation: Approval Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Meyer, Gavaldon, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter and Colton. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Jones, Stringer, Bracke, Baker, Williams and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18 and September 7, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 3. Resolution PZ00-26 — Modification of Plat Note. 4. #32-95F Registry Ridge PUD, Second Filing — Preliminary & Final. 5. Recommendation to City Council for Adopting a New City Plan Amendment Process. Discussion Agenda: 6. #31-00 Timberline Learning Center — Project Development Plan 7. #24-00 Johnson Farm Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment 8. Modification of Standard - Rigden Farm, Parkside West PDP 9. Modification of Standard - Rigden Farm, Parkside East PDP 10. Modification of Standard — Richie's Express Carwash (Continued) 11. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. oddAZ-2,� ��Sl Sago 54-, i Cc.— Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 23 the criteria he felt that this was consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. He did not think necessarily that it is warranted by change or condition, but that is an and/or condition. Member Bernth agreed with Member Torgerson. He felt the overriding concern is that there is a density issue involved here. He finds it ironic that something that increases density within the city, we are actually voting against it. It is what the city and City Plan are looking for. He thinks that the City Plan is an evolutionary document and that is why we have transition zoning. He does not like urban sprawl, and this is an opportunity to preclude some of that urban sprawl. Chairperson Colton commented that he is the last person that likes growth in the city overall, which is what is driving a lot of the traffic concerns. Since we did decide a few years back to grow denser, he felt the applicant has shown a good case as to how this does meet the Comprehensive Plan. He did not know if the neighborhood's concerns would be any worse, having residential rather than employment. The traffic engineers have said that the traffic would be worse with E, Employment. The motion was approved 4-3, with Members Craig, Gavaldon and Carpenter voting in the negative. Member Torgerson moved to recommend approval to City Council for the rezoning of the Johnson Farm as shown to them tonight. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion. He felt the concentration of MMN is too great in this area. He felt that this neighborhood has their share already. The motion was approved 4-3, with Members Craig, Gavaldon and Carpenter voting in the negative. Project: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code. Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 22 Planner Jones replied that the property was annexed in November of 1997, therefore the Structure Plan was already in place at the time it was zoned. There must have been some discrepancy with the landowner and the E District that they said let's put T, Transition here rather than zone it what the Structure Plan says. Eric Bracke discussed the cut -through traffic in the adjacent neighborhood, the speeding problems and possible solutions for the neighborhood. The Traffic Engineering Department has been working with this neighborhood for some time on the speeding problems, and every time staff thinks they have a plan in place for mitigation, it blows up. The Traffic Engineering Department is frustrated with the situation. Member Torgerson moved to recommend approval to City Council on the Johnson Farm Structure Plan revisions. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Carpenter stated she would not be supporting the motion. She did not believe that we have something here that is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and she did not believe there were any changed conditions that warrants this change. She believes very strongly that we need to be thoughtful when changing the Structure Plan, because we do jeopardize the predictability of it. She did not like the way we have been approaching these "ad -hoc" case by case basis, so we lose the predictability for neighborhoods. Member Craig concurred with Member Carpenter. She commented that if the neighbors had come to the board and supported this and said they were for this change, but the fact is there is opposition, and having been just a citizen when the Structure Map was put together, she completely agrees. To her it was a blueprint, and she could go away as a citizen with some predictability of what was going to go on in my neighborhood and the surrounding area. For the board to go along, as they feel it is o.k. and change it, is not fair to the citizens who spent a lot of time on it. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion. He believes in the Structure Plan, but what ever is put on this site, he hopes that the neighbors work together with it. He feels that keeping this with the Structure Plan is right and there should be predictability. Member Torgerson commented that of course we want to create more predictability, but if it is transition zoning, it was that way because they did not want to become E, Employment, so it was a given that someone was going to look at rezoning. Clearly properties are rezoned everyday all across America. The real reason he supported this was because the E zone and the zones proposed are very similar. When he looked at Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 21 an attempt made to disperse the employment areas throughout the city, and to have employment close to some of the medium density housing and commercial areas. Member Bernth asked that the neighborhood issues with densities be addressed. Planner Mapes explained the issues with traffic and that there needs to be a comparison with E traffic and that traffic could be greater with employment zoning. City Plan is based on a forecast for growth and a decision made not to try to deflect that growth or stop growth. The best way to accommodate growth would be to continue with the more single use, auto oriented pattern, or with more compactness, slightly more density overall as a city, and slightly more mixing and growing up as a city. Chairperson Colton asked Eric Bracke of the Transportation Department to address some transportation issues. He asked also that Timberline Road in the future as one of our major transportation spines be discussed. Mr. Bracke replied that there are a number of different land uses that could go into an E district. The traffic consultant used office park for this comparison, which is middle of the road for the uses that can go in there. With the amount of space available and with the densities that would be allowed in an office park, there would be about 8,000 trips generated per day. The mixed -use development that is being proposed would be about 5,300 trips per day. It is about 40% less. The work trip generates the majority of the traffic problems, going to and from work. In terms of the surrounding intersections, the Employment District would have a significant more impact on the surrounding transportation system than a mixed -use development would. Mr. Bracke explained that Timberline Road is intended to be a major arterial. There are several major arterials within the city of Fort Collins. They are College Avenue, Timberline Road and Harmony Road. The principle role is to carry traffic, not property access. Timberline is expected to carry over 40,000 cars a day. We expect to have bicycle facilities and high frequency transit along the corridors. Chairperson Colton asked for the history of how this property became to be zoned T, Transition. Planner Jones replied he did not have the history, but he believed that when it was annexed in 1997 it became T, Transition. Planner Mapes added that usually a T, Transition means that when the property was annexed, the owners, without having a plan or a good idea of what they might do with it, were not comfortable letting the city impose zoning. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 20 Member Craig asked about the multi -family housing and did staff feel that we are behind in multi -family housing. Planner Mapes responded that the facts and figures that have come in and are correct. In looking at the acreage's that are zoned MMN, there is not much of that left, except for the possible future Mountain Vista area in northeast Fort Collins. It is not ready for development due to some infrastructure reasons. Member Craig asked if LMN zoning could have multi -family up to 12 units per acre and could there not be some LMN that could be working with the multi -family element? Planner Mapes replied that was correct. We are not actively concerned about the lack of MMN, but the basic facts and figures that are being presented are true. Member Craig asked if staff felt there was enough E, Employment and we really don't need this as an employment area. Planner Mapes replied yes, there is plenty of employment with the build out of City Plan. Member Craig felt this would be a golden opportunity to have an employment area that actually has infrastructure for it. Planner Mapes replied that this would be a fine site for employment use. Planner Mapes reviewed a map of the concentration of multi -family housing in the area. Planner Mapes stated that staff looked at the typical pattern of the Neighborhood Commercial District as a new kind of center for future and new development, surrounded by the concentric zone of higher density housing. From that perspective staff feels that this site can work. Also, if this site were developed with more residential, staff feels that it would help make the Rigden Farm commercial district more viable. Member Torgerson asked why this site was put in the E, Employment area. Planner Mapes replied that in looking at the railroad tracks on one side of the property, the arterial, the major arterial and the industrial site to the north, it was felt that this was a transitional area and its probably going to go to some kind of office or higher density housing use. The reasons that E, Employment is a fine zoning district for this parcel also tend to support the MMN zone also. Member Carpenter added that she was on the City Plan Advisory Committee and she stated that there was not anything magic about the E there. She thought that there was Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 19 Steve Pfiester, Real Tec, addressed the comments that came up regarding the market analysis. He stated that much of the traffic issue in the neighborhood is because they have a very large apartment project in their neighborhood. The number of children in apartment complexes in Fort Collins is 8-12 in a project of 200 units. One of the major exceptions is Parkwood East because it is next to the park, EPIC and the school. Therefore it does attract apartment residents who have children. Mr. Pfiester stated that vacancies are very low, they may have gotten to the 5 or 6% range, typically in the summer months when the students leave town. As of now, we are 98% occupied, down to 2% vacancy. Rental rates will increase because of the lack of supply. Chairman Colton gave the neighborhood a chance for rebuttal. Mr. Immato stated that no one there is contending that there is not a need for more multi -family housing. Although a 7 to 8 year supply seems like it doesn't require a zoning change. The question is whether this is the right place for it. That is the thing that has not been addressed by anything they have heard from the developer. Member Craig asked Planner Mapes from Advanced Planning why he felt this change was warranted. Clark Mapes, Advanced Planning replied that clearly their position is that they are supporting the change. That is based on the analysis that the applicant presented to the Board tonight. They were about 50/50 when this property was zoned E. He did not think he heard clearly tonight that they don't have to zone this property. It is zoned T, Transition now. The code requires that we respond to a property owner who has this transitional zoning quickly and place it in a zone. So we need to zone it something, and the Structure Plan suggests that it would be zoned "E". Based on the analysis, staff was swayed mainly by two points. The two strongest points were the market analysis showing that we don't have a compelling reason to reserve this site for employment use, and also the commercial center in Rigden Farm and the higher density MMN zoning that would surround the neighborhood center and transition into lower density single family. There is a whole lot behind these concepts for the Structure Plan. So with the E and the MMN, on those two points, those are the main reasons that staff is not opposing the change. Member Carpenter asked if there was any compelling reason that we need to make a change from what is in the Structure Plan. Is there some reason that E, Employment would not work there? ' Planner Mapes replied no. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 18 Judy Albright, resident of Parkwood East wanted to go on record as saying that she 100% supports what has been said tonight in opposition to this development. The density, increased traffic, the cut -through traffic, the increased traffic on Eastwood, and the effect on her property values. She commented that the developer does not know the quality of life here because they do not live here. She mentioned that she did not receive the second invitation either. She felt that walking across the third busiest street in Fort Collins (Timberline) to the neighborhood center at Rigden Farm will be like trying to cross 1-25 and wondered how many people would do that? Pete Peterson, lives in Parkwood East and is a member of the Parkwood East Neighborhood Association. He stated that he has spoke to many friends and neighbors in Parkwood East and the vast majority of people would like it to stay a cornfield for the next 20 years. If that is not going to happen, they have had a lot of experience with the pipe plant there making life miserable, that there are many types of neighbors they could have besides a residential area. The people he talked with would much rather have a housing area, instead of any industrial, commercial or other types of options that would want to locate there. There is a concern with traffic, but those same problems are there today and have been there for some time. He would love to see a road between Timberline and EPIC. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Colton offered the applicant a rebuttal to the citizen input. Mr. Chapman clarified that the statement he made regarding the attendance at the neighborhood meeting was based on the number of people who signed the sign -in sheet. They did not do a head count. He stated that the traffic study was thoroughly reviewed by the Transportation Department of the city of Fort Collins. It was deemed acceptable, there were no major issues at this time. As the plan is refined with the ODP, PDP and Final that is when the level of detail is discussed with number of units and the actual road layouts. At this stage, it was deemed acceptable. As far as access to the neighborhood commercial at Rigden Farm, Timberline is slated to be a very busy street and will have three travel lanes in each direction with a 30-foot median. In terms of crossing, you will not be crossing 6 lanes at once, you will be crossing three lanes twice. There is a holding area in the median that will allow people to cross safely at a signalized intersection. A lot of the concerns tonight were regarding density, proximity, transitions and land use trends. Rigden Farms was done and approved under the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code. This site was designed specifically with the City Code in mind and meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The multi -modal path is built behind the property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 17 to get to the EPIC. He supports the overall vision of City Plan and what they are trying to do. Kathryn Linowski, resident of Parkwood neighborhood since 1986 mentioned to the Board that the previous speaker is a developer in Fort Collins and works with the Rigden Farm properties. She would like the Board to take his statements with a grain of salt. She disagreed with Mr. Hand's statement that Riffenburgh is at capacity and it is not at capacity by any stretch. Ms. Linowski spoke of the concerns she has with her children riding their bikes to school now and when the proposed developments are built. She was concerned with their safety. Ms. Linowski reported that there would be more people here tonight but there is a concert at Riffenburgh School and also the CSU and Wyoming game. She stated that she stopped counting the number of people at the Riffenburgh neighborhood meeting when she got to 55. She questioned the statement that there were only 25 people at the second neighborhood meeting. Ms. Linowski felt that because of scheduling conflicts with neighbors, she felt that the city has not had a good opportunity to get feedback from the neighborhoods. She stated that she did not receive a notification from the developer. There was a blurb in the Parkwood newsletter, but that was all they got. She did not feel that this project was comparable to existing neighborhoods. She has not seen a significant change since the Structure Plan went into effect three years ago. She did not see how they have a compelling ground for a rezoning request. Cut -through versus destination traffic, she did not know what that was all about. She thought that this Board was being asked to increase the density in Rigden Farm in two separate areas tonight. How dense do we want this to be. It is unbelievable. To say that this new area would feed to Laurel Elementary School is naive. The Poudre School District has and will re -district at any time. In doing so the obvious choice would be the school located within one mile of this location. Karen McWilliams, resident of Parkwood east stated that she was an employee of the city in the Advance Planning Department. She was speaking as a private citizen. She spoke about the Structure Plan and how the property became zoned "E" in the first place. After much input by the citizens of Fort Collins, the Advance and Current Planning Departments and the Planning and Zoning Board decided to zone this property E, Employment. Ms. McWilliams stated that the reason it was zoned "E" was because it was going to be located along the third busiest street in Fort Collins. Who in their right mind would want to live along the third busiest street in Fort Collins. The Rigden Farm is different. They are going to have a neighborhood commercial center and they are going to have their housing back off of the main street. This proposes housing next to the third busiest street in Fort Collins. The city in their wisdom, just three years ago, felt that this property should be zoned E, Employment because that made sense. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 16 Mr. Immato commented that this is going to be the first intersection in the city to be built out under the new City Plan. It was a very controversial plan and he thinks the city should be very careful to make sure they do this in a thoughtful way and in a way that it does not cause public opinion to be turned against the plan. He is concerned that the level of density that we are talking about here will cause an adverse impact and it will galvanize the community against the plan. Wayne Linowski, lives in Parkwood neighborhood commented on traffic. He was concerned with traffic in the neighborhoods. His concerns are with the area building out as residential and not an employment area. He felt the traffic would be largely limited to major arterials as opposed to through the neighborhoods. There have been comments about a multi -modal corridor, but at this time it is simply railroad tracks. Mr. Linowski stated that we do have school of choice here and given the distance to Laurel Elementary, one could assume that people coming into this neighborhood would in fact try the school of choice into Riffenburgh. Mr. Linowski can only speculate why it was designated an E on the Structure Plan, but he guessed that it was to provide the opportunity for employment that would be located close to the high density residential areas that are being developed. Mr. Linowski stated that his primary concern was adding traffic to their neighborhood and that the build out of this proposed development would further compound problems that already exist. Kathy Bettinghouse, lives in Parkwood East commented that she did not receive a letter for either neighborhood meeting. She mentioned that her neighbors also did not receive a letter. She agreed with the previous speaker's comments and felt that the cut -through is a problem and there are just not enough outlets to get out onto Drake, Lemay or Prospect. She felt it would complicate matters with more intensity of traffic. She interjected that the Fort Collins High School traffic was phenomenal. She mentioned Liberty Commons and Rivendale School also in the area. She encouraged the developer to look at Loveland instead of Fort Collins for more apartments. Brian Wetzel, lives in Parkwood East spoke of his concerns. His concern was with traffic in the neighborhood. He spoke of traffic calming measures that have been installed in the neighborhood to no avail. He felt that adding hundreds of homes to escalate a problem that is currently not being solved in their neighborhood was hard to understand. He also did not understand who would pay a quarter million dollars for a home that was next to railroad tracks, a pipe yard and apartments. Bob Hand, resident of Stonehenge complemented the developer on their presentation. He felt that they were meeting the needs of City Plan. He supports the project but would like to see a little less multi -family and a few more single family. More of a 50/50 balance. He did not think people would be cutting through the neighborhood because it is too confusing to get through. He stated that you have to get over to Prospect anyway Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 15 out will house approximately 4,100 people. Assuming that they use 500 units for this development and with the Advance Planning's estimate of 2.4 per household, there would be approximately another 1,200 people on this site. You are looking at 5,300 people at this intersection. That is roughly 4.8% of the current population of Fort Collins located in that small area. In addition, it is his understanding that the site just north of Rigden Farms is suited for a similar use and density. Assuming that that site were to be built out to the density of Rigden Farm, you would be looking at roughly 10% to 11 % of the total population of Fort Collins currently located in that area. He felt that another square mile, like that around the university, is being created here. Mr. Immato commented on the market study that the applicant presented during their presentation. It was his understanding that at the time the current plan was developed, quite a bit of thought and time went into it. A decision was made as to what this property should be zoned. In the Structure Plan it is E, Employment. It was stated that one of the criteria for changing it would be to find that it was warranted by changes in the plan, or adjacent neighborhoods. He was not clear on what has changed since 1997 that would fundamentally require that this site be rezoned. He has seen nothing and has gotten no response from the applicant to this question. The zoning E, is extremely broad, there are any number of uses that could be made for this property. They have been told that this site would not be suitable for E use that it would take 20 years before this site would be built out. He referred to the site to the north at Timberline and Prospect where an office development is going in just to the north of BMC and it is fundamentally difficult for him to understand why that is an economically viable site, but a site a mile further south is not. He believes that with the growth to the south, this site is closer to the population centers. Mr. Immato addressed traffic issues. The first was cut -through traffic. They were just told that there would not be cut -through traffic because EPIC is a destination. He failed to see how you can put 5,000 people at this intersection and not have a significant increase and demand for the facilities at EPIC. He believed it would increase the cut - through traffic in their neighborhood because people are not going to want to make the trip around. He also believed that the traffic would increase significantly on Drake. It is already difficult to get out of the Parkwood neighborhood. You cannot turn left onto Lemay. He felt that there is the same problem with the traffic study as with the market study, which is the designation is so very broad it is almost meaningless. The statement was made that there would be a 40% reduction in the number of trips, but he felt that if this were an office use, there would be no trips on the weekends. If this were a residential neighborhood, the impacts would be seven days a week. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 14 • The proposed Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning are supported by the policies, goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code. • Loss of (E) Employment would not be as significant as the beneficial gain in MMN area to the community. • The proposed rezoning will not result in significant impacts on the natural environment. • Ensures that a balance exists between the housing demands created by growth in the lower income job market and residential development capacity. • Provides a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed -use development that will be served by existing transportation options, commercial development and amenities. • Ensures that the City has an adequate supply of single family and multi -family housing. • Locates a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood within a '/< mile of the Neighborhood Commercial Center planned at Rigden Farm. • Supports the implementation of a development plan in which the different uses are appropriately arranged to provide a transition between different existing neighborhood densities. • Reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled by locating higher density residential housing between a significant commercial retail center and multi -modal transportation corridor. • Address housing accessibility and affordability by committing needed land resources to higher density residential land uses. • Provide compatible land uses and effective land use transitions with existing adjacent neighborhoods. • Results in a logical and orderly development pattern, promotes "compact urban form," and reduces the probability of "leap -frog development. • Market Study clearly supports approval of the proposed rezoning and structure plan amendment, and provides a solution to the imbalance of available land uses. • City Staff recommends approval of this rezoning and structure plan amendment application with no conditions of approval. PUBLIC INPUT Gary Immato, resident of the Parkwood neighborhood stated that the applicant has built their argument around the premise that the proposed use more clearly meets the needs of the city of Fort Collins. In particular that there is a drastic shortage of multi -family housing. He would argue that a seven to eight year supply hardly constitutes a drastic shortage. He believes that the question isn't really necessarily whether this meets the needs of the city of Fort Collins, it is whether this is the appropriate place to meet those needs. It was his understanding that the Rigden Farm neighborhood, when fully built- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 13 for the meeting that night. Many of which were people who showed up at the first neighborhood meeting. He felt that they went above and beyond the requirement for neighborhood meetings. At the neighborhood meetings they learned of some concerns, which were primarily traffic issues. Although traffic issues at a rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment are not criteria for approval, they did want to address the issue. Mr. Chapman stated that in going forward with their proposal with a mixed use residential and partial "E" area, they asked their traffic engineer to look at some different scenarios. • What is the difference in traffic if they would build out their site versus if it were to be built out using an average employment site. The answer is their proposal would create 40% less traffic than if the site were built as an "E" use. It would also create less intense traffic at the a.m. peak hour than does the "E" use. Also due to the background traffic volumes, the levels of service along Drake and Timberline intersections will remain the same with or without this project. Mr. Chapman stated that the real issue was the potential traffic that may be directed towards Riffenburgh Elementary School or Edora Park. The site because of its layout and proximity to some of the features can be significantly mitigated or offset in the following ways: • The school district has stated that the children who live in the Johnson Farm neighborhood will attend Laurel Elementary School, not Riffenburgh Elementary. • School enrollment will remain generally constant at Riffenburgh regardless of how the district boundaries may be drawn in the future. • The existing Multi -Modal Transportation Corridor located directly adjacent to the Johnson Farm site will provide alternate pedestrian/bicycle access to the Epic Center, which is consistent with City's goals. • There will not be enough people from this site that will be using the Epic Center on a regular basis to quantify it as a traffic impact. • The minimal Epic Center traffic generated by this site is characterized as "destination traffic," not "cut -through" traffic. Mr. Chapman reported that it was anticipated that the planned road improvements for the Prospect and Timberline intersection will be completed prior to build -out of this project. Finally, at the last neighborhood meeting, they were asked by the neighborhood to facilitate discussions' between the city and the neighborhood group. Their answer is yes, they would be happy to help wherever they can. Mr. Chapman reviewed the approval criteria. He highlighted their findings of fact and justification for approval: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 12 acre. Their goal for that particular designation was to create a transition from the existing RL neighborhoods and not have all the site be developed as an MMN. There is an opportunity in the center for a neighborhood park, which would be a requirement of the LMN zone. They plan on placing that where it would benefit each of the uses. The greater portion of the site is planned for MMN, which allows for uses in a more concentrated use of housing that is easy walking distance to the transit, commercial and retail opportunities. The employment area, is the area at the northwest corner that is the existing designation and they left that portion of the site in that designation to provide an opportunity to transition use from the proposed changes to the existing employment uses and the industrial uses to the north. Also, to leave some opportunity for uses that would be a support of this neighborhood that is allowed within the E designation. Mr. Kam reviewed a slide of the Illustrative Concept Plan to demonstrate some of the opportunities of this mix of zoning designation and how they can inter -relate. He discussed the variety of products and the relative density representation of what could be done within the plan. He reviewed some of the densities. In the LMN area it could have from 93 to 148 units; MMN could be from 355 up to 533 units; the employment area could support a little under 100,000 s.f. of additional commercial. The range could go from as high as 400 to 650 housing units depending of the mix and the outcome of the plan. Mr. Kam spoke of the opportunities that are demonstrated with the plan with the mixed designation of zonings: • Working with strong relationships of buildings to the street and block pattern and circulation. • The opportunity to implement a lot of other goals of City Plan in terms of access and truly creating a mixed use type of neighborhood for the project. • Opens spaces, particularly along Timberline, while they want to have a strong orientation of the high -density uses, it does not mean that they want to force a lot of buildings up against it. The detention areas and amenities for the project will be used to create an attractive street scene along Timberline. • To have an inter -connected system of walks and other modes of travel. The multi - model corridor to the west of this site provides a real opportunity in that regard to give people alternatives to the car. Mr. Chapman spoke about the requir6d neighborhood meetings. He stated that 300 invitations were sent out to property owners that live within the 500-foot radius. Comments were received from owners that had conflicts that night and also to increase the number of invitations for a requested second neighborhood meeting. For the second meeting 900 invitations were sent out, and approximately 28 people showed up Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 11 The second level of the market analysis was taking a look at more of the Drake/Timberline corridor, more of a micro approach. The commercial findings were: • Ample land resources for major commercial and employment uses exist in more desirable locations. (Harmony, Prospect and Mulberry Corridors) • Subject property has no direct connection to 1-25, unlike better commercial alternatives (Harmony, Prospect, and Mulberry). • Local retail market is severely limited by the physical barrier presented by the Cache La Poudre River. • Rigden Farm is approved for a significant Neighborhood Commercial Center (275,000 to 488,000 sf). This effectively eliminates other commercial retail opportunities within this area. Second Level Summary/ Residential Findings: Best use of this site was determined to be primarily higher density residential, for these reasons: • Relative scarcity of viable new multifamily property throughout the City and within this sub -area. • Land supplies for higher density residential opportunities will become increasingly scarce. • Rezoning this site with a significant higher density residential component will help correct this imbalance of land use supplies. • With planned road improvements, the Drake/Timberline corridor will continue to grow to support a wide variety of housing needs. • Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide a variety of attractive retail conveniences within walking distance of the site. • Site is large enough to support a variety of housing opportunities and reflect a design that is consistent with the City's goals, objectives and policies. • Provides a more compatible use with the existing adjacent neighborhoods than would a Commercial/Employment use. • Provides an appropriate and logical transition of land use intensity, relative to surrounding neighborhoods. • Multifamily users will be attracted by the increased visibility provided by the future high traffic volumes on Drake and Timberline. • Places additional customers directly adjacent to the planned Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Centev, supporting its economic success. Craig Kam, Director of Planning for Nutzer-Kopazt Design Associates, spoke about the proposed zoning of the property. He stated that the proposed LMN zoning would allow for a variety of single family and some attached product opportunities within the density requirements of LMN, of a minimum of 5 units per acre but no more than 8 units per Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 10 Planner Jones stated that staff was recommending approval of the Structure Plan Amendment and the rezoning request. Planner Jones stated that there were two neighborhood meetings held in which both the rezone issues and the Overall Development Plan were discussed. There has not been a neighborhood meeting that gets at the PDP level of detail. They have not submitted a PDP as of yet. The minutes for both meetings were included in the Board's packet. Planner Jones pointed out the four main issues that were raised at the neighborhood meetings. • The traffic impacts to the Parkwood and the Parkwood East neighborhood. • Left turns onto Drake. • General congestion about traffic on Drake and Timberline. • School capacity in the schools. Brock Chapman, representing the Cumberland Companies, applicant on the project, introduced his development team. Mr. Chapman mentioned the handouts he provided tonight for the Board to follow along with the slides. Mr. Chapman gave a presentation to the Board. He spoke on the location of the property, the current zoning being T, Transition and the Structure Plan being E, Employment. He reviewed the surrounding properties and their uses and/or their zoning. Mr. Chapman stated that their overall objective was to find a market to meet and promote the goals, objectives, philosophies, and standards of City Plan. Also, to thoughtfully consider the adjacent and surrounding uses in devising the plan then provide a development everyone could be proud of. Mr. Chapman reviewed the market analysis. He stated that the first level determined the overall supply and demand of the developable lands within the city's growth management area. They evaluated the commercial ground available as well as the residential ground available. It also determined the absorption rates for each land use based on historic demand. It evaluated the available supplies of land for each land use in terms of number of years to build -out. The findings were: • Significant imbalance of available land uses exists between commercial, SFD, and Multi -Family. • The greatest shortage of viable land, relative to other uses, is higher density residential. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 16, 2000 Page 9 Hearinq Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Jones, using slides, gave the Board a brief orientation from the vicinity map. He reviewed the request for . rezoning and the Structure Plan amendment. Planner Jones explained that the Structure Plan amendment was supported by the policies of City Plan, especially: • The location of LMN and MMN was ideal given the close proximity to the Neighborhood Commercial Center (the red dot on the Structure Plan) in Rigden Farm; • The site is well suited for LMN and MMN uses because it is on a designated future high frequency transit route; and • The location is well suited for LMN and MMN uses because of the close proximity to employment centers along Prospect, further south on Timberline, and along Harmony Road. • A market study submitted by the applicant revealed that MMN uses are in fairly short supply in the city in general and that the benefit to the city of having more available MMN outweighs the loss of the Employment zoned area. Planner Jones stated that when and if the request is determined to be in order, the next step is to look if it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. His staff report and the applicant have outlined a variety of citations from City Plan that this proposal would support. The second criteria within the Land Use Code for a rezone would be that the request is compatible with existing or proposed land uses surrounding the subject land. Staff supports that because the NC and MMN uses across the street are compatible with the MMN proposed on this site. The single-family neighborhoods to the west are compatible with the low -density portion that the applicant is proposing as well. The third criterion for review was if the rezoning would significantly impact the natural environment. It has been determined that it would not. The last criterion looked at in a rezone was whether the development results in a logical and orderly development pattern. Planner Jones stated that we are not at the stage in the rezone to where we talk about street design and street and intersection locations. This project does have an Overall Development Plan that is currently under review and we are dealing with those issues in that review. When we get to the PDP stage, we will be enforcing the Land Use Code requirements of how the streets internal to the site work.