Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA REZONING ..... SECOND P & Z BOARD HEARING - 45-01 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 7 Member Colton commented that he was somewhat uncomfortable with the contextual height section of the code. He felt that a change in height should be viewed as a modification and it should be reviewed as a Type II review before this Board. He felt that there should be more specific criteria about what it means because he felt that as of now it is "up in the air." Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Bella Vista rezoning from T, Transition to MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, #45-01. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig commended the neighbors for their diligence in keeping up with the process. She felt they brought up an issue, which obviously the Board is not real happy with, and that is contextual heights. She hopes that they follow up on the Type 1 process and stay involved with the project. Member Torgerson also suggested that the neighbors might want to contact the Neighborhood Resources Office for assistance and understanding of the process. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would be supporting the MMN, however he did share the same concerns about contextual height. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Poudre School District 2004 High School — Site Plan Advisory Review Project Description: Request for a site plan advisory review of a 94- acre campus for the 2004 High School. The site is located on a portion of the Webster Farm that lies north of McClelland Creek. This parcel is south of Rock Creek Drive, east of Ziegler Road, north of Kechter Road, and west of Cambridge Avenue. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board advise the Poudre School District Board of Education that the location, character and extent of the proposed 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 6 Member Craig felt that the definition was important for her to make her decision in that the definition of MMN is not tall commercial buildings. Whether she can make her decision tonight on this or not, she feels that if it has not been pinned down, it shows that this is an area that we should be concerned about and maybe should be addressing. Planner Olt responded that the MMN zoning district carries with it a three-story maximum building height. But, there is a section in Article 3 of the Land Use Code that is non -district specific that would allow an applicant to submit a proposal and staff would be required to review that proposal on "any" zoning district in the city of Fort Collins. Member Craig appreciated that, but it bothered her that it kind of changes the definition of what we wanted in MMN if we start looking at taller buildings just because there is a taller building in the commercial zoning district, whether we really want taller buildings in MMN. Planner Olt responded that it is not relevant to the MMN. It would be no different if this property were being requested to be rezoned to RL. They could still make a request through the contextual height section of the code for a taller building. Member Meyer asked what the process would be if they want to go over the three stories. Planner Olt replied that they would have to submit a request with their Project Development Plan, and reminded the Board that it was not being discussed tonight. The applicant has submitted a request that is being reviewed, a reference to Section 3.8.17, contextual height. That request also is not a modification to a standard; therefore this Project Development Plan would still be reviewed as a Type 1 Review. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified Member Craig's question regarding the contextual height. Contextual height does make reference to "adjacency" not "abutting" or "adjoining" properties. When it talks about the allowed contextual height it may fall at any point between the zone district maximum height limit, which in this case is three stories, and the height of a building that exists on lots that are "adjacent" to the subject lot. "Adjacent" means "near by," but it doesn't necessarily have to be "abutting." "Abutting" or "adjoining" means "touching upon." Planner Olt added that the building would also be reviewed, other than the contextual height section, for compatibility in Section 3.5.1, which any project is subject to, regarding height, mass, scale, shading, shadowing, privacy, architectural compatibility. This project will be reviewed against that criterion as well. r Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 5 Chairperson Gavaldon asked Planner Olt to review for anyone who may not know what MMN is and what are some of the uses allowed. Planner Olt replied that MMN is Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. "The purpose is intended to be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance to transit and a commercial district. Secondarily, a neighborhood may also contain other moderate intensity complimentary and supporting land uses that serve the neighborhood. These neighborhoods will form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment." "This District is intended to function together with surrounding low -density neighborhoods (typically the LMN zone district) and a central commercial core (typically a NC or CC zone district). The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral, town -like pattern of development, and not merely a series of individual development projects in separate zone districts." Planner Olt elaborated on the permitted uses in an Administrative, Type 1 review, you can have a full range of residential type uses going from single family detached, two- family single family attached, which are multi -family but are on individual lots, multi- family dwellings, mixed -use dwelling units. That would be a building that has residential plus at least one other type of use. You can have institutional civic type uses like churches, parks, schools and community facilities. Commercial uses are things like a bed and breakfast, convenience retail store without fuel sales, artisan, photography studios or galleries or child care centers. As Type II, or Planning and Zoning Board uses, you can have group homes, fraternity or sororities, institutional uses. Commercial retail uses are personal and business service shops, offices, financial services, clinics, and small animal vet clinics. That would complete the permitted use list for the MMN zone district. Kim Straw, Cityscape Urban Design reported that she could not get too specific, but they have a range of commercial and office type facilities that are permitted within the code and they don't know at this time what will go into this project. Member Craig asked about the discussion that was held regarding what "adjacent to" meant and was it ever pinned down what that meant in terms and definitions. Planner Olt replied that as of today, "adjacent" does not mean "abutting" or "contiguous." It will be further pinned down when we get into the project; it is not really relevant to the rezoning determination. r Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 4 Jeff Emmel, who lives in Cove Island, stated that he supports the MMN zoning. He would think that any project that develops on this property would have to meet the standards in the MMN zoning and considers the surrounding residential neighborhood. Tim Brookey with Aspen Leaf Apartments spoke to the Board. Mr. Brookey came to make sure that the Project Development Plan was not being reviewed tonight and wanted to make sure that the impact of this development on Aspen Leaf Apartments was going to be addressed. Will Stutheit, lives in Warren Landing and asked what the requirements for the MMN district were for commercial business. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Gavaldon asked that staff and the applicant respond to the questions raised during public input. Planner Olt addressed the question regarding height limitations in the MMN zoning district. Section 4.5 (E)(1)(d), building height states "buildings shall be limited to a maximum of three stories." Planner Olt also referenced Section 3.8.17, contextual height, which will come up and be better served at a later date. Even though there is a three-story height limit in the MMN zoning district, there is a section in the city code dealing with building height called contextual height. Section 3.8.17(A)(3), deals with contextual height relative to existing buildings that would allow an applicant to "propose" buildings taller than the maximum height in "any" zoning district. It is a non -district specific standard in the code. If an applicant would request a city review of a building height other than what is permitted, we would review it based on that section of the code. It is project specific and has nothing to do with rezoning the property. Zoned MMN, the maximum building height is three stories and rezoning this property would carry a three-story limit with it. At such time as the Project Development Plan is reviewed it would be brought before an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. Planner Olt addressed the question regarding the uses of the proposed project. He stated that there has been an article in the paper regarding the Project Development Plan, but this is the rezoning. He thought that it maybe appropriate to briefly ask the applicant what non-residential uses are proposed. To his knowledge, there is about 20,000 s.f. of non-residential uses proposed in the development plan. The development plan is not being discussed tonight. There are some commercial uses allowed in the MMN zoning district, they are not high -impact uses, they are more business service, and office oriented type of uses. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 21, 2002 Page 3 Project: Recommendation to City Council for Bella Vista Rezoning, #45-01 Project Description: Request to rezone 2.959 acres from T, Transition to MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The property is located at the northeast corner of Stanford Road and East Horsetooth Road. The property is currently vacant. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Olt stated that the property was originally annexed into the city in 1977 and placed in the T, Transition zone. The property was zoned T, Transition based on the owner not knowing what type of land use might occur on this site. The site remained in the T, Transition zone, and in 1997 when the city did a city-wide rezoning through City Plan the property remained in the T, Transition zone. The applicant is now asking for a rezoning from T, Transition to MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Planner Olt reviewed the criteria for rezoning. He stated that the request for the subject property complies with the designation on the City Structure Plan as "Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood." The request also satisfies the applicable review criteria of Section 2.9.4 (H) of the Land Use Code, and staff is recommending approval of the request for rezoning. Kim Straw, Cityscape Urban Design gave the applicants presentation. She stated that this is a small piece of ground that is surrounded by MMN Structure Plan zoning, which supports the requested designation. PUBLIC INPUT Tom Kitze, representing the Landings HOA asked what the height limitations for the MMN zoning district were. There seems to be some confusion on that and their understanding was that it was a three-story limitation in that zone. The applicant has gone to the contextual height section 3.8.17 and is going across to a different zone and a different block to get his contextual height, the Marriott Hotel, which is a whole city block away from his property. He asked for some clarification of what the MMN allows. They do believe that MMN is the proper zoning. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torcerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Meyer, Bernth, Carpenter, Craig, Torgerson, and Gavaldon. Staff Present: Gloss, Olt, Shepard, Jones, Stringer, Wamhoff, Virata, Bracke, Baker, McWilliams, and Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the December 7, 2000 and February 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ02-02 — Easement Vacation 3. #56-980 Rigden Farm, 6th Filing — Modification of Standards (Pulled to Discussion — Torgerson) 4. #45-01 Recommendation to City Council on Bella Vista Rezoning (Pulled to Discussion — citizen) Discussion Agenda: 5. Poudre School District 2004 High School — Site Plan Advisory Review 6. Johnnson Property — Overall Development Plan A citizen asked to have Item #4, the Bella Vista Rezoning pulled to discussion. Member Torgerson asked to have item #3, Rigden Farm, 61h Filing, Modification of Standards pulled to discussion. Member Carpenter declared a conflict on Item #2, Resolution PZ02-02 — Easement Vacation. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Item #2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.