Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LANDS REZONE AND STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT - 34-88D - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 3 those have been in place for about 10 years, and they currently operate in the same fashion. Ms. Reavis stated that the guidance part of the project has to do with some of the parallel roadway alignments. For example, along Mulberry, the plan is stating that the frontage road intersections with Highway 14 should be pulled back a minimum of 150 feet from the Highway itself. If a project would come in for redevelopment and rather than do 150 feet, they wanted to do 250 feet, that would be fine from the standpoint of the plan, because that distance isn't a fixed distance, it is a minimum distance. If they wanted to do more than that, it would not require an amendment to the plan. Member Bernth moved to recommend to City Council approval of the US287/SH14 Access Management Plan including the associated Master Street Plan Amendments for the North College and Mulberry Corridors. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Interstate Lands Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, # 34-88D Project Description: Request to change the zoning designation of five (5) parcels totaling 65.32 acres within an approximately 155.57 acre site located at the northwest corner of Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The changes would also include an amendment to the Structure Plan Map. Recommendation: Denial of the Structure Plan Amendment to extend a major transit corridor along Prospect Road. Approval of a Structure Plan Amendment to extend a feeder transit corridor along Prospect Road. Approval of the Structure plan Amendment request to change the Plan's land use designations. Approval of the rezone requests. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 4 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ron Fuchs, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He reported that the current Structure Plan designation is predominately commercial, employment, low density mixed use neighborhood and urban estate. The applicant is proposing three Structure Plan amendments. One Structure Plan amendment would expand the UE zone into currently LMN zoning. He stated that his staff report did not reference it, but the narrative did refer to it. The applicant is also proposing decreasing the employment area and re -designating it low density residential. The third Structure Plan amendment is extending a major transit corridor along Prospect Road north and south along County Road 5 and then connecting up to Mulberry (Highway 14). Planner Fuchs stated that the applicant was proposing two rezones. One is increasing the size of the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Zoning District to the east and incorporating some of the employment areas. Also, increasing the E, Employment District with lands from the presently zoned commercial area. The requests includes cleaning up some legal descriptions. Planner Fuchs stated that Staff recommended approval of the Structure Plan amendments and the rezone requests, except for the applicants proposal for a major transit corridor. Staff recommends that it be referred to as a "feeder line". Member Craig asked why staff was approving this. She stated that when this came before the board in 1997, staff approved employment, and now she was wondering why staff was approving going back to LMN. She asked why staff felt this was better than employment. Planner Fuchs responded that staff was recommending approval because there has been a number of changes that have been occurring since the subject property was zoned. There was a potential use of the surrounding area and farther to the east, there is a proposed school. Staff feels that there should be more residential zoned properties. Staff also felt as though the applicant has justified the proposed changes. Member Craig asked if just because the School District bought some land and are speculating putting a school there was justification enough to change the zoning designation on the Structure Plan Map. Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard responded that the purchase of the high school property is not the sole reason. The applicant in his request for the Structure Plan amendment also cited a number of City Plan policies and staff felt they were valid. He stated that it was staffs feeling that while there is a changed situation, there are Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 5 policies in City Plan that can support any number of plan designations, including the expansion of single family residential. Member Craig asked if staff was saying that there are City Plan policies that can justify employment and then there are City Plan policies that can justify LMN, but staff felt strong enough about the school property that they felt the LMN was more appropriate. Director Blanchard replied that it was a question — he did not know whether it was feeling strongly enough about the purchase of the property, but that was one element that indicated that there were some changes in the area that were anticipated that we need to plan for. That warranted using the plan policies that supported single family to expand that area to a certain degree. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed changes. He gave a history of the zoning on this property and the changes that were made during City Plan, and how the zoning that is in place today was arrived at. Mr. Ward stated that the policies support a mix of zoning in this area. City policies do not specify "x" number of acres of employment versus low density mixed use residential, which is not all residential. Mr. Ward noted that in looking back at the Planning and Zoning Board minutes for this rezoning in 1997, the board comments stating the opinion that the zoning would be better if the LMN area was larger. He stated that the reason they have come forward at this time, was because last fall the owner was approached by a potential developer of the site. He agreed with the conclusion that a larger residential district was needed to make a real neighborhood consistent with the goals of City Plan for this area. Mr. Ward stated they did hold a neighborhood meeting on the proposed changes, and the potential developer of the property dropped out shortly before the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors were told that the likelihood of an imminent development proposal is not as high as they thought it was. Mr. Ward noted that there still is interest in this property. Mr. Ward stated that there were a large number of positive comments about the direction that they were headed with the change in zoning and creating the opportunity to have a large enough residential area to do a good mixed use neighborhood with density stepping down toward the neighborhood. Mr. Ward concluded by saying that based on their evaluation, the work they have done with staff, previous board comments, and the results of the neighborhood meeting; they feel that their request for both the Structure Plan Amendment, with the modification that staff has recommended of, "feeder transit" rather than "high frequency", and their zoning request are appropriate and are a positive change in this area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 6 Member Craig asked Mr. Ward to explain what the current zoning on the property is by acreage, and what they are proposing by acreage. Mr. Ward responded that the Urban Estate Area is unchanged both in area and configuration, the existing E, Employment District is just over 104 acres, the existing LMN District is only 15.7 acres, the existing C, Commercial is 8.1 acres. The proposed C, Commercial, with the proposed boundary line changes is 5.2 acres. The proposed change would be 68 acres of LMN and 60.5 acres of E, Employment. PUBLIC INPUT Lloyd Warrington, 713 Verde Avenue spoke about his concerns with transportation and safety problems. He was concerned with the amount of traffic on Prospect Road and the 1-25 interchange. He was also concerned with additional traffic in Sunrise Acres when this property is developed. Mr. Warrington was also concerned with the canals and the safety of the children that would be living out there. He felt streets and roads should be looked at before development occurs. Phil Oaks, 3438 Boxelder Drive spoke about his concerns with drainage in the area. He spoke about the ground water being high in this area and was concerned with developing this area and where the water would flow. He asked the Planning and Zoning Board to consider working into the plan some kind of improved drainage plan into the Cooper Slough area. Mr. Oaks shared his neighbors concerns with the increased traffic on Prospect. Mr. Oaks stated that the Boxelder Estates homeowners oppose any kind of connection or extension of Boxelder or any other drives from Boxelder subdivision to any development to the east. Walt Cummings, lives on Sherry Drive, spoke about his concerns with the ditches and flooding in the area. Mr. Cummings also commented about traffic safety in the area. Public Input Closed Vice Chair Gavaldon asked Director Blanchard to explain what criteria is to evaluate this project. Director Blanchard reviewed the Land Use Code criteria for the board. He reminded the board that the Structure Plan amendments must be approved prior to voting on the rezoning request. Vice Chair Gavaldon offered the applicant a rebuttal to the citizen comments. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Ward stated that they had their traffic engineer look at the developable area within this property and look at the difference between expected development under the existing zoning pattern, and the expected development under the proposed zoning pattern. The average daily trips were expected to be about 30% less with the proposed zoning pattern than with the existing zoning pattern. They were lowering the intensity of development. Mr. Ward added that these are the issues that would be looked at at the time of the project development plan. Mr. Ward stated that they are aware of the issues raised by the neighbors and would address them at the time of a development proposal. Member Carpenter was concerned about the employment area and that there had been problems finding large enough sites within the city to designate as employment areas when the Structure Plan was created to set aside real employment districts for the larger employers. This property to her, was one of them. It concerned her to carve it up and bring it down to a smaller size. Member Craig asked Mr. Ward what they were using as their justification for the change of conditions within the neighborhood. The reasons why this property should not be zoned employment and should be zoned more LMN. Mr. Ward replied there were three areas they looked at for a change in condition. • One, largely through the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan, looking at balancing jobs and housing. If you look at the 1-25 Corridor area, there are massive areas of commercial, industrial, and employment ground. Precious few opportunities for residential neighborhoods. What that implies is that all the people who are working and shopping areas will have to drive across town to get there because we are not providing any opportunities for people to live closer to these jobs in these commercial areas. The change in condition is an awareness of trying to come closer to balancing jobs and housing. • The second, as was commented on earlier, was the likelihood of having a high school site. • The third is some further definition of the natural areas and open space requirements and floodplains, the Cooper Slough, the area between the ditches and Boxelder Creek and the likely need to buffer those areas. They see this as a change in condition because it is something that was not known three years ago. It is still being defined, but it is clear that there will be some open space buffers out there that will impact the viability of that existing LMN area. Member Carpenter asked Mr. Ward if part of the existing LMN would be buffering, the 15.727 acres. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 8 Mr. Ward replied that the confusion is that in the Land Use Code, it states that there should be a 300 foot buffer from the Cooper Slough natural area. This site is impacted by the Cooper Slough floodplain, but their biologist, that has reviewed the area, states that there is no viable habitat there. So the Land Use Code says there should be a 300 foot buffer, obviously the buffer is there to protect the habitat, but the experts are going out and saying that there is no habitat to protect. Mr. Ward stated they did not know what they have. The buffer area would take a large bite out of the LMN area, less than half the area. Member Craig asked about connectivity, and asked whether connectivity can be made with this LMN area, and whether the 5 acres purchased by the Cooper Slough Association to buffer themselves would allow the city to cross to make connectivity. Director Blanchard replied that at the neighborhood meeting, they had indicated that we would have to look at the document, that was the result of the purchase of the 5 acres. We are still in the research phase and we are not sure if we can proceed with connectivity there or not. There was the presumption, given the information and the homeowners purchase of that property, that connectivity could not be made. We have learned, through discussions with the City Attorney's Office, that it is illegal to purchase a small piece of property for the exclusive reason to avoid a road going through and connectivity happening. In this case if is a more substantial piece of property that has been purchased and we are still in the process of looking at the document and researching the documentation. Director Blanchard stated that if there is a legal right to connect, that there will be either be a development plan that provides for connectivity or there will be a modification that comes to the Board, which is required in the Code. Member Craig asked if connectivity is required whether this property is LMN or Employment. Director Blanchard replied that the Code would require connectivity even if it was employment. Connectivity is not just specific to residential development. Member Craig moved to recommend the request for the Structure Plan amendment; 1. That the board recommend approval of the applicant's request for the amendment to the Structure Plan from Employment District to Low Density Mixed Use Residential with the following condition: • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 9 A. That the irregular zoning district boundaries shall not be used as justification for any future development proposal. 2. Denial of the applicant's request for reclassification and extension of a major transit corridor for East Prospect Road. 3. That the board recommend denial of the "Feeder Transit Corridor" for East Prospect Road. Member Craig stated that her reason to recommend denial of the "Feeder Transit Corridor" is that we already have a transit plan in place and it does not have this "Feeder Corridor" in it. She thought that this would come up again in 2002, and she feels like just adding a "Feeder Transit" without going through the Transportation Board and the process that it would should go through, she was not comfortable doing it as a recommendation. Vice Chair Gavaldon seconded the motion. Planner Fuchs asked if the motion also included what he noted in his presentation, that the Structure Plan also included a change from the LMN to UE as noted in the applicant's narrative Number 2. Member Craig added that to the motion. Vice Chair Gavaldon would support the motion including the denial of Number 3. He felt there was a process for the Master Street Plan and how it is to function. He felt this may put a wrench into the system. He could not support any recommendation on any transit corridor without a it going through a process. Member Carpenter stated she would also support the motion. She was still somewhat uncomfortable losing the big piece of employment. She would trust at this point that staff has looked at it and that we have enough pieces of employment area left. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Craig moved to recommend approval to City Council staff's recommendation of the applicant's rezoning petition, to request to rezone the subject area from commercial district zoning to employment district zoning; and also the request to rezone the subject area from employment district zoning to low density mixed use residential zoning with the condition: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 10 A. That the irregular zoning district boundaries shall not be used as justification for any future development proposal. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.