Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 2 - ANX230001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ANNEXATION DOCUMENTS (2)1 Zoning Justification Peakview Annexation No. 2 1/17/2023 Proposed Zoning Upon annexation, we propose zoning the Peakview Annexation No. 2 (as shown in the diagram below) to be a combination of zone districts that we feel are appropriate and consistent with the Structure Plan. Note that we specifically are not proposing any more NC-Neighborhood Commercial zone for this neighborhood than already exists to the west of this proposed annexation. We are also proposing to provide MMN zoning in line with where it exists to the west, CG-General Commercial on the south, and I-Industrial zone east of Cooper Slough. See the “Justification of Our Proposed Zoning” section of this document below. Proposed Zoning (outlined in red) within the Context of Existing Zoning on Adjacent Property Already Annexed 2 Justification of Our Proposed Zoning EMCP & City Plan The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) was Adopted in the fall of 2002, over 20 years ago, however recently, at the City Council work session on December 13, 2022, council gave staff direction to proceed with an update to the EMCP that had been put on hold earlier in the year. We see this upcoming EMCP update as a valuable opportunity to start discussions from scratch about what exactly is appropriate for zoning in this area (and why), rather than to refer to an outdated subarea plan for guidance. Meanwhile, there is current and helpful guidance on what is intended for this area in City Plan (updated and adopted in April 2019). The Structure Plan section of that City Plan, includes detailed descriptions of what “Suburban Mixed-Use” and “Neighborhood Mixed-Use” areas are intended to be. Peakview Annexation No. 2 Boundary (purple outline) Superimposed on the 2019 Adopted Structure Plan Map The “Structure Plan” language, on page 94 of City Plan, provides guidance on how the appropriate zoning correlates to the land use designations on the structure plan as follows: “The Structure Plan Map serves as a blueprint for the desired future development pattern of the community, setting forth a basic framework for future land use and transportation decisions. Upon annexation or a request for rezoning, the Structure Plan map and City Plan principles and policies provide guidance for decision-makers to identify specific zoning boundaries and zone districts during the development review process” 3 “If the place-type boundary shown on the Structure Plan map does not follow an existing parcel line, the actual delineation of place types will be established at the time of proposed rezoning and development submittal.” “Future zone changes should generally adhere to the place-type boundaries depicted on the Structure Plan, but flexibility in interpretation of the boundary may be granted provide the proposed change is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained in this Plan. Applicable Principles, Goals and Policies from City Plan The structure plan shows “Mixed Neighborhood,” “Suburban Mixed-use District,” “Neighborhood Mixed-use District,” and “Parks and Natural/Protected Lands” within the area being annexed. The following applicable principals and policies from City Plan are furthered with this annexation: LIV 3.3 – Gateways. including Interstate 25 interchanges and College Avenue, to provide a coordinated and positive community entrance. Gateway design elements may include streetscape design, supportive land uses, building architecture, landscaping, signage, lighting and public art. LIV 3.6 – Context Sensitive Development. Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area. LIV 4.1 - New Neighborhoods. Encourage creativity in the design and construction of new neighborhoods that: • Provides a unifying and interconnected framework of streets, sidewalks, walkway spines and other public spaces; • Expands housing options, including higher- density and mixed-use buildings; • Offers opportunities to age in place; • Improves access to services and amenities; and • Incorporates unique site conditions. LIV 4.2 - Compatibility of Adjacent Development. Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should promote compatibility by: • Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to services and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood; • Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and • Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods—such as noise and traffic—will be minimized. ENV 1.3 – Nature in the City. Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources and high-value biological resources throughout the GMA by: • Directing development away from natural features to the maximum extent feasible; 4 • Identifying opportunities to integrate or reintroduce natural systems as part of the built environment to improve habitat in urbanized areas and expand residents’ access to nature; • Utilizing green infrastructure to manage stormwater and increase greenspace in public right-of-ways and as part of public and private development; and • Supporting the use of a broad range of native landscaping that enhances plant and animal diversity. ENV 1.5 Access to Nature. Design trail routes in open lands to limit ecological impacts. Determination of type of trail or suitability for access will be made through an analysis of potential ecological impacts and city- and region-wide recreation opportunities. Special attention will be given to environmentally sensitive and context-sensitive trail design, location and construction. Mitigation strategies will be pursued to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts if a new trail is built. Ensure that development activities provide and maintain access to public open-land areas, where appropriate. The specific boundary locations of the land use designations are independent of the goals and policies above, and do not affect the realization of them in any way. Mixed-Use Districts See the excerpts below from page 101 of City Plan describing the overall intent of the Suburban Mixed Use and the Neighborhood Mixed-Use designations on the Structure Plan. The “Suburban Mixed-Use” designation calls for retail, commercial, and high density residential, which is larger in size and is intended to work in harmony with the smaller, grocery store anchored Neighborhood Mixed-Use nodes. Excerpts Describing “Suburban Mixed-Use” and “Neighborhood Mixed-Use” Designations (from page 101 of City Plan) 5 The diagram below shows the existing zoning of the areas already annexed that are adjacent to Peakview Annexation No. 2. Note that there is already 11.06 acres of NC-Neighborhood Commercial immediately west of Peakview Annexation No. 2. Zoning of Recently Annexed Properties in the Vicinity of Peakview Annexation No. 2. The “Neighborhood Mixed-Use” land use designation on the Structure Plan Map typically becomes the NC-Neighborhood Commercial zone district upon annexation, as the NC fosters a grocery store as the desired anchor with supporting commercial and mixed-use residential. The “Suburban Mixed-Use” land use designation on the Structure Plan typically becomes the CG-General Commercial zone district, as CG fosters retail, commercial, and high density residential. We suggest that the 11.06 acres of NC zoning, that is already annexed and zoned immediately west of this proposed annexation, is consistent with the size that City Plan says a “Neighborhood Mixed Use District” is ideally supposed to be, and there really is no further NC zone needed in this neighborhood. Furthermore, City Plan clarifies that the some flexibility is afforded for exact location of land use designation boundaries. On the one hand, the “Neighborhood Mixed Use District” is intended to be “smaller in scale than Suburban Mixed-Use districts” and typically “smaller than 10 acres in size surrounded by neighborhoods” (City Plan page 101). On the other hand, “flexibility in interpretation of the boundary may be granted” when applying zone districts the exact boundary locations shown on the Structure Plan, “provided the proposed change is consistent with the principles, goals and policies” (City Plan page 94). In other words City Plan says a node of NC should be about 10 acres, and the exact location of that NC is flexible. The primary difference CG and NC zones is that CG allows a wider range of commercial uses than does NC. Also, NC is intended to have a grocery store anchor. The 11.06 acres of existing NC on the adjacent property provides ample opportunity for the grocery store anchor that that is envisioned by City Plan, without the need for more NC. Furthermore, a grocery store would be allowed in the CG zone (but not 6 required), and thus our proposed zoning does not preclude the ability of the Peakview development to someday accommodate a grocery store, if there is a market for that. We feel that the flexibility in uses (that is afforded within the CG zone) is a good way to accomplish the remaining “Suburban Mixed-Use District” and is specifically consistent with City Plan and the Structure Plan. Here are a few local examples of grocery store anchored shopping centers only needing to be around 10 acres in size. Good Example 1, Scotch Pines Shopping Center (at Southwest Corner of Lemay and Drake) is 12.5 Acres. sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf Good Example 2, the Former K-Mart, Soon to be a New King Soopers Site (at Northwest Corner of College and Drake) is 13.13 Acres. In fact, making the NC too large, when there are no market forces supporting a grocery store, can stifle the viability of a property to develop at all, as exemplified at the northwest corner of Shields and Harmony. When a grocery store anchor is mandated by zoning a property NC, and if no other development is allowed to happen within that NC until the grocery store anchor is provided, it effectively stops any supporting development from happening in that NC node, unless and until a grocer is interested in developing a grocery store in that location. When an NC zone is larger than it needs to 7 be, and when a grocer isn’t interested in developing a grocery store, a development site is destined to be vacant for many years. This is an unintended consequence of making an NC zone too large. Bad Example 1, this Site has been Zoned NC Since 1997, (at Northwest Corner of Shields and Harmony) is 20.2 Acres. Mixed District See the excerpts below from page 98 of City Plan describing the overall intent of the “Mixed” district on the Structure Plan. Our proposed MMN zoned area within the annexation is consistent with intent of the Mixed district. Excerpt Describing “Mixed” Designations (from page 98 of City Plan) 8 Parks and Natural/ Protected Lands District See the excerpt below from page 107 of City Plan describing the overall intent of the Parks and “Natural/Protected Lands” district on the Structure Plan. The Cooper Slough runs through Peakview Annexation No. 2, but is in private ownership. The approved Peakview PLD site is within the annexation, and includes a naturalized buffer from Cooper Slough, naturalized detention ponds, and a regional trail. Excerpt Describing “Parks and Natural/Protected Land” Designations (from page 107 of City Plan) Note that the Structure Plan shows the green “Parks Natural/Protected Lands” designation within and adjacent to the Cooper Slough throughout this vicinity, however this is all privately owned land. The only time this green designation translates into zoning is when the site is publicly owned, in which case is typically zoned POL – Public Open Land. When this green structure plan designation covers private land, the precedent (as seen in the diagram below) has been that the property within the green designation be zoned according the adjacent uses. Zoning of Annexed Lands in the Vicinity Structure Plan Map of Same Area 9 Conclusion In conclusion, we agree to disagree with staff on the appropriate zoning, and feel that our proposed zoning is justified and appropriate. In fact, Hartford Homes, the owner and developer of the Bloom Development supports our proposed zoning. See their letter of support attached to this document. We welcome being part of the outreach associated with a full-blown East Mulberry Corridor Plan update, in particular how much NC zone really is necessary in the vicinity of the Greenfields/Mulberry intersection. We look forward to having our opportunity to make our case to the decision makers as we go through the decision process on this annexation. Date: 9/30/22 To: Kai Kleer, AICP City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Peakview Annexation No. 2 Zoning Mr. Kleer, I am writing to express Hartford’s support the second Peakview annexation to the City of Fort Collins and the associated zoning proposal for MMN and GC for the portions of the site along Greenfields Dr. We were unable to attend the neighborhood meeting last night but wanted to provide a memo expressing our support for the proposal. This project is located immediately east of Hartford’s Bloom project and Greenfields Dr. is a shared boundary. We are aware that there are varying land use governance documents creating a framework for the future zoning of this project. Most notably, these include the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (ECMP) and City Plan, though we believe that the existing context of Bloom creates a unique situation that should be factored into the calculus of the future Peakview Zoning. In the case of Bloom, The ECMP showed a patchwork of proposed land uses within Bloom’s commercial core. These were smaller areas in an orthogonal pattern and Hartford was concerned that the presence of many small zones would lead to inconsistent development standards, as well as challenges with laying out the site should the future site plan not easily overlay on the ECMP categories. At the time of the Springer-Fisher annexation, the ECMP categories were used for the underlying zoning, though we had planned (and ultimately completed) a PUD to create larger districts with uniform standards across these underlying zones. We recognize that Peakview does not have the same PUD tool at its disposal and so we support the proposed zones as a way to simplify the underlying zoning. In Peakview’s case, the ECMP shows three to four primary land use designations within the development parcel. City Plan shows three different categories and, in that case, the Suburban Mixed Use District is quite small and shows up as a east-west sliver between Neighborhood Mixed-Use District and Mixed Neighborhood. The two proposed zones would help make future development simpler and would align with the Bloom districts. The final Bloom districts have created land use areas roughly analogous to GC and MMN, with the GC area generally south of Donella Dr. and the MMN area running north along Greenfields to Sykes and then again in the small triangle area east of Greenfields below the railroad tracks. The next effect of this is that Bloom forms   a MMN-equivalent area along the Peakview Annexation No. 2 northern and western edges north of Donella. Below Donella, GC is a very similar zone to Bloom’s zoning. East of both projects is Cooper Slough, which will be preserved by both projects. The presence of Cooper Slough has the net effect of prohibiting development immediately adjacent to the parcels in question and we therefore believe there should be no concern about existing housing density next to these parcels. In conclusion, we believe the proposed MMN and GC zones are consistent with the existing context and simplifying the underlying zoning is more likely to create a uniform development pattern in the area. For the sake of overall project cohesion within the Peakview site, as well as for the sake of a uniform interface with the Bloom project, we wanted to express our support for the MMN and GC zones. Thank you for your consideration and please let us know if you have any question, Sincerely, Dave Thorpe Director of Entitlements Hartford Homes