Soda Creek Highlands Rezoning

Alan Tiefenbach, Community Development PlannerCity of Idaho Springs

Applicant’s proposal is to rezone from Residential-One (R-1) to Planned Development (PD) to allow up to 264 townhouses and condominiums.

Proposal

Subject property 39.7 acres in size. West and above existing Pine Slope neighborhood. Elevations between 7,760 and 8,200 feet. Very steep topography on the site. Pine Slope Road is steep and as narrow as 12’. Southern Pine Slope access superior to northern access.

Background

Property annexed in 1979 along with Pine Slope neighborhood. Zoning is R-1 – 6,000 sf lots. 2006 Council approved Bristlecone Pines Plat.

Plat allows 45 lots, shares access on Pine Slope Road. As long as plat is followed, 45 houses could be built with

building permit – no further public hearings. Was not built out in 2006 due to infrastructure costs and

recession.

Background

Applicant approached the City in early 2018 regarding proposal to develop multifamily on the site.

Staff has been working with the Applicant for 2 years to see if this proposal could work.

Road slope, traffic, compatibility with surroundings and cost of units have been staff concerns throughout.

Planned Development is proposed because PD can require additional restrictions on development.

PD would also require all subsequent development to go through public hearings by Final Development Plan.

Background

On July 29, 2019, the City Council approved the Service Plans required for the Applicant's desire to form a Metropolitan District, a financial tool to tax all the properties within the development to offset the costs of the required infrastructure.

The Metropolitan District was established last fall following an election of the property owners within the service plan area.

This permitted the owners of property within the proposed District areas to vote on whether to organize the Districts.

The Districts have been formed (not a City review and approval process.) The Metropolitan Districts, a financial tool to tax all the properties within the development to offset the costs of the required infrastructure.

This would add up to an additional 50 mills to each property.

Background

Applicant proposes to rezone to Planned Development to allow up to 125 townhomes and 180 condos - total units cannot exceed 262.• 162 condos < 1,100 sf• 100 townhouses < 1,500 sf• 9 condo buildings, 18 townhome buildings

Applicant proposes to regulate cost of units by size. Planned Development proposes 45’ height. Applicant proposes new road approximately 600’ up S. Pine Slope. Road could exceed 10% in some places. Will require significant cut and retaining walls.

Proposal

Applicant has made several submittals. First submittal in May did not include Planned Development Document. Because PD was not submitted, Staff assessed whether a simple PD that

followed R-M would suffice. PD sent on review, tentative PC hearing scheduled for October 2 of 2019. During formal review, site visit and review of materials, Staff informed

Applicant Staff could not support proposal. October hearing was cancelled. Applicant resubmitted new and detailed PD in January of 2020. Staff informed Applicant City could not support rezoning, but would help

Applicant present best PD possible to public hearing. Number of units have been reduced from 480 to 264. Applicant requested hearing dates.

Proposal

Sec 21-108.F of the LDR states in determining the zoning, the City Council may consider the following factors:

a) Whether the proposed zoning is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.b) Whether there have been material changes in the character of the neighborhood such as to justify a

change in the zoning.c) Whether the proposed rezoning will tend to preserve and promote property values in the

neighborhood.d) Whether development of the property in accordance with the proposed rezoning will be in harmony

and compatible with surrounding land uses and present development in the area.e) Whether the proposed rezoning will affect traffic congestion in the area.f) Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the public welfare.g) Whether denial of the proposed rezoning would impose an undue hardship on the owner.

Rezoning Analysis

Whether the proposed zoning is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use and Community Character Chapter of the Comprehensive

Plan indicates this property to be within the Chicago – Soda Creek Area. It is identified as the Montague Placer Subarea and is recommended for

mixed residential densities. It states that single family residential, townhouse, and multifamily

residential could be appropriate on this site to offset the infrastructure costs. Is shown as a potential area for multifamily on the City of Idaho Springs

Potential Multifamily Sites map.

Rezoning Analysis

The intent of the multi-family recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan recommendation was to allow for more efficient use of infrastructure and land by allowing clustering of smaller units, reducing footprints, and promoting a diversity in housing.

Additionally, this type of housing would require final development plans, which necessitates significantly more public input and approval through the Planning Commission and City Council.

Does not necessarily support 6 times the density of the Bristlecone Pines Plat. Applicant has stated at least 150 units could be built under present zoning, but

that has not been demonstrated.

Rezoning Analysis

Other than the recommendation that multifamily might be appropriate here, there are few other elements of this Comprehensive Plan this conforms with. Mass and Scale – out of scale with the neighborhood and surrounding buildings. Density twice of the surrounding area and 6 times the Bristlecone Pines Plat. Is not infill development that takes advantage of existing infrastructure and services. Virtually all residents of this development will be required to drive for basic goods and

services. Proposed height of 45’ but the reason for this has not been demonstrated. No enforceable standards to regulate view corridors – some adjacent buildings will be very

visible to existing houses. Does not comply with intent of Environment Chapter of the Comp Plan and Colorado

Geologic Survey has expressed concerns regarding this rezoning.

Rezoning Analysis

“Ensure that streets effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of transportation safely. Streets should be considered as public spaces versus traffic infrastructure.”

• Applicant submitted traffic study – projects 2,031 trips per day + /-.• Access will occur from Miner Street to Soda Creek Road and up S. Pine Slope entrance. • Existing Pine Slope Rd through neighborhood not paved, narrow and steep. • Proposal includes new road cutting up steep hillside 600 feet above S. Pine Slope entrance. • Traffic study recommends turn lanes at Miner Street / Soda Creek Intersection. • Traffic study recommends upgrading Miner Street and Soda Creek Road to Major

Collectors – 80’ width. • Miner Street approximately 35’ wide – no additional land for improvements. • Soda Creek Road 54’ at widest point - no additional land for improvements. • County also required widening S. Pine Slope - no additional land for improvements.

Rezoning Analysis - Traffic

Whether there have been material changes in the character of the neighborhood such as to justify a change in the zoning. The Applicant’s cover letter responds that the changes in the neighborhood

include the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, revisions of the Municipal Code, improvements to the surrounding roads, and the rezoning of the Argo.

Staff does not believe the aforementioned would constitute material changes in the neighborhood to justify a rezoning.

The houses in the Pine Slope Neighborhood have existed since this area was annexed into the City and rezoned in 1979.

Rezoning Analysis

Whether the proposed rezoning will tend to preserve and promote property values in the neighborhood. There are 11 existing single family residences on approximately 3.4 acres in

the Pine Slope neighborhood. Proposal is for twice the density of existing area and 6 times as much as

approved Plat. Several large buildings shown as close as 150’ from existing residences. Road network has been identified by traffic study as inadequate. Staff is not convinced this preserves and promotes property values in the

neighborhood.

Rezoning Analysis

Whether development of the property in accordance with the proposed rezoning will be in harmony and compatible with surrounding land uses and present development in the area. Staff does not believe 264 multifamily units surrounded by single family

residential, with heights of up to 45’, with some multifamily buildings as close as 150’ to existing residential, served by roads already identified as inadequate, at the periphery of the City, is in harmony and compatible with surrounding land uses and present development in the area.

Rezoning Analysis

Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the public welfare. Staff agrees this proposal would offer more diversity in housing. Due to the size limitations, the housing would probably be less expensive

than if they were built at market demand. Other than “more housing,” staff is not convinced this project would

promote the public welfare. Impacts (infrastructure, traffic, road improvements, retaining walls and

significant cutting of steep slopes, not walkable, etc.) would probably outweigh the benefits.

Staff is not convinced that any of these units could provide truly affordable housing given the construction costs and additional mill levies assessed by the established metropolitan district.

Rezoning Analysis

Whether denial of the proposed rezoning would impose an undue hardship on the owner. Property already zoned R-1 and platted into 45 lots. Property may feasibly be developed right now, under existing zoning and

platting, with potentially lesser required public improvements and potentially lesser impacts on the neighborhood, area and City services.

Staff does not agree there is a hardship and believes the Applicant has reasonable use of the property.

Rezoning Analysis

Whether the proposed PD adequately mitigates any adverse impacts it causes, including without limitation adverse impacts on traffic, view corridors, noise, property values and the provision of public services. Planned Development document does propose restrictions on lighting that would likely

mitigate those particular impacts. Building a new access road to bypass the existing Pine Slope neighborhood would help

reduce impacts in front of the existing residences. Staff does not believe the rest of the traffic impacts can be mitigated. Unenforceable language regarding maintaining visual corridors. Colorado Geologic Survey has expressed concerns with increasing allowable density in this

area. Staff believes the impacts would outweigh the benefits.

Rezoning Analysis

Whether deviations from the requirements of the underlying zone district are warranted by virtue of the improved design and/or amenities provided in the PD. Proposal to allow an increase in density and rezoning would require additional oversight

and public review of final site and building design. Otherwise, staff is not convinced the Planned Development proposes significant

improvement in design or additional amenities than would already be required by the Land Development Regulation.

Rezoning Analysis

A community meeting was held regarding the developer’s proposal on December 13, 2018. At least 45 people signed in for this meeting.

A second community meeting was held on December 9, 2019 at which 19 people signed in.

Concerns expressed by attendees included traffic, access, safety of existing roads, property values, density, possibility of rental apartments, cost of units, and price of infrastructure.

Community Meetings

Materials provided to 24 governmental agencies and 15 citizens who requested all updates.

Notification of hearing mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the property.

3 signs posted. Posted on website and social media page. Staff received concerns from Public Works, City Engineer, Clear

Creek County, and Colorado Geologic Survey. Staff has received very large amount of emails and letters, all in

opposition.

Referral and Notice

The Comprehensive Plans state multifamily might be appropriate. This project would provide a diversity in housing. The housing cost would probably be less than what could be built under

market conditions (based on the size of the units) – although mill levies will increase cost.

The proposed density is 6 times what is allowed by the Bristlecone Pines Plat and twice that of the Pine Slope Neighborhood.

A new road and significant retaining walls are proposed for primary access.

Summary

At least two large buildings are within 150’ of existing residences. The Applicant has not demonstrated any density more than 45 lots could

be feasibly built under the present zoning. The project would be high density at the extreme periphery of the City,

requiring significant infrastructure and not walkable to town. The traffic study recommends significant improvements to surrounding

roads that likely cannot be accommodated. The Colorado Geologic Survey has expressed concerns due to slope. The Applicant has reasonable use of the property under R-1 zoning.

Summary

Staff believes the impacts of this rezoning would outweigh the benefits of additional housing density diversity.

Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is supported by one (1) of the nine (9) review criteria set forth in the LDR.

Staff concludes that the proposed rezoning is unsupported by most of the facts and circumstances and Code criteria.

If the Planning Commission were inclined to recommend approval of this rezoning to the City Council, staff recommends removing Use Area 1 (the property owned by the City between Soda Creek Rd and Pine Slope Rd) from the Planned Development document as noted.

Summary

Questions?