HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/06/2001 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE JOHNSON PROPERTY REZONING AN AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 32 A-B
DATE: November 6, 2001
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
Troy W. Jones
SUBJECT:
Items Relating to the Johnson Property Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. At the October 18,
2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Board recommended by a vote of 4-0 to deny the Structure
Plan Amendment and Rezone request as proposed by the applicant. The Board, however, did forward a
recommended configuration for a Structure Plan Amendment and Rezone that it could support, by a vote
of 3-1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2001-155 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property
Known as the Johnson Property Rezoning.
APPLICANT: The James Company
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80301
OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, LLP
3432 Carlton Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to rezone approximately 217 acres of property located on the northeast corner of
Timberline and Drake Roads. The property is currently zoned T—Transitional, as shown in the
attached diagram titled "Existing Zoning" The Structure Plan designation for the property is a
combination of Industrial, Urban Estate, Low Density Mixed-Use Residential, Medium Density
Mixed-Use Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial Center, as shown in the attached
diagram titled "Existing Structure Plan Designation." The applicant is proposing to amend the
Structure Plan to change the configuration of the Industrial designation, remove the
Neighborhood Commercial Center designation from the site, slightly modify the boundary line
. between Medium Density Mixed-Use Residential and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential, and
to slightly modify the boundary line between Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use
Residential, as shown in the attached diagram titled, "Applicant's Proposed Structure Plan
Configuration." The applicant is also requesting to rezone the property to a combination of
DATE:November 6, 2001 2 ITEM NUMBER:
LMN, MMN, I, and UE to correspond to the requested Structure Plan amendment, as shown in
the attached diagram titled"Applicant's Proposed Zoning Configuration."
ACKGROUND:
The inherent nature of the T—Transition Zone District is that property is entitled to be taken out
of such zone district in a "timely manner." The Land Use Code requires that staff take proposed
rezonings of any property in the T—Transition District to the next regularly scheduled Planning
and Zoning Board hearing at least 14 days after the rezone application is submitted, and requires
Council to Rezone the property within 60 days of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
The Structure Plan Resolution
The Resolution to amend the Structure Plan is accompanied by two options of Exhibit A. The
first option is the Structure Plan Amendment as proposed by the applicant (labeled "Exhibit A—
Applicant'). The second option is the Structure Plan Amendment as proposed by the P&Z Board
(Labeled"Exhibit A—P&Z"). Council will need to decide which of the two versions of"Exhibit
A" it would like the Resolution to adopt.
Amending the Structure Plan
The Structure Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is not
consistent with the current Structure Plan, however, the applicant proposes to amend the
Structure Plan in a manner that would make the Structure Plan consistent with the zoning that is
proposed. Appendix C of the Comprehensive Plan specifies that the City Council must make the
following two findings in order for the Structure Plan to be amended:
The existing Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment; and
The Structure Plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent
with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.
The applicant proposes the following four changes to the Structure Plan:
The first proposed change to the Structure Plan is to eliminate the Neighborhood Commercial
Center designation on the site. The Planning and Zoning Board agreed with this change to the.
Structure Plan at both the September 17th and October 18th hearings.
The second proposed change to the Structure Plan is to change the configuration between the
Medium Density Mixed-Use Residential and the Low Density Mixed-Use Residential. The
Planning and Zoning Board agreed with this change to the Structure Plan at both the September
17th and October 18th hearings.
The third proposed change to the Structure Plan is to move the boundary line between the
Industrial designation and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential designation roughly 500 feet to
the north to a location that coincides with an agreed upon historic buffer for the Jessup
farmstead. The Planning and Zoning Board agreed with this change to the Structure Plan at the
October 18th hearing.
DATENovember 6, 2001 3
ITEM NUMBER:
The Historic Preservation staff, Advance Planning staff, Current Planning Staff, and an historic
preservation consultant (hired by the City) have been working with the applicant for several
months to determine an appropriate treatment of the two historic farmsteads on the site. Because
the applicant proposes a Structure Plan designation boundary based on the edge of an appropriate
historical buffer for the northern farm site (the Jessup farmstead), the treatment of the historical
buffer becomes an issue to be discussed with this rezone and Structure Plan amendment
application. After much negotiation and careful consideration, staff has come to an agreement
with the applicant on the appropriate buffer area configuration around the Jessup farmstead site.
The proposed district boundary between the Industrial designation and the Low Density Mixed-
Use Residential designation is based on the southern edge of the historic buffer area for the
Jessup farmstead. The agreed upon historic buffer is diagramed in the attachment titled "Concept
Plan: Jessup Farm Compound."
As currently depicted on the Structure Plan, there are 33.4 acres designated as Industrial in the
north corner of the site. The northwestern most 12.28 acres of the Industrial designated area
consists of the historic Jessup farmstead and it's buffer area. The applicant proposes that the
southeastern 21.12 acres of the area currently designated as Industrial be changed to the Low
Density Mixed-Use Residential designation.
Clark Mapes from the Advance Planning Department made the following comments with regard
to the request to move the boundary line of the Industrial designation in the area south of the
Jessup farmstead:
"After considering this spot [between the Jessup Farm complex and the adjacent LW
neighborhood to the south] in greater detail, we agree [with the applicant] that it appears
impractical to extend any meaningful or significant industrial use into this small area,
isolated from adjacent industrial development to the east by topography and the RR tracks.
Regarding the relationship to Industrial uses across Timberline to the west, we do not
believe it is worthwhile to push for Industrial use on a piece of high ground south of the
farm. It could be highly intrusive, sandwiched between the farm site and the future
neighborhood."
i
Troy Jones from the Current Planning Department made the following comment with regard to
the removal of the Industrial designation from the area south of the farm site on the Structure
Plan:
"The applicant has included a diagram of their anticipated design that addresses the
transition between the neighborhood and the farmstead. This design includes a buffer
area outside the limits of the farm complex with a single loaded street along the northern
edge of the neighborhood so the fronts of the housing units will face the open farmstead
buffer rather than backyards and riva ff y p cy fences. Front yards and the human interaction
of residential street activity is a much preferred treatment of the edge to a valuable
historical resource such as the Jessup farmstead than industrial uses are. If industrial L
required to be located between the two uses it is likely that that area of the development
could end up as mini storage or some other incompatible use. The northern edge of thr
residential neighborhood is also much better served by having a historic farmstead as irr
neighbor than an industrial use. To the west, Timberline is a logical edge and will be r
huge barrier (future 6-lane arterial). Such a barrier would be a logical edge between
different types of uses such as industrial and residential. To the east, the change it
DATE:November 6, 2001 4 ITEM NUMBER:
topography associated with the valley wall, and the barrier of the railroad track makes
the area in question have little to no visual or functional relationship to the industrial
land in the adjacent Prospect Industrial Park "
The applicant has indicated that they are not industrial developers, so if the southeastern 21.12
acre piece of the industrial designated property were to be zoned Industrial, it would not be
developed by this applicant; therefore, the applicant would not have any control over the design,
character or specific use that would be sandwiched between the historic Jessup Farmstead and
the LMN neighborhood to the south.
Staff believes that there is a need to change the Structure Plan with regard to the reconfiguration
of the Industrial designation on the site because the Industrial designation would be far less
compatible with the historic Jessup Farmstead and the adjacent LMN neighborhood to the south
than would a designation of Low Density Mixed-Use Residential. Furthermore, staff finds that
the proposed Structure Plan amendment would promote public welfare and be consistent with the
goals, principles and policies of City Plan because adaptive reuse of the historic resource would
be better suited to be located adjacent to a residential neighborhood than to vacant developable
industrial land.
The fourth proposed change to the Structure Plan is to change the location of the boundary line
between the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood designation and the Urban Estates
designation.
As currently depicted on the Structure Plan, there are 94.89 acres of Urban Estate designation on
the property. At 2 units per acre, the existing UE designated property allows 189 dwelling units
at an overall average density of 2 units per acre. The applicant now proposes, and staff supports,
a layout where 85.58 acres of the site is designated Urban Estate in a configuration where the
boundary line between the two designations shifts some UE to the west of the original line and
some LMN east of the original line. If the property were to be zoned consistent with the
applicant's proposed Structure Plan amendment, there would be between 28 and 56 additional
units allowed as a result of the change.
Advance Planning staff has repeatedly expressed that the lines on the Structure Plan are general
lines that are color codes painted with a"broad brush" approach. It has always been the intention
that, unless a Structure Plan line was specifically shown on a roadway, section line or specific
kind of clear demarcation or topographical feature (such as a ridgeline or river), the line should
have some inherent "wiggle room." On the current Structure Plan configuration, there is a rough
north-south line, which designates Urban Estate east of the line and Low Density Mixed-Use
Residential and Industrial west of the line. This line does not specifically coincide with the
valley wall, but has upper and lower valley wall ground on both sides. Planning staff would
argue that this location of this line is subject to some variation. Advance Planning and Current
Planning staff have been working with the applicant for several months to come up with a
specific conceptual layout of streets and blocks in the vicinity of the proposed boundary line and,
given a closer site-specific consideration, it makes good planning sense to allow this line to vary
slightly. As a result of the variation to this line on the Structure Plan, there would only be a net
change from Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed-Use Residential of less than 10 acres of land,
which does not compromise the ability of the remaining Urban Estate land to achieve the desired
density transition between the higher intensity uses at the top of the valley wall and the low
intensity uses intended for the lower ground associated with the Poudre River Corridor.
DATE:November 6, 2001 5 ITEM NUMBER:
Staff finds that there is a need to change the Structure Plan with regard to the reconfiguration of j
the Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential designation boundary because the
Structure Plan was not intended to be precise at this location, and a closer site-specific
consideration of this designation in this location accomplishes the intent to step down the level of
intensity toward the river valley just as well as a plan reflecting the current Structure Plan
configuration. Furthermore, staff finds that the reconfiguration of the Urban Estate and Low
Density Mixed-Use Residential designation boundary would promote the public welfare and be
i
consistent with the goals, principles and policies of City Plan and that the proposed amendment
accomplishes the intent to provide a transition of intensity from the top of the high intensity uses
at the southwest comer of the site to the low intensity uses at the lower southeast comer of the
site just as well as if the Structure Plan were not changed.
The Zoning Ordinance
i
The Ordinance does not include legal descriptions of each of the zone district boundaries, but
rather refers to a zone district configuration "more particularly described in Exhibit A," which is
attached to the Ordinance. There are two versions of Exhibit A. The first is the zone district
configuration proposed by the applicant (labeled "Exhibit A — Applicant"). The second is the
zone district configuration supported by the P&Z board (labeled "Exhibit A —P&Z"). Given the
fact that there are two possible zone boundary configurations under consideration, the most
practical way to present the information is diagrammatically for First Reading. Once Council
chooses which of the zoning configurations it supports on First Reading, then the legal
description for the chosen configuration will be generated and put into the Ordinance for Second
Reading.
The Land Use Code
The applicant proposes four zone districts for the property; MMN—Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District , LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, UE — Urban
Estate District, and I — Industrial District. The locations of the applicant's proposed zone district
boundaries correspond to the proposed Structure Plan amendments.
Section 2.9.4(H) of the LUC specifies the process for amending the zoning map. This section of
the code specifies two mandatory requirements and three additional considerations.
Mandatory Requirements
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and/or
Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
The proposed zoning configurations are consistent with the proposed Structure Plan
amendments, and, if Council amends these components of the Structure Plan as recommended,
the rezone request will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
9
Additional Considerations
Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate
zone district for the land;
I
DATE:November 6, 2001 6 -
ITEM NUMBER:
Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment;
Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
A key issue that needs to be considered regarding the rezoning of the property is how the area
adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Facility should be zoned. Based on the policies and
procedures that apply to wastewater treatment plants by the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division (CWQCD), there must be a minimum 1000 foot setback from such wastewater plants to
habitable structures (Please see the attached memo titled, "Water Quality Site Application"). The
applicant has proposed to zone this buffer area UE, but has offered a restrictive covenant that
specifically disallows any habitable structures within 1000 feet of the planned wastewater
treatment plant expansion. "Habitable structures" is defined in CWQCD state policy as
residences, schools, and commercial structures at which people work on a regular basis. At both
the September 17 and October 18 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings the Board recommended
RC -River Conservation zoning for this 1000 ft. setback area.
Both the RC and UE zone districts permit habitable structures. Regardless of which of the two
zones the buffer area ends up in, there needs to be a condition placed on the zone district that
disallows habitable structures within the buffer area. Simply obtaining a contract from the
developer agreeing to a restrictive covenant disallowing habitable structures within the buffer
area does not preclude the need to have conditional zoning. Paul Eckman, the Deputy City
Attorney, has explained that staff may accept the restrictive covenant, but using such a contract
as the only method to disallow the habitable structures within the buffer would be considered
"contract zoning" and is not permitted. A restrictive covenant may be accepted as part of the
development application, but in order to legally tie the restriction to the zoning, a condition must
be placed on the rezoning application. The restrictive covenant then becomes an additional tool
with which the condition placed on the zoning can be tracked and enforced. Given the need to
restrict any habitable structures from being developed in the wastewater plant's buffer area, and
the fact that either RC or UE would require the need for a condition to be placed on the zoning,
staff supports the applicants requested UE configuration which includes the wastewater plant's
1000 foot buffer area. A conditional zoning that disallows any habitable structures in the
wastewater plant's 1000 foot buffer would allow either UE or RC zone to be compatible with the
plant. Otherwise, the proposed zoning for the entire site is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district configuration.
The Natural Resources Department does not consider the proposed zoning to have any adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
To the extent that it can be determined at the zoning stage of the development review process,
staff finds that the proposed Zoning Map amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern because the proposed configuration of zone district boundaries would
promote a transition of intensity from the top of the high intensity uses at the southwest comer of
the site to the low intensity uses at the lower southeast comer of the site.
DATENovember 6, 2001 7 _
ITEM NUMBER:
Initial Zoning Upon Annexation
The site was annexed as part of the Timberline Annexation in November of 1997. At the time
the annexation was under review, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended
that the property be zoned in accordance with the configuration shown on the attachment
diagram titled"Timberline Annexation and Zoning". When the annexation came before Council,
they decided to zone the property T — Transition upon annexation rather than the recommended
zoning configuration. Much of the concern with regard to the zoning this property at that time
revolved around whether or not it would be appropriate to assign active farm areas a zone district
that did not allow farming, and that perhaps it would be more appropriate to zone the property
into developable zone districts at such time the property was proposed to be developed. The
Council minutes of the first and second reading of the annexation hearings are attached.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearings
Because the applicant is requesting a Structure Plan amendment as part of the rezone request,
staff couldn't support the proposed Structure Plan re-configuration without additional review
time beyond the "timely hearing" schedule. The applicant voluntarily postponed the Planning
and Zoning Board hearing to September 17, 2001 to give staff adequate time to review the
proposed Structure Plan Amendment, which upon a detailed review, staff supported.
A version of the Johnson Property Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning was heard and voted
on at the September 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. The Planning and Zoning
Board forwarded a recommendation to Council to approve the Structure Plan and Zoning Map
amendments as redrawn in the diagram titled "Recommended Configuration by P&Z on 9/17"
by a vote of 5-0. Boardmembers expressed frustration that a recommendation was required to be
made that night because they felt that all of the pertinent issues had not been resolved between
staff and the applicant. Board members also voiced frustration about being involved in designing
variations of the plan at the hearing.
In the days following the September 17, 2001 hearing, staff and the applicants met to resolve the
issues that the Planning and Zoning Board believed were pertinent to the justification of the
proposed Structure Plan amendment. The applicants then made several design refinements based
on design solutions proposed by staff, which in turn changed the proposed Structure Plan and
Zoning Map configuration to be different than any scenario that had been discussed by the j
Planning and Zoning Board at the September 17, 2001 hearing. Rather than take a recommended
zoning configuration to Council that the Planning and Zoning Board had not seen or commented
on, it was staffs recommendation to the applicant that the project go back to the Planning and
Zoning Board for a recommendation on the new proposed configuration. The applicant again
voluntarily postponed the "timely hearing" requirement to allow the issue to go back to the
Planning and Zoning Board,this time for the October 18, 2001 Hearing.
At the October 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Board recommended by a vote
of 4-0 to deny the Structure Plan Amendment and Rezone request as proposed by the applicant.
The Board, however, did forward a recommended configuration for a Structure Plan Amendment
and Rezone that it could support, by a vote of 3-1, as shown in the attached diagram titled
"Recommended Configuration by P&Z on 10/18."
I
i
RESOLUTION 2001-155
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone approximately 217 acres of
property located on the northeast corner of Timberline and Drake Roads,which property is presently
zoned in the "T" Transitional Zone District, which rezoning request is known as the "Johnson
Property Rezoning"; and
WHEREAS,the Council finds that the proposed Johnson Property rezoning complies with
the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of the
City's Structure Plan,but does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City's
Structure Plan Map for that location; and
WHEREAS,the Council has determined that the proposed Johnson Property rezoning is in
the best interests of the citizens of the City and comports with the City's Comprehensive Plan except
for the City's Structure Plan Map; and
WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should
be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
• NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, that the City Plan Structure Plan Map be, and hereby is, amended so as to appear as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 6th day of November,
A. D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
. ORDINANCE NO. 190, 2001
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN
AS THE JOHNSON PROPERTY REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of
the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that the said property should
be rezoned as hereafter provided; and
WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS,to the extent applicable,the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning
. against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code, and the
same hereby is,amended by changing the zoning classification from"T",Transitional Zone District,
to "UE", Urban Estate Zone District, the "LMN", Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone
District, the "MMN", Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District and the "I",
Industrial Zone District as all of said zone districts are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference for the following described property in the City known as the
Johnson Property Rezoning:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,RANGE
68 WEST OF THE 6` P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH,
CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20 AS BEARING EAST
AND WEST,AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE
THERETO,IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN
AT A POINT WHICH BEARS EAST 1337.40 FEET,AND AGAIN N 00-51'00"W
1748.80 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20,AND
RUNS THENCE N00°5 F00W 1479.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE EXISTING RAILROAD; THENCE ALONG
• SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S50°12'00"E 5042.05 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20;THENCE ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE,WEST 2587.66 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
PROPERTY DEEDED TO CARGILL IN BOOK 1383 AT PAGE 143; THENCE
ALONG THE EASTERLY AND NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID
PROPERTY DEEDED TO CARGILL,N00°34'00"E 339.79 FEET, AND AGAIN
N15°14'00"W 193.40 FEET, AND AGAIN N50°23'00"W 360.30 FEET, AND
AGAIN N42°24'00"W 246.15 FEET, AND AGAIN N50°48'00"W 366.40 FEET,
AND AGAINN38'26'30"W 729.12 FEET,AND AGAIN N77°15'00"W 36.75 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 20,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6"` P.M., LARIMER
COUNTY, COLORADO WHICH CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS BEARING
N90°00'00"E AND WITH ALL BEARING CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE
THERETO IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND RUN THENCE
N90°00'00"E 1337.40 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID
SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1383 AT PAGE 143 OF THE LARIMER
COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID
TRACT ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LINE,N00°51'00"W 1748.80 FEET TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID TRACT;THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG THE EXISTING FENCE LINE N00°5l'00"W 1480.05 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON
NORTHERN RAILROAD;THENCE ALONG THE SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
N50°I1'57"W 1359.36 FEET AND AGAIN ALONG THE ARC OF A 2914.93
FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT OF DISTANCE 409.71 FEET, THE
LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N46°10'21"W 409.38 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION
20; THENCE S00°45'40"E 1730.46 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
SAID NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER;THENCE S00°35'l5"E 2651.99 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINING.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land
Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above-described
property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
November, A.D. 2001, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D.
2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of November, A.D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
Exhibit — ApFl;c..arx+
- - x
PROPDCFD GTRI I!'TI7RF Pf AN AMFNDMFNT 1 AND i ISF DATA
AC
� Law�t®IaaiA000 NOOK n- 10-0.0 W/K 49o-7l3lMf
K.- -��0µ 1l.00lLK I!lw�3l2 WIf
TONAL 217/>wC _ L!Ol3lOWK W]-I]OOIMO
„E Y
� y
t5.lo cu
Qi
a CURRENT PROPE38E - PLAN rz ,7 ,
8 5.5 8 Wc'7URBAIN EST,41TES
— .,
ISSUE DATE: 10-08-01 —_
0 400 800 1600
_ �xh; b;-�- A — �� �
�2•z8�
LM�
9�. (03 ac.
UE
G1.39 4�
R� -
MMIi 31.•5�w
z5•b� a�
1 �
I
JOHNS, MIN
\\\ NO 01,
%IIII/1 �1�� � �� li � ♦�
Illllo
ri..uri •• .a 1A�♦�' u �I �wlllll
T=Transition
MMN=Medium
Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
G# LMN=Low Density
IL Mixed-Use Neighborhood
E=Employment
T' NC=Neighborhood
z
x 0 L � Commercial
POL=Public Open Lands
RC=River Conservation
RL=Residential,Low
N
CSU Density
RQ.
}eg"�
1 RL
3w a
LMN
Existing Zoning
s � �
ROL=Rural Open Lands/
Stream Corridors
EM=Employment
RIV=Poudre River
Corridor
UE=Urban Estate
LDN=Low Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood
MDN=Medium Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood
t
ID=Industrial
UE
1
DN
LD
Existing Structure Plan Designation
VL x
Lo�• - ifi ova
,9 Y
AREM STRUCK F P1 AN AMENI'1MENT LAND USE DATA
LOwMO®Maa�tlm KOY FC a.6a.OpYAG 3=4'l62
oe
1zo-la.00wAc a -aa2um
lOt'AL 217A7A 4AbO.2a0WAG "7-1aW lLna
• AW.1126R
�t
9
4 f � �
LON77
rm—
pN � -
.s
CURRENT PROPa E- lPLANRCI
85.58 kC: URe`ANEsT
a, l
ISSUE DATE: 10-08-01
0 400 800 1600
ov;, ,.
PRnPf1SEn STRI I _ 1R P AN A ND NT ANn LKE❑ATA
zora. Auawae owfary wrs
�aa. warF' an.
` Lewra®ran�osom sagaA a.".O=w e�732
1w .. IAmMMla9{bwsalacOD_„2a.03 AG'.. -1261a.O WlAG aO 31Q Mls
12a6
TOTAL 217.47 4.a G.3 IXllA W7-Ia0a1Ma
AV .112aR
It
•�Y
r a
J
\ \ i
e
s CURRENT P O RF�E7SEDlPLAN:
85.58AC: URBAN ESTATES
ISSUE DATE: 1^�0-08-01
0 400 800
00
' CONCEPT PLAN:
JESSUP FARM COMPOUND
\
c N7 �L� = KEY MAP
I � •F � �;r �I q���\�.
v � \\ Monti
t�fhllftA{- \• . N.T.S.
! 11
•,41 I �� \ ',,� I}}/• DISCLAIMERI
THM ILLUSTRAnCN REPRESENTS A CONCEPTUAL ffi E TA-
j TIDN OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT,AND M SUBJECT TO
CHANGE PENDING FU E STAGED DEVELOPMENT,DEVELOP-
' MENT REVIEWS AND APPROVALS,,AND CHANGING MARKET
ON ANOpCCIttE55 AR SUBJECT TO<HININGE.D LOCATIONS.VE.WS,
PR
f rr�
LMN
E
MMN UE
a -
N
Timberline Annexation and Zoning
coAktty fattev� w5 (e cow,lMockj by NI on - vVAt 301 1191.
Recombiand Co„f,3w4(6v%
LW
UE
RC
MMN
Z.S.64�t
9
pt or 10 /16/01
�nti�1
9q. G3 QL
UE
61.39y�
MMa RC
�.s.b�OL 32.Sw
. PLANNING AND •
SEPTEMBER 17, 2001
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7431
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call: Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Carpenter, Colton and Gavaldon.
Member Meyer was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Jones, Barkeen, Wamhoff, K. Moore,
Virata, McWilliams, Brooks, Reavis, D. Moore, Wilder, and Deines.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the
Consent and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the November 16, 2000 (Continued), June 21,
and July 19, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. Resolution PZ01-06 — Easement Vacation.
3. #7-820 Collindale Business Park, 61" Filing, Lot 1, GK Gymnastics —
Project Development Plan.
4. #26-97A Pedersen Auto Plaza Expansion — Major Amendment.
5. #19-01 Westchase No. 1 —Annexation & Zoning
6. #19-01A Westchase No. 2 —Annexation & Zoning
Discussion Agenda:
7. #32-01 Johnson Property Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment
8. #34-01 450 North College Rezoning
Moved by Mr. Bernth, seconded by Mr. Colton: To approve Items 1, 2, 3, 4
on the consent agenda, excepting the; minutes of 11116/00, and including
items 5 and 6. Motion approved unanimously.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 2
FOSSIL CREEK REVIEW
Pursuant to Board request, Staff offered a brief presentation of the transfer
development unit program being implemented in the Fossil Creek area. The
West Chase annexation is one of the items on the consent agenda. A quarter
section of land is being annexed. It was reviewed pursuant to the
Intergovernmental agreement between Fort Collins and Larimer County. A
unique set of standards is applied to the Fossil Creek planning area, in that if
land is eligible for annexation, the development is reviewed by the County with a
specific set of standards to this area modeled after the Fort Collins Land Use
Code.
Annexation proceeds as soon as the property is eligible with a final PUD. The
subject property is subject to County SA or SA-1, low-density, but Fort Collins
has negotiated urban or high-aensity zoning. This involves using space to be
preserved elsewhere. This process is not applicable to the West Chase
annexation, since the annexation is already approved. The parcel that had the
transferred development rights was pointed out to the Board.
On the map, the pink areas with available development rights were displayed.
The development rights are transferred to the areas in yellow. Pictures were
displayed of the affected areas.
In response to questions by the Board, Staff stated that 20 acres of land rights
were transferred to development areas on the West Chase project. About 400
acres have been saved on the PDU program. Mr. Colton stated his wish for
further review at a work session.
Project: Johnson Property Rezoning and Structure Plan
Amendment, #32-01
Project Description: Request to rezone a 226-acre parcel east of
Timberline Road and north of Drake Road.
The property was zoned T, Transition upon
annexation in 1997. There are 4 proposed
zone districts for the property, UE, Urban
Estate, LMN, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood, MMN Medium Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood and I, Industrial Zone
District. The applicant is proposing to amend
. Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 3
the Structure Plan to remove the Industrial and
Neighborhood Commercial Center
designations from the site, and to slightly
modify the boundary line between Urban
Estate and Low Density Mixed Use
Residential.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Structure Plan in
accordance with the diagram titled, "Staffs Recommended Configuration."
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map in
accordance with the diagram titled, 'Staffs Recommended Configuration."
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
. Ms. Carpenter declared a conflict and excused herself from this portion of the
meeting. A recess was taken while the applicants were gathered.
Troy Jones presentation. The site is roughly 217 acres. It is immediately north of
the Rigden Farm development. The Board is to consider two items: A Structure
Plan amendment and a rezoning. The site is currently zoned T, transition. South
of the site is Rigden Farm. Other zones immediately adjacent to the property:
NC, MMN, with LMN providing a transition farther south. RC is at the northeast
corner, with I, industrial, and E, employment, zones to the north.
The site has a feature called the "valley wall." This is a defining bank for the
valley area of the Poudre River. The wall defines a lower and higher elevation of
the property.
A set of buildings was pointed out that comprises the Drake Waste Water
Treatment Facility, with plans to expand to a nearby pond.
Structure Plan Amendment. The current plan was demonstrated. Neighborhood
commercial zoning presently exists in a corner, surrounded with an arc of MMN.
Farther from the NC core is LMN, low-density mixed use. An upper corner of the
site is zoned I, industrial. The eastern portion of the site is designated UE, Urban
Estate.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 4
The first three elements of the application are noncontroversial. The applicant
responded positively to Staffs requests. When the Structure Plan was originally
adopted, it could be moved south or north of the intersection or straddle it, but a
certain size of commercial area was envisioned. The red-dot commercial zone
was satisfied by the Rigden Farm zoning.
The next item may not technically need the Structure Plan, but it is included as
part of the overall scope of the project. The MMN arc did not have a fixed
boundary but was envisioned as a concept. The applicant proposed, in line with
Staffs request, to move the MMN zone to the corner to provide transition.
The next item would eliminate the industrial designation on the northern section.
This section is abutted by two different industrial uses and was zoned as part of
a broad-brush stroke for consistent zoning. Timberline will be developed up to a
six-lane arterial. The railroad provides a barrier from the northern portion to other
industrial sites. There is also a historic farm site on this section. The industrial
uses across Timberline have greatly lessened in industrial profile.
Staff feels that the northern farmstead should be included in the LMN zone. This
would further make the subject area more compatible with uses other than
industrial use.
The next items are less uncontroversial. The urban estate boundary was shown
contrasting the existing plan to the proposed plan. The applicant proposed a shift
along this boundary between urban estate and LMN.
There is a need to buffer the wastewater plant from incompatible uses. The State
specifies a 1,000-foot buffer for intensive uses. A gray zone was shown at the
eastern extremity with RC, or the least intensive, zone. This is the Staff proposal.
The Board directed Staff to show options beyond that proposed. Scenario A
(later referred to as 'Revision 1") was displayed with the RC zoning shown,
Urban Estate for the area proposed, and LMN and MMN for the remaining
portions.
Scenario B (later referred to as "Revision 2") proposed the line between LMN
and UE remain as shown on the Structure Plan, with the lower portions of the
property becoming RC and MMN.
Staff noted that the applicant wished to propose other alternatives.
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 5
The Land Use Code is very specific with T, transition zone, giving owners a
timely right to rezone according to the Code. Negotiations have continued with
the applicant for quite some time and they have been continued from prior
hearings that they were entitled to, in terms of timing. The Staff does not have
the authority to ask for delays under T zoning.
The rezoning portion follows the Structure Plan amendment as being the
appropriate zoning decided upon in the Structure Plan review.
Various members of the Staff were made available at the meeting in the event of
questions that included their individual specialties.
In response to questions by the Board, Staff displayed the T zone, the
surrounding area, and where the industrial zone designation comes across on
the Structure Plan. 33.4 acres are involved. Staff recommends placing LMN
between two industrial areas.
Staff supported the change from industrial to LMN without a city-wide census of
. available industrial zones. There is no indication of a shortage of industrial zoned
properties in the city. Ms. Craig stated that the city needs warehouses and like
developments. There is a fear that if industrial zones are eliminated, more
eliminations will follow, and those elements will be needed.
Staff perceived nothing significant in terms of a loss of industrial space. The
applicants are willing to protect the farm, which is contained in industrial area.
There is some push-and-pull involved on what is preserved. The applicant does
not wish to use the farmstead or immediate surrounding area for industrial
purposes. It did not seem to follow that the City should defend and stick to the
industrial designation, given that the farmstead would not fit with an industrial
description. No real future for industrial use exists at the site. The farm will
probably be protected as part of the neighborhood, as more logically an
extension of the neighborhood rather than as industrial space.
Another concern expressed is that the industrial zone designation might define a
de facto preservation of the farm, but there is other criteria that preservation
concerns look at. The outcome of the historic preservation might result in the
preserved farm line and buffer being about the same place. Ultimately, the area
did not seem to fit the definition of an industrial zone.
Ms. Craig asked how the established industrial would impact the LMN zone and
. whether there will be complaints of the residences that impact the industrial area,
with the concern that this will further deplete the adjacent industrial area. Staff
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 6
referred to ordinance language: If the neighborhood is built by a pre-existing
noise source, it is up to the neighborhood's developer to deal with the issue.
Staff is not concerned about losing the farm; it is not seen as an industrial use.
When a historic buffer is looked at, the dimensions are unknown; but when
placed between LMN and Industrial, the defining line should not be that buffer. It
seemed more logical to zone LMN on both sides of the buffer and make it
subject to CDP.
Regardless of zoning, the farm will be saved? It is required to be preserved. The
grouping of buildings and area features were shown on an aerial photo. The
features to be saved were shown and the potential buffer areas displayed. The
CDP is under review, and a historic consultant is helping with research on the
issue. Nothing has been finalized with regard to historic buffer issues, and it is
presently part of the ODP.
Ms. Craig drew an analogy to the farmhouse on Rigden, which was simply
moved. Troy Jones replied that the farmhouse was moved, as a result of the
Streets Department needs. The proposed six lanes of the Timberline arterial will
meander enough to miss the farmhouse.
Ms. Craig did not perceive a good justification for changing the Structure Plan
map, especially with industrial on both sides. Mr. Torgerson noted that industrial
includes nurseries and animal uses. The farm could not function as a farm in
LMN. He asked from historical preservation if it would be better served in
industrial. Staff agreed to that from a historical preservation view. For a working
farm, a lot of land is needed, and not enough will be saved here to accomplish
that. A veterinarian facility and a small herb farm have been looked at; a working
farm is unlikely. Mr. Torgerson mused whether those uses would be more
appropriate, as well as small business office uses. Those things are involved in
Industrial but not LMN.
Staff noted that the applicant had come in with a truncated industrial area that
bisected the farm and went through the barn, with the barn then being in two
zones. Staffs concern was a potential battle over the buffer. Making it all one
zone seemed to eliminate that battle. Mr. Torgerson noted that the present
Industrial zone does not bisect the barn.
Mr. Bernth asked what the farm needs in order to maintain its character? Staff
responded that rather than hard and fast acreage, it needs significant buildings,
outbuildings, and ground features, including pens and pit silos, with an
appropriate buffer. No acreage numbers have been solidified. Staff is consulting
in regard to legal underpinnings and like situations in other communities. A 500-
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 7
foot buffer has been recommended, which would be a majority of the 33 acres,
or about 20 or 25 acres.
Ms. Craig inquired into Urban Estate for this area. Staff did not look at that
possibility. Staff looked at the manipulation of the boundary and took into
account the integration of the slope into the zones. Rezoning was seen as an
extension of the larger neighborhood.
There are two farmsteads: the Jessup and Johnson farms. These areas were
shown on the aerial photo. The second farm is not within the buffer.
Applicant's presentation. Jim Postal, president of James Company, has the
Johnson property under option. This is his fifth development in the city.
The zoning cannot be separated from the ODP and planning purposes. A slide
was shown of the neighborhood. The property is interesting, with Timberline as a
major arterial, creating a significant impact on residential property and
demanding higher densities. The neighborhood commercial in Rigden Farm
satisfies the commercial needs for this property. The industrial area across the
• tracks fits the industrial zoning well.
The developer went to the City about a year ago in the early planning stages for
a design meeting. It helped the applicant to focus on a direction for the property.
Many studies have been done regarding a plethora of potential impacts over the
period of planning for this property.
An intensive effort was made to include the Cargill property in the planning. They
chose to exclude themselves.
Two farmsteads are included. The properties are in poor condition, but. the
developer wishes to work with the City on the appropriate avenues.
The development factors are negative and challenging and require very creative
land planning by experts in that area and with regard to the surrounding uses. It
has taken a year to get to this point in the planning process. A disappointment
occurred with the latest requirement for a buffer zone from the sewer plant,
particularly in light of the request at the beginning of the process to be informed
of all applicable rules. A buffer and detention plan was initially incorporated in the
plan. The iterations of the plan and the time it took to get to this point were not
the result of the applicant's actions.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 8
Susan Wade, of Downing, Thorpe & James, spoke of the plan. The design intent
of the issues is probably more appropriate for ODP. She said that four design
strategies were to be illustrated, with concept images presented:
1) Create a community with heart or core, using circulation and open
space elements to create one or perhaps two cores or hearts, gathering places,
to bring the neighborhood together.
2) Provide unique and identifiable sub-neighborhood districts, based on
densities, open space elements, and architectural massing.
3) Provide neighborly edges. The long railroad track was cited as an
example.
4) Provide architectural diversity, with seven or eight architectural types,
to provide unique looks and textures to the neighborhoods and streets.
Those strategies are mostly CDP oriented but presented to show that there is
deeper thinking than mere rezoning.
The first application had an Industrial placement. The line went through the barn,
which was not the real intent. Since then, the applicant removed Industrial and
maintained it Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Requirements were
changed recently concerning the river corridor concept. The applicant was told
as late as 3:00 p.m. today that redesign was needed, in that an Urban Estate
buffer is needed to buffer the river corridor.
As a result of that notification, and with quick work in the car on the drive to Fort
Collins, a Scenario C (later referred to as 'Revision 3") was proposed to further
redefine zonings. The black crosshatched area would be Urban Estate, with the
conditions that 1) no residential development will be in that boundary; 2), the
neighborhood park would be placed between the preserved Johnson farm and
the 1,000-foot buffer. This satisfies the concerns of matching the existing
Structure Plan, not introducing a new district, and not interfering with the zoning
district.
Under this plan, LMN does come down farther than the original Structure Plan.
The applicant wishes to save the valley wall and its elements, both natural and
historic. This way, it places those elements in a district that is already within the
Structure Plan. Residential would be moved out of the 1,000-foot buffer. An
overview was shown regarding these elements with roads overlain in the plan.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 9
Public input was invited. None was offered.
Questions and discussion by the Board, Staff, and Applicant.
Ms. Craig stated that there is not a compelling reason to change the Urban
Estate to LMN or Industrial to LMN. The applicant discussed with Staff the
purpose of the Structure Plan and its genesis. The Structure Plan is a broad-
based interpretation of community development. In looking closer at the site with
the wastewater plant, the railroad tracks, the adjacent industrial uses, a more
detailed higher use was seen rather than the broad-based plan. Rigden Farm
was not required to do a Structure Plan, but its differences between the
development plan and Structure Plan were huge.
The applicant took information from the workshop, the Structure Plan, and
development in other communities to see how the Structure Plan could be
implemented, in balance with community needs. The original concept had
Industrial to the north, Urban Estates to the south, with a buffer to the
wastewater treatment plant. The intent was to maneuver the lines softly, keeping
. the intent of the land use, but with different boundaries. The idea was also to
look at the total site in concept of highest use rather than the broad scope of the
Structure Plan. There is no problem in designating industrial to the north. The
origination of that process was a City request to reduce some of the issues that
were seen.
The applicant met with the City and consultants on the site in a workshop,
working out locations of a compound and buffers, with a full proposal on the way.
The right direction is being sought, and the actual designation of this portion,
whether LMN or industrial, does not matter so much to the use. The property will
either be sold off or donated as a nonprofit..
Mr. Gavaldon expressed concern about designing in-process at a Board
meeting, using four iterations of the plan. Since Friday's work session, other
iterations have been developed. He inquired about other options if the Board is
not comfortable in proceeding with a particular plan.
Mr. Eckman advised that under T zoning, the petition is to be considered unless
time restrictions are waived by the petitioner. The Board may support Staffs,
applicant's, or its own proposal. The Board cannot continue with T zoning and
cannot postpone consideration of zoning. Mr. Gavaldon expressed his
dissatisfaction with any finding without proper review in order to carefully
• consider and study and gather an understanding of the project. .
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 10
Mr. Eckman further advised that the Transition zone does not have great latitude
for possible uses. The property needs to be taken out of T zone quickly so that it
does not constitute a taking of the property. This is a "holding" zone in the face of
uncertainty, but once brought up for zoning, it needs to be decided upon
expeditiously. This is a recommendation, with Council making the final decision,
relying on the Board's judgment.
The applicant stated that this was not their preferred manner of doing business,
with particular note taken of receiving information as late as 3:00 p.m. on this
hearing date.
Staff stated that the City will not have to buy anything it was not going to buy
already, i.e., the neighborhood park. That is a requirement to provide to the City.
The neighborhood park is a purchase of a 10-acre neighborhood park, as per the
practice anywhere else in town. The black hash mark on the hastily drawn map
will be Urban Estate, regardless of underlying color in that map. It will have no
residential, will provide the required buffer from wastewater, with no residential in
the park, no residential in the farm area, and no residential in the valley wall.
Staff offered a point of clarification as to the thousand-foot buffer area. No
residential will be allowed, but also any habitable structure is not allowed. No
commercial uses are allowed. There will probably be a retention plan. Some
uses in the Urban Estate would not be appropriate for that area. The applicant
does not intend those uses to be placed there and is agreeable to that
restriction. If the adjacent farm is developed for certain uses, trails may be
needed for that portion of the property.
Staff is in agreement if the farmstead is adapted to residence, but would not
want new residences put in. Staff doesn't want residential in the buffer zone, and
the applicant addresses that with the placement of the park. Conditional zoning
would need to apply in order to have no residential units in the proposed park
area, with universal agreement on resolving this. The park use cannot be
specifically tied to that area; it becomes an ODP issue.
Since the addition of the 40-acre zone to the wastewater plant, the City may
have the obligation to pay for that property, since it must be designated as
undevelopable. Mr. Eckman verified that this is not an issue for the Board to
consider as a development cost.
In response to questioning, the applicant affirmed the desire for decision at this
hearing.
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 11
Mr. Colton questioned the justification for LMN zoning below the valley wall. On
the Structure Plan, it is kept Urban Estate. This change just puts in more houses,
which is not a good justification. He inquired of the reasons for Urban Estate as
opposed to RC.
The applicant was agreeable to RC zone in the corner area. Mr. Colton stated
that he did not understand the justification for making LMN into UE. The
applicant was confused last week with a new river corridor designation request.
This afternoon, the applicant then heard that there was concern about a drastic
change from the Structure Plan. The land remaining as UE is more in
conformance with land use and the Structure Plan. The lines are different; LMN
is below the river wall; there are changes, but the applicant is trying to maintain
the essence of the Structure Plan in light of all the requirements placed on the
applicant.
The applicant referred to a year ago, before the extent of compounds, buffers,
slope bank preservation, 10-acre park requirement, thousand-foot buffer, and
other issues were made known. While these issues are not the concern of the
• Planning and Zoning Board, every new restriction further handicaps the
development of the site. This plan seeks to regain some of the density lost
through designation of the river corridor and the installation of buffers. This will
allow retention of perhaps 1100 units on a property that could be zoned for up to
1600. The applicant has listened to every single request and has dealt with it.
Tonight continues that process; it is unfortunate that it is occurring in front of the
Board.
Mr. Bernth commented on the efforts within the city to increase density, with
increased density as a benefit and noted that this plan is attempting to do that.
Ms. Craig stated that because this is in the Poudre River Corridor Plan, it is
designed to go from lower density to higher density. Rigden Farm was not
originally zoned in its present condition. The reason for the UE designation is for
lower density along the valley wall. The vote on Rigden Farm set a precedent in
the area for higher density. The whole intent of the Structure Plan, as assembled
not only by Planning and Zoning Board and Staff and Council, but many others,
was to take a plan not lot by lot, but area by area, with the purpose of UE as a
transition. The wastewater buffer issue is brand-new. Designating a zone as RC
is appropriate and takes out conditions. It fits the structure map and meets the
State statutes.
• Mr. Bernth stated that there are changed conditions, and the applicant is
responding to those. Some mechanism, either UE or RC must be in place to
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 12
meet the requirements. He inquired as to the acreage in UE that will now be
LMN.
The applicant stated that previously, UE was 95 acres in the Structure Plan.
Probably less than half would transition from UE to LMN. While the Structure
Plan was looked at area by area, it may not have been viewed in terms of the
market. Homes in UE are large-lot. It is very difficult to sell large-lot homes next
to wastewater treatment and industrial uses. The developer cannot feasibly put
large lots next to those uses, and the shallow groundwater table would interfere
with any basements.
Mr. Bernth inquired if the issue is 47 acres of UE or LMN. Staff noted that no
dwelling units or adaptive use of farm units could exist on the crosshatched area
on the map. Staff inquired as to the following: If the UE on the Structure Plan is
roughly 95 acres; approximately half of that would have no units; is the other half
then to increase to LMN density as a balance for removing dwelling units from
UE? The applicant affirmed that notion. The blue (proposed RC) area is about 32
acres. About 50 of the 94 acres would be UE.
There was discussion whether neighborhood parks are permitted in the RC
zone, with the conclusion that they are. The applicant noted their desire to
maintain the look of the Structure Plan as an important element to the Board.
Staff stated that all scenarios would fit the requirements of the farm sites. The
applicant agreed and offered to put that intent into writing. The applicant
preferred Scenario C as more consistent with the Structure Plan.
Staff inquired of the reasons for advocating RC over UE. If the land is not
suitable for development — e.g., in sewer areas, the valley wall, farm, and areas
representing the river valley - the purposes are then nailed down by the RC zone
and UE would not be applicable. RC is directly applicable and would avoid
applying conditions to the zone.
The applicant was in agreement as long as there was not additional UE
requested beyond that proposed in Scenario C. The amended scenario would
reserve the blue area as RC, with the rest of the crosshatching reserved as UE.
Mr. Torgerson mused if the condition of no dwelling units is applied, the park
area would be more affordable for City purchase. Mr. Eckman cautioned the
Board not to make a decision based upon affordability for the City but rather in
conformance with good planning and zoning concepts.
• Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 13
Mr. Colton stated the following: No development other than LIE within the valley
wall was in the original Structure Plan. Trading density was used in Rigden
Farm, and he would resist having that procedure set a precedent. There is a
need for more UE and large lots. The developer's concern about salability is not
worrisome in the light of the desire of people to buy those properties. There is no
reason to deviate from the Structure Plan. Although RC came up recently, it
serves the appropriate purpose of buffering from incompatible uses. The
developer's concern of unmarketable properties due to high water tables and
sewage smells is not a concern for the Board's determination and not a reason
to change the Structure Plan. Scenario B is preferable.
Ms. Craig stated the following: The findings of fact and conclusions lay out the
zone issues well. Discussion was held whether to address the Staffs report item
by item. Mr. Torgerson noted that such a discussion would not result in a map.
Moved by Ms. Craig, seconded by Mr. Bernth: To recommend approval of Staffs
Finding No. 1 for removal of the neighborhood commercial center. Mr. Gavaldon
recommended packaging an approval on Finding No. 1 into a blanket motion, in
order to escape the process of making many motions, item by item. There was
• general Board consensus in agreeing to Finding No. 1.
Mr. Gavaldon inquired as to Finding No. 2. General discussion was held on an
Industrial designation, with anecdotes as to the available supply. Staff has been
reviewing uses in the I zone. Many of the uses could fit well on the farmstead.
The supply of industrial sites are many and varied. This is a unique site with the
preservation of farm buildings and the resulting various possibilities. Staff now
questions removal of the I zone, in processing the presentations and the Board's
concerns.
The applicant noted that the uses as set forth in the Structure Plan and as
needed on the property can be met by either I or LMN. The applicant has no
particular preference; Staff expressed a concern about the boundary for
historical purposes. The ultimate boundary needs to meet the property's needs.
The applicant inquired whether the boundary between I and LMN can remain
flexible, to be determined in discussions among the applicant, Staff, and
historical preservation, or whether the line needs to be set tonight. Mr. Eckman
stated that this is a recommendation, and latitude can be used in the type of
recommendation. The applicant approved of a concept that a buffer can be
transition for land use rather than a set demarcation. Therefore, restrictions ca ,
. be placed within buffers. Staff noted that there is leeway within the buffer fo-
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 14
historical preservation, so it does not necessarily have to go through modification
of standards.
Mr. Eckman stated that the Board can make a recommendation that is not
graphic. There is not a convenient way to graph this out and draw lines to make
a decision tonight, so the process may result in some trust being placed with
Staff and the applicant to draw appropriate lines before review by Council.
The Board reached consensus to leave Industrial as-is on the structure map.
Staff noted that the I zone allows mixed-use dwelling uses and boarding houses.
The Structure Plan map retaining its present industrial zoning would mean that
residential is constrained to those limited uses. Mr. Colton noted that "mixed use"
is wide open, and discussion ensued concerning the ramifications of the zoning.
Mr. Mapes stated that the present uses would remain. No further issue was
raised with retaining the industrial zone as per the Structure Plan.
Ms. Craig and Mr. Colton did not wish to change UE to LMN. Mr. Bernth
disagreed on several bases: Infill development; promoting density; allowances
are made with enough open space to cover the increased intensive use for those
47 acres. The applicant is asking for a change that applies to 20-25% of the land
involved.
Ms. Craig inquired how many more units will be in the valley in the most current
scenario over the Structure Plan. Staff estimated that 95 acres of UE results in
190 units. 47 acres of LMN results in 235 to 376 units, depending on a density
from three to five units per acre. Ms. Craig stated that this area is in the 500-year
floodplain, and higher density will put more people in the transition. Mr.
Torgerson stated that LMN is appropriate here. This is across the tracks from an
industrial park, next to an arterial, so the transition to the river isn't occurring. Mr.
Gavaldon agreed with LMN and noted that the transition goes to Johnson Farm
in reverse.
Mr. Torgerson inquired as to Finding No. 4. Wastewater has been trying to buy
the property for 15 years; why has the 1,000-foot buffer not come up earlier?
Staff at Wastewater stated that it had previously pointed out planned
infrastructure and expansion and utilities. There were no numbers at the time
regarding a buffer. There is a semicircle of City property, and they have not
succeeded in acquisition into Rigden Farm and Johnson Farm. Wastewater saw
development coming and changed direction to negotiate whatever could be
obtained. It was after that point that the consultant informed Wastewater about
the 1,000-foot buffer.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 15
Board consensus was to keep Finding No. 4 with RC zoning, without conditions.
1. The Board reached consensus in agreeing with Staff on Finding No 5.
Finding No 5. states that the proposed MMN and LMN zoning configurations
are consistent with the elements of the proposed Structure Plan amendment
that staff supports and, assuming Council amends these components of the
Structure Plan as recommended, the portion of the site which has proposed
rezoning from T to MMN and LMN is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. There was general board consensus on Item No. 6. Mr. Colton expressed his
desire for more area to be kept UE. Finding No. 6 states that the proposed
UE zoning configuration (as proposed on the applicants "preferred
alternative") is not consistent with the Structure Plan amendment supported
by staff and is therefore not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Craig agreed with Staff that the proposed UE is not consistent with the
Structure Plan but does not agree with any implication that Staff supports leaving
UE as-is on the Structure Plan. Staff mentioned two applicable criteria; that the
zoning be consistent with the Structure Plan, and the zoning be appropriate for
the property.
In further discussion concerning process and general desires of all involved, Mr.
Gavaldon again expressed frustration and apologies with the speed of the
process and the lack of preparation and background. He stated that the Board
would nevertheless work through this in the best manner possible and meet the
applicant's rights.
Following a recess, the applicant pointed out the buffer line. Of the 33-acre
parcel, half of it will be farm and buffer. The other half would still be industrial
use, and the applicant is not sure that is the appropriate zoning next to the farm.
The line should be the buffer and should not impose an industrial use next to the
farm and next to residential. The railroad and Timberline act as true buffers, but
there is no set buffer between the proposed industrial and residential.
Staff stated that the area that contains the farm complex and the buffer placed
around it contains less area than exists in the Structure Plan's I designation. By
retaining I on the Structure Plan, it takes a larger area for that than originally
foreseen. The boundaries will be set by the Structure Plan. Ms. Craig stated that
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 16
industrial uses would be appropriate with the farm and buffer. Neighborhood
compatibility would be allowed in the I zone, and Staff would not let in
incompatible uses.
Ms. Craig continued that many uses would be compatible with and enhance the
farm. She does not wish to isolate industrial across the street, and wants to keep
industrial space available. Mr. Colton stated that he would be willing to trade I
zoning for LMN in order to move the UE back to where it was on the Structure
Plan. The LMN being so close to the wastewater treatment would generate
complaints; the UE would be a more compatible use.
Mr. Torgerson inquired how the 1,000-foot minimum buffer translates to an effect
on the neighborhood. Wastewater staff replied that the fewer residences that are
close, the greater the buffer, the better it will be. No numbers are available, not
even as estimates. A comprehensive odor study is being done but is not
completed. Mr. Torgerson shared Mr. Colton's concern with density near sewer
lines. Ms. Craig noted that people in Rigden Farm are complaining about the
smell.
Mr. Gavaldon invited a motion. Discussion centered around clearly
communicating the intent of the Board to Council. Mr. Gavaldon said that four
findings of fact are agreed upon, as articulated on the map. The drawing shows
appropriate designations per the structure map; three out of five Board members
expressed support with regard to the LMN.
Moved by Mr. Bernth: That the proposed zoning map, Revision 4, would
result in a logical and orderly development pattern because of the
proposed configuration of the zoned district boundaries, and would
promote a transition of intensity from the top of the high-intensity uses at
the southwest corner of the site and lower-intensity uses at the southeast
corner of the site; further, to adopt a structure map consistent with that
zoning structure. Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Torgerson notes that the findings must include a need for the proposed
amendment and that it promotes the public welfare. He expressed concern that
extra density in the LMN area did not promote the public welfare.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To adopt the Structure Plan as it
stands, with the exception of leaving RC where it is and putting UE where it was
placed in the original Structure Plan, with MMN and I the way it is.
. Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 17
Discussion revolved around the map. Mr. Gavaldon summarized that UE would
expand to the railroad tracks; LMN is on the west area; MMN, RC, and I remain
the same. Mr. Bernth noted that the zoning would result in people living in very
expensive houses and exposed to odors, as opposed to people in mid-level
houses exposed to odors. The houses being next to a wastewater plant is a
matter for the buyer rather than the Board.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To recommend approval of
the Structure Plan as redrawn, i.e., Scenario B, with Industrial in the upper
left-hand corner as per the current Structure Plan. In response to questions,
Mr. Eckman: stated that findings are not needed on the Structure Plan.
Mr. Gavaldon stated that this is not the best plan that can be developed but the
one that results from the time frame needed to meet the applicant's right to be
heard at this meeting.
Mr. Torgerson stated that he supported the motion because there is a concern
about supporting the public welfare.
• Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To match the zoning to the
approved Structure Plan; further, to adopt Staff Findings Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, and 13. Mr. Eckman noted the clarification that the motion recommends
adoption of the zoning plan to match to the Structure Plan as amended,
consistent with the comprehensive plan, if adopted by Council.
Motion approved unanimously.
Project: 450 North College Rezoning, #34-01
Project Description: Request to rezone the former Light and Power
Plant at 450 North College Avenue from Public
Open Lands (POL) to River Downtown
Redevelopment District (RDR). The subject
site consists of 6.91 acres located east of
College Avenue and south of the Poudre River.
. Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17,2001
Page 18
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation. He
stated that the request was to rezone property at 450 North College from POL,
Public Open Lands to RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment District. He
introduced the staff present and also indicated that the Police Department was
not available to attend the hearing to speak on safety issues. Director Gloss
introduced a letter for the record submitted today from Gerry Bomotti, Director of
Administrative Services for CSU. In the letter he states his support for the
rezoning application. Also at the request of the Board, Director Gloss supplied
for the Board a summary of permitted uses for the POL District, RDR District and
as a point of comparison, a number of other zoning districts that staff had
potentially considered for this property.
Director Gloss reviewed site shots of the property. He stated that the grotto, the
fountain and the building itself are local landmarks and are also eligible for the
National Register and the State Register. He stated that there are very poor
pedestrian facilities along North College Avenue, but there is a project that is
being pursued to do those improvements. The city did conduct a neighborhood
meeting that was held on September 12, 2001. A summary was submitted at the
worksession. There were several issues that came up during that meeting and
the main issue was the proposed day shelter for the homeless on this site. With
this rezoning request, it would allow the shelter as a permitted use within that
zoning district. Other issues were the consistency of the day shelter with
existing plans that are in place, the public review process, the zoning district
designations that were applied to this site before, other shelter locations within
the community, public safety and the preservation issues with putting another
structure or another use on this property in a way that is compatible with the
historic character of the site.
Director Gloss discussed the zoning designations and the permitted uses. He
reviewed the matrix for the Board. He stated that there is almost nothing that is
permitted in the POL district. The uses are very limited like public facilities (utility
lines, substations), golf courses, cemeteries and parks. Given the allowed
districts, it was narrowed down to some other districts; RC, River Conservation,
RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment District, CCR, Community Commercial
Center, C, Commercial and CN, Commercial North College District. On the
zoning map, the properties that are east of College are zoned RDR, and from
Z _ r
3
Z
C
m
•OL `s'{x y�L.i.
O
SwF.
T p• Y
f
r
O
S
rr
5ceenAf 10 .g
( o"o 4er(ta -M Qs "Ra✓t s(o v% Z"
UE
1
S c cN�►r�o "�."
�AISo r4e'r fJ M as "Rev+stovi 3„)
LPAW
MMN �F
1000
Re�e�re to
qS t�
U g1Lye- Ares"
'h K"e.. mihv ley
rr
Sc,cvtoif;o "D%l
(a'l0 f4ffcc0 o G15 'Revis:ovx
i
LM�1
MMN RL
�E
fl
Recoorpeod Co„f i3wvqrov%
33 `I aC
LMN
M
MMN KC
25•63,� 32.5«
October 16, 2001 I)OWNING
THORPF,
JOHNSON PROPERTY JAMES
Structure Plan Amendment and Rezone Comparison Summary
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
STRUCTURE PLAN PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT DIFFERENCE
Acres Density Units Acres Density Units
Urban Estates 94.89 ac du/ac max 189 "85.58 ac. 2 du/ac max ' 171 max units 18 decrease
Low-Mixed Nei hborhood 54.68 ac. 5-8 du/ac 273 - 437 94.09 ac. 5-8 du/ac 470 - 752 197 to 315 increase
Medium Mixed Neighbor Neighborh 34.50 ac. 12-15 du/ac 412 - 517 25.52 ac. 12-15 du/ac 306 - 382 106 to 135 decrease
'I Industrial 33.40 ac. NA NA 12.28 ac. NA NA NA
TOTAL 217.47 AC. 874 - 1143 131.89 AC. 947 - 1305 73 to 162
l I Avg. 1009 Avg. 1126 117 avg. increase
Amendment Changes Per Action Item
1. MMN to LMN Change of 8.98 acre decrease in MMN Average Decrease of 62 Units
Increased LMN by 45 to 72 units
Decreased MMN by 108 to 135 units
2. Industrial to LMN Change of 21.12 acre decrease in Industrial Average Increase of 137 Units
Increase LMN by 106 to 169 units
3. UE to LMN Change of 9.31 acre decrease in UE Average Increase of 42 Units
Increase of LMN by 47 of 74
Decrease of UE by 19 units
Average Total Increase of 117 Units
The actual developable ground within the UE Zoning District will not allow us to achieve 171 units. With the 32.5 acre no build zone,
the 10 acre Johnson Farmstead, the 11 acre slope bank and the 2.5 acre wood lot, the 85.58 acre area Is reduced to 29.58 acres of
developable ground. With cluster development under the UE Zoning District(5 du/ac), we could achieve 148 units or 23 less units than
the zoning district would allow. Reducing the average total increase to 94 units.
C:\TEMP\(JOhmon structure Plan Am ntlment.As)Sheetl
ITEM NO. 6
MEETINGDATE 10 18 Oi
STAFF Troy Jones
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment,
file #32-01
APPLICANT: Melinda Bartlett
The James Company
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80301
OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, LLP
3432 Carlton Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to rezone approximately 217 acres of property located on the
northeast corner of Timberline and Drake Roads. The property is currently
zoned T - Transitional. The Structure Plan designation for the property is a
combination of Industrial, Urban Estate, Low Density Mixed-Use Residential,
Medium Density Mixed-Use Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial Center.
The applicant is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to change the
configuration of the Industrial designation, remove the Neighborhood Commercial
Center designation from the site, and to slightly modify the boundary line
between Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential. The applicant is
also requesting to rezone the property to a combination of LMN, MMN, I, and UE
to correspond to the requested Structure Plan amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Structure Plan
and Zoning Map in accordance with the applicant's request under the condition
that habitable structures may not be developed within the wastewater treatment
plant's 1000 foot buffer area.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File#32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Based on several design refinements, the applicant would like to propose a
zoning configuration different than any scenario that had been discussed by the
Planning and Zoning Board at the September 17, 2001 hearing. Rather than
take a recommended zoning configuration to Council that the Planning and
Zoning Board had not seen or commented on, it was staffs recommendation to
the applicant that the project go back to the Planning and Zoning Board on
October 18, 2001 for a recommendation on the new proposed configuration.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: E; I Prospect Industrial Park,
SW: RL; Intersection of Drake Road and Timberline Road, Meadows East
Neighborhood (single family housing),
S: T: Existing farm land, Cargil seed research facility,
NC; The planned Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center, the
intersection of Timberline and Drake,
MMN; The planned Rigden Farm multifamily housing area,
LMN; The Rigden Farm multifamily and single family housing area, the
planned Timberline Church,
E: I; RC The Great Western Railroad tracks, Prospect Industrial Park,
POL; Prospect Ponds,
RC; Existing wastewater treatment plant and planned future expansion,
W: MMN; LMN; E Timberline Road, Approved Spring Creek Farm North
ODP,
RL; Existing Parkwood East neighborhood, Union Pacific Railroad
tracks, city trail running adjacent to the railroad tracks (on the west
side),
E: Partially vacant industrial pipe plant,
I; Existing industrial uses,
The property was annexed in November 1997 as a portion of the "Timberline
Annexation."
. Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 3
This project was heard and voted on at the September 17, 2001 Planning and
Zoning Board Hearing. The Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a
recommendation to Council based on what was proposed and discussed at the
hearing. The board expressed frustration that a recommendation was required to
be made that night given that all of the issues had not been resolved between
staff and the applicant. Board members also voiced frustration about designing
variations of the plan at the hearing.
Since the hearing, staff and the applicant met and agreed upon several specific
design parameters that had not yet been determined at the time of the previous
Planning and Zoning Board hearing on September 17, 2001, including:
(1) the location for the historic buffer area around the Jessup farmstead;
(2) a design for the conceptual layout of streets and blocks in the vicinity
of the boundary line between the UE and LMN portions of the site; and
(3) a specific method proposed by the applicant for limiting the number of
dwelling units below the valley wall while still maintaining the
applicant's recommended zoning.
• 2. Amending the Structure Plan
The Structure Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
zoning is not consistent with the current Structure Plan, however, the applicant
proposes to amend the Structure Plan in a manner that would make the Structure
Plan consistent with the zoning that is proposed. Appendix C of the
Comprehensive Plan specifies that the City Council must make the following two
findings in order for the Structure Plan to be amended:
• The existing Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment; and
• The Structure Plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be
consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
The applicant proposes the following four changes to the Structure Plan:
The first proposed change to the Structure Plan is to eliminate the Neighborhood
Commercial Center designation on the site. The planning and Zoning Board
agreed with this change to the Structure Plan at the September 17th hearing.
• The second proposed change to the Structure Plan is to change the
configuration between the Medium Density Mixed-Use Residential and the Low
Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 4
Density Mixed-Use Residential. The Planning and Zoning Board agreed with this
change to the Structure Plan at the September 17th hearing.
The third proposed change to the Structure Plan is to move the boundary line
between the Industrial designation and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential
designation roughly 500 feet to the north to a location that coincides with an
agreed upon historic buffer for the Jessup farmstead.
The Historic Preservation staff, Advance Planning staff, Current Planning Staff,
and an historic preservation consultant (hired by the City) have been working
with the applicant for several months to determine an appropriate treatment of
the two historic farmsteads on the site. Because the applicant proposes a
Structure Plan designation boundary based on the edge of an appropriate
historical buffer for the northern farm site (the Jessup farmstead), the treatment
of the historical buffer becomes an issue to be discussed with this rezone and
Structure Plan amendment application. After much negotiation and careful
consideration, staff has come to an agreement with the applicant on the
appropriate buffer area configuration around the Jessup farmstead site. The
proposed district boundary between the Industrial designation and the Low
Density Mixed-Use Residential designation is based on the southern edge of the
historic buffer area for the Jessup farmstead. The agreed upon historic buffer is
diagrammed in the attachment titled "Concept Plan: Jessup Farm Compound."
As currently depicted on the Structure Plan, there are 33.4 acres designated as
Industrial in the north corner of the site. The northwestern most 12.28 acres of
the Industrial designated area consists of the historic Jessup farmstead and it's
buffer area. The applicant proposes that the southeastern 21.12 acres of the
area currently designated as Industrial be changed to the Low Density Mixed-
Use Residential designation.
At the September 17t' hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board had expressed a
twofold concern at reducing the size and changing the configuration of the 33.4
acre Industrial portion on the Structure Plan. The first concern was the reduction
of Industrial zoned land supply within the City limits, and the second was that
because there are existing industrial land uses across Timberline to the west, the
property in question should also be zoned Industrial.
Clark Mapes from the Advance Planning Department made the following
comments with regard to the request to move the boundary line of the Industrial
designation in the area south of the Jessup farmstead:
Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 5
"After considering this spot[between the Jessup Farm complex and the
adjacent LMN neighborhood to the south]in greater detail, we agree [with the
applicant]that it appears impractical to extend any meaningful or significant
industrial use into this small area, isolated from adjacent industrial
development to the east by topography and the RR tracks. Regarding the
relationship to Industrial uses across Timberline to the west, we do not
believe it is worthwhile to push for Industrial use on a piece of high ground
south of the farm. It could be highly intrusive, sandwiched between the farm
site and the future neighborhood."
Troy Jones from the Current Planning Department made the following comment
with regard to the removal of the Industrial designation from the area south of the
farm site on the Structure Plan:
"The applicant has included a diagram of their anticipated design that
addresses the transition between the neighborhood and the farmstead.
This design includes a buffer area outside the limits of the farm complex
with a single loaded street along the northern edge of the neighborhood so
the fronts of the housing units will face the open farmstead buffer rather
than back yards and privacy fences. Front yards and the human
interaction of residential street activity is a much preferred treatment of the
edge to a valuable historical resource such as the Jessup farmstead than
industrial uses are. If industrial is required to be located between the two
uses it is likely that that area of the development could end up as mini
storage or some other incompatible use. The northern edge of the
residential neighborhood is also much better served by having a historic
farmstead as its neighbor than an industrial use. To the west, Timberline
is a logical edge and will be a huge barrier(future 6-lane arterial). Such a
barrier would be a logical edge between different types of uses such as
industrial and residential. To the east, the change in topography
associated with the valley wall, and the barrier of the railroad track makes
the area in question have little to no visual or functional relationship to the
industrial land in the adjacent Prospect Industrial Park."
The applicant has indicated that they are not industrial developers, so if the
southeastern 21.12 acre piece of the industrial designated property were to be
zoned Industrial, it would not be developed by this applicant; therefore, the
applicant would not have any control over the design, character or specific use
that would be sandwiched between the historic Jessup Farmstead and the LMN
neighborhood to the south.
Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File#32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 6
Staff finds that there is a need to change the Structure Plan with regard to the
reconfiguration of the Industrial designation on the site because the Industrial
designation would be far less compatible with the historic Jessup farmstead and
the adjacent LMN neighborhood to the south than would a designation of Low
Density Mixed-Use Residential. Furthermore, staff finds that the proposed
Structure Plan amendment would promote public welfare and be consistent with
the goals, principles and policies of City Plan because adaptive reuse of the
historic resource would be better suited to be located adjacent to a residential
neighborhood than to vacant developable industrial land.
The fourth proposed change to the Structure Plan is to change the location of
the boundary line between the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
designation and the Urban Estates designation.
As currently depicted on the Structure Plan, there are 94.69 acres of Urban
Estate designation on the property. At 2 units per acre, the existing UE
designated property allows 189 dwelling units at an overall average density of 2
units per acre. The applicant now proposes, and staff supports, a layout where
85.58 acres of the site is designated Urban Estate in a configuration where the
boundary line between the two designations shifts some UE to the west of the
original line and some LMN east of the original line. The 85.58 acres of
proposed Urban Estate area would yield 171 units, while the additional total gain
of 9.31 acres of Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood would yield between 46
and 74 additional units. If the property were to be zoned consistent with the
applicant's proposed Structure Plan amendment, there would be between 28 and
56 additional units.
Advance Planning staff has repeatedly expressed that the lines on the Structure
Plan are general lines that are color codes painted with a "broad brush"
approach. It has always been the intention that, unless a Structure Plan line was
specifically shown on a roadway, section line or specific topographical feature
(such as a ridgeline or river), the line should have some inherent "wiggle room."
On the current Structure Plan configuration, there is a rough north-south line,
which designates Urban Estate east of the line and Low Density Mixed-Use
Residential and Industrial west of the line. This line does not specifically coincide
with the valley wall, but has upper and lower valley wall ground on both sides.
Planning staff would argue that this location of this line is subject to some
variation. Advance Planning and Current Planning staff have been working with
the applicant for several months to come up with a specific conceptual layout of
streets and blocks in the vicinity of the proposed boundary line and, given a
closer site-specific consideration, it makes good planning sense to allow this line
to vary slightly. As a result of the variation to this line on the Structure Plan,
. Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 7
there would only be a net change from Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed-Use
Residential of less than 10 acres of land, which does not compromise the ability
of the remaining Urban Estate land to achieve the desired density transition
between the higher intensity uses at the top of the valley wall and the low
intensity uses intended for the lower ground associated with the Poudre River
Corridor.
Staff finds that there is a need to change the Structure Plan with regard to the
reconfiguration of the Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential
designation boundary because the Structure Plan was not intended to be precise
at this location, and a closer site-specific consideration of this designation in this
location accomplishes the intent to step down the level of intensity toward the
river valley just as well as a plan reflecting the current Structure Plan
configuration. Furthermore, staff finds that the reconfiguration of the Urban
Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential designation boundary would
promote public welfare and be consistent with the goals, principles and policies
of City Plan and that the proposed amendment accomplishes the intent to
provide a transition of intensity from the top of the high intensity uses at the
. southwest corner of the site to the low intensity uses at the lower southeast
corner of the site just as well as if the Structure Plan were not changed.
3. The Land Use Code
The applicant proposes four zone districts for the property; MMN — Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District , LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District, UE — Urban Estate District, and I — Industrial District. The
locations of the applicant's proposed zone district boundaries correspond to their
proposed Structure Plan amendments.
Section 2.9.4(H) of the LUC specifies the process for amending the zoning map.
This section of the code specifies two mandatory requirements and three
additional considerations.
Mandatory Requirements
• Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and/or
• Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
The proposed zoning configurations are consistent with the proposed Structure
• Plan amendments, and, assuming Council amends these components of the
Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File#32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 8
Structure Plan as recommended, the rezone request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Additional Considerations
• Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change is
compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the
subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land;
Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise,
stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the
natural functioning of the environment;
• Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change
would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
A key issue that needs to be considered regarding the rezoning of the property is
how the area adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Facility should be zoned.
Based on the policies and procedures that apply to wastewater treatment plants
by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division, there must be a minimum 1000
foot setback from such wastewater plants to habitable structures (Please see the
attached memo titled, "Water Quality Site Application"). The applicant has
proposed to zone this buffer area UE, but has offered a restrictive covenant that
specifically disallows any habitable structures within 1000 feet of the planned
wastewater treatment plant expansion.
At the September 17th Planning and Zoning Board Hearing the board
recommended RC - River Conservation zoning for this 1000' setback area.
Both the RC and UE zone districts permit habitable structures. Regardless of
which of the two zones the buffer area ends up in, there needs to be a condition
placed on the zone district that disallows habitable structures within the buffer
area. Simply obtaining a contract from the developer agreeing to a restrictive
covenant disallowing habitable structures within the buffer area does not
preclude the need to have conditional zoning. Paul Eckman, the Deputy City
Attorney, has explained that we may accept the restrictive covenant, but using
such a contract as our only method to disallow the habitable structures within the
buffer would be considered "contractual zoning" and is not permitted. A
restrictive covenant may be accepted as part of the development application, but
in order to legally tie the restriction to the zoning, a condition must be placed on
the rezoning application. The restrictive covenant then becomes an additional
tool with which the condition placed on the zoning can be tracked and enforced.
Given the need to restrict any habitable structures from being developed in the
Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 9
wastewater plant's buffer area, and the fact that either RC or UE would require
the need for a condition to be placed on the zoning, staff supports the applicants
requested UE configuration which includes the wastewater plant's 1000 foot
buffer area. A conditional zoning that disallows any habitable structures in the
wastewater plant's 1000 foot buffer would allow either UE or RC zone to be
compatible with the plant. Otherwise, the proposed zoning for the entire site is
compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is
the appropriate zone district configuration.
The Natural Resources Department does not consider the proposed zoning to
have any adverse impacts on the natural environment.
To the extent that it can be determined at the zoning stage of the development
review process, staff finds that the proposed Zoning Map amendment would
result in a logical and orderly development pattern because the proposed
configuration of zone district boundaries would promote a transition of intensity
from the top of the high intensity uses at the southwest corner of the site to the
low intensity uses at the lower southeast corner of the site.
• FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the Johnson Rezone Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment,
File #32-01, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions:
Structure Plan Amendment Findings
1. Staff finds that the applicant's first proposed amendment to the Structure
Plan to eliminate the Neighborhood Commercial Center designation on the
site is needed and would be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and
policies of City Plan because the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial
Center is satisfying the intent of this "red dot" designation on the Structure
Plan.
2. Staff finds that the applicant's second proposed amendment to the Structure
Plan to change the configuration between the Medium Density Mixed-Use
Residential and the Low Density Mixed-Use Residential is needed and would
be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan.
because the Structure Plan was not intended to be precise at this location but
rather have the flexibility to deviate from the arc configuration .
Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 10
3. Staff finds that the applicant's third proposed amendment to the Structure
Plan to change the configuration of the Industrial designation on the site is
needed because the Industrial designation is far less compatible with the
historic Jessup farmstead and the adjacent LMN neighborhood to the south
than a designation of Low Density Mixed-Use Residential. Furthermore, staff
finds that the proposed Structure Plan amendment would promote public
welfare and be consistent with the goals, principles and policies of City Plan
because adaptive reuse of the historic resource would be better suited to be
located adjacent to a residential neighborhood than to vacant developable
industrial land.
4. Staff finds that the applicant's fourth proposed amendment to the Structure
Plan, to reconfigure the Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential.
designation boundary, is needed because the Structure Plan was not
intended to be precise at this location, and a closer, site-specific
consideration of this designation accomplishes the intent to step down the
level of intensity toward the river valley equally well as a plan reflecting the
current Structure Plan configuration. Furthermore, staff finds that the
reconfiguration of the Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Residential
designation boundary would promote public welfare and be consistent with
the goals, principles and policies of City Plan and that the proposed
amendment accomplishes the intent to provide a transition of intensity from
the top of the high intensity uses at the southwest corner of the site to the low
intensity uses at the lower southeast corner of the site equally well as the
existing Structure Plan configuration.
Rezoning Findings
5. Staff finds that the proposed zoning configurations are consistent with the
proposed Structure Plan amendments and, assuming Council amends these
components of the Structure Plan as recommended, the proposed rezonings
from T to MMN, LMN, UE and I are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Staff finds that a conditional zoning that disallows any habitable structures to
be developed within the wastewater treatment plant's 1000 foot buffer is
needed regardless of the zone district assigned to such buffer area.
7. Staff finds that the proposed rezonings will not result in significant adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
• Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #32-01
October 18, 2001 P & Z Hearing
Page 11
8. Staff finds that the proposed Zoning Map amendment would result in a logical
and orderly development pattern (to the extent that it can be determined at
the zoning stage of the development review process) because the proposed
configuration of zone district boundaries would promote a transition of
intensity from the top of the high intensity uses at the southwest corner of the
site to the low intensity uses at the lower southeast corner of the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning,Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Structure Plan
and Zoning Map in accordance with the applicant's request under the condition
that habitable structures may not be developed within the wastewater treatment
plant's 1000 foot buffer area.
ACommunity Planning and Environmental Services
Advance Planning Department
Ctyof ort Collins MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 9, 2001
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Clark Mapes, City Planner, Advance Planning Department
RE: Industrial Zoning Questions, Johnson Property Rezoning
After considering this site in greater detail, staff agrees with the applicants that it is
preferable not to extend Industrial (I) uses into the 21-acre area south of the farm site as the
Structure Plan shows. I uses sandwiched between the farm site and the future
neighborhood could be intrusive; the area is isolated from adjacent industrial development
to the east by topography and the RR tracks; and it will be separated from I uses across
Timberline by six lanes of traffic.
• Following are some key questions staff has considered.
What about weakening the relationship to Industrial uses across Timberline to the
west? If I zoning on the subject property gets reduced as proposed, will the existing I
uses across Timberline be left"stranded" and less viable, surrounded by
neighborhoods with compatibility complaints? In other words, will this loss of I be
part of a domino effect that started with the loss of Employment uses on the other
Johnson Farm property, ultimately driving out I uses across Timberline? -
Staff does not believe it is important to have facing I zoning across Timberline. Timberline
will be so wide, with heavy, roaring traffic, that we do not believe such a facing
relationship is important for its own sake. There may be greater neighborhood impacts and
compatibility issues with Timberline itself, than with the I uses on the west side.
Staff does not believe the amount of ground in question-- about 300 feet of Timberline
frontage -- is a significant factor in the future viability of the industrial area across
Timberline.
•
281 Korth College Avenue • P0. Box 380 • Fort Collins,C0 80K"-0580 • 1970)2_11-6356
FaY(970)1-1o111 • ;DD(9S0)212z�L6002 • E-mail:aplanningtrifcgov.com
What about the lost opportunity for industrial uses as shown on the Structure Plan—
is there an adequate supply of I ground in the City? More specifically,would this be a
particular loss of a unique opportunity for certain modest-scale I uses as opposed to
larger, corporate scale parcels out along the interstate?
These are two good questions about tradeoffs, with no definitive answer. Two readily
available numbers are as follows:
1) The 2000 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis lists 753 buildable acres of
vacant land with I zoning. This does not include any vacant lots in platted, serviced
industrial subdivisions,which would increase the figure (data not readily available).
2) 2)A 2000 market study done for the Johnson/Spring Creek Farms annexation to the
west of the subject property suggests an annual absorption of about 29 acres for
industrial/institutional development.
These numbers would suggest a greater-than-26-year supply, with some caveats: they are
the only readily available numbers relevant to the question, and they should not be
misconstrued as a complete or definitive answer to questions about the supply of I ground.
Staff believes they merely suggest that the loss of 21 acres appears not to be critical.
Some additional points and observations on these questions:
1) Staff discussed these questions with a number of people in real estate, development, and
economic development positions. Insights and opinions vary widely regarding these
questions of supply. However, there was agreement on two main points:
• first, that if there is a desire to definitively answer the questions, then a specific market
study would be needed; and
• second, the caveat that compatibility concerns with close residential development could
outweigh the usefulness of this site as a choice for prospective industrial users.
Advance Planning Staff Conclusions
Upon further discussion following the earlier P&Z hearing, staff believes the supply
questions are outweighed by the possibility of an intrusive or incompatible I use
sandwiched between this particular farm site and the neighborhood. Staff believes the I
zone is acceptable on the farm site itself, because industrial uses are likely to be more
compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, given the inherent limitations on scale and
intensity resulting from historic preservation of the farm plus compatibility standards.
Quantitative and qualitative market analysis of industrial land supply will be included in the
upcoming City Plan update during 2002-2003.
. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING TO
ODOR ISSUES AT FT COLLINS WWTFS
May 1991 Master Plan for Wastewater treatment Expansion Program completed. It
recommended a third regional treatment facility be completed in 1999 at a
downstream site.
May 1993 The Updated Master Plan recommended maximizing the capacity at the
Drake facility and starting up the new regional facility in 2002.
May 1997 City Structure Plan completed.
May 1998 NFRWQPA regional facilities plan recommends that individual entities
plan for expansion of their treatment facilities instead of a regional
treatment facility.
May 1999 The Risk Management Plan for the Drake Wastewater Treatment Facility
identified hazardous exposure areas around the plant as a result of
Chlorine or Sulfur Dioxide leaks.
August 1999 Based on the recently completed NFRWQPA regional facilities plan, Fort
Collins changed our recommendation to expanding the Drake Facility. In
addition, it is anticipated that new facilities will be required for nitrogen
and phosphorous removal. The expansion will take place by filling in the
pond west of the existing facilities and by purchasing the existing batch
plant site. Future development of adjacent property was identified as a
potential odor issue. It was recommended that the existing headworks
odor control facilities be rehabilitated and additional odor control be
provided for preliminary/primary treatment and solids processing.
1999-present Utility staff contacting adjacent property owners to express our interest in
purchasing buffer lands. A realtor(Jennifer Carpenter) also worked on
our behalf, but without success. Actually, our attempts to purchase buffer
land go back much farther to include discussions with CSU on the Rigden
Farm.
May 2001 Odor survey started at the Mulberry and Drake Facilities. Scheduled for
completion in May 2002.
•
CIPHE-WOOD Fax:3037820390 Sep 13 2001 13:36 P.02
Colorado Water Quality Control Division
• Policy No: WQS 7 _
WATER QUAY " Initlated By: d
Approved 8y�
SITE APPU"TION Effective Date
Revision No:
Poiicies& Procedures Revision Date:
SETBACKS FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FORKS TO HABITABLE STRUCTURES
a
Purpose: 1. To minimize the potential for the airborne
transmission of pathogens from wastewater
treatment facilities to the occupants of
habitable structures and for. odor complaints
about the facilities by the occupants of those
habitable structures;
2. To reduce the likelihood of public nuisance
actions- stemming from odor complaints; and
• 3. To reduce opposition by neighboring property
owners to proposed wastewater treatment facility
construction.
Policy/
Procedures: Minimum horizontal distances shall be maintained
between habitable structures and new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities. Unless specific
mitigating factors exist, or are proposed, to counter
the potential for odor problems and/or aerosol drift,
the following distances shall be considered the minimum
acceptable for site application purposes;
1. Noa-aerated lagoons, 1/4 mile, no exceptions. .
2. Aerated lagoons less than 2 total surface
acres with no surface aeration, 100 feet.
3. Aerated lagoons greater than 2 total surface
acres and/or with surface aeration, 1000 feet,
or with established vegetation barrier to
reduce aerosol drift , 500 feet.
4. Small mechanical plants less than 100 ,000 gpd
capacity and all facilities with building
enclosure, 100 feet.
5. All other mechanical plants, 1000 feet.
• �w
CDPHE-lint.; Fax:3037820390 Sep 13 2CO1 13:37 P.03
Setbacks from Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Works to Habitable Structures
Page 2
At the time of site application action by the
Division, habitable structures shall not exist
within the prescribed distances unless mitigating
factors have been approved by the Division.
Habitable structures shall include residences ,
schools , and commercial structures. It shall be
a condition of site approvals that the applicant
shall be responsible for maintaining the appropriate
separation distance for the life of the project.
Background: Opposition by neighboring residents to the
construction of. wastewater treatment facilities
has drawn attention to the Division' s lack of
consistency in applying previous distance guidelines.
Reference: Regulations for Site Application for Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Works, 2.2. 3(2) (6) , 2.2.4(8) ,
and 2.2.5(1)(f) .
Legend
Railroad
Existing Buildings
Parcels
1000 Foot Buffer
JW
I�, ❑ rl
u
<< e it
�o 0
a
�. o
0
0
❑ o
O
po0 600
0❑❑� OFeet
a
0
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
Johnson Farm ODP & Rezone Neighborhood Meeting
Meeting Date: 7/16/O1
Staff: Troy Jones, Cameron &loss, Matt Baker
Q: Urban Estate Zone District Density?
A: 2-5 units per acre in the portion of the site where development is clustered. No
dwelling units (except perhaps in the historic farm house) in area zoned Urban
Estate outside of the clustered area.
Q: Johnson Farm site? (Drake)
A: Includes all existing structures and a 500' x60O' lot; the farmstead will include a
buffer zone between the farm buildings and the adjacent new development where
no development activity will occurr.
Q: New road connecting Sharp Point extension to Drake- why/what impact below
farm, did historic layout of farm get considered?
• A: Disperse traffic to both Drake & Timberline.
Concern: Putting road close to farm not to line up w/ Rigden Parkway, road at
different height.
Q: Long range Drake plans?
A: Drake = 2-lane plus a turn, minor arterial
Transportation Issues: Timberline - 1 major int. & 4 right-in/right-out. Wont Drake
need to be wider than 2 lanes?
Q: Vote to improve Timberline?
A: Development helps pay its own way, but may need extra $ above & beyond
developers cost. Need funding source. Will be at least 3 years to get
Timberline/Prospect to 4-lane status.
Comment: Commuter rail on UP tracks - need good underpass under Timberline.
Great Western RR line will some day be a fine transportation connection to
Windsor/Johnstown. Please save some land for future station.
. Comment/Question: Why push for alleys - snow/thugs, wasn't there a backlash?
A: Design of alleys is key - good and bad elements to alleys, learn from good.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
Q: What schools will this serve?
A: Average number of units = 1170. 980-1370 Range. Laurel/Boltz/FCHS.
Q: How do we deal with amount of traffic that will be in this area? What about a
pedestrian underpass to cross Timberline? How much pedestrian traffic is good
question. Will have crosswalks at signals and 30-foot wide median. Will be huge
intersection but will be safe as possible.
Comment: Shifting the Structure Plan's red dot south of Drake requires extra
pedestrian traffic across Drake - setting up dangerous situation.
Timberline speeds are out of control, bottleneck at Prospect is dangerous situation.
If you can't make 6 lanes right away don't let the development now. Worried about
those frustrated with Timberline will cut through Parkwood East. Currently lots of
speeding.
Q: Why development at all until 4 lanes?
A: Development pays for itself to extent legally permissible, w/o development there
is no money to improve roadway.
Q: What about road tax, will it go to voters?
A: Maybe, if voters approve - speeds up. If not, we need to find a funding source.
Similar to Rigden Farm - as roof tops start to go up, road starts to break ground.
Q: Plans for historic farms?
A: Covenants & restrictions to sales contract. Uses part of review. Trying to get a
use rather than mothball.
Comment: Jessup Farm (red brick house) - eligible for local landmark - more special
because it's not standard layout for farm. Density, buffer, uses, design, and scale
need to be sensitive.
Q: Could the T zone stay for the farm?
A: Yes, but if so, it's hands off for development.
Q: Why is ODP showing different sizes for colors as concept plan? Would like as
much land around site to preserve character. Land not compatible w/ chicken coops,
barns, and such.
Comment: Lower barn excellent for horse barn - great neighborhood for horseback.
Q: Are you willing to have the Landmark Preservation Commission(LPC) comment?
A: Good idea, not a requirement per se, developer may decide to voluntarily solicit
the LPC's comments.
Comment: Goal of Historic Fort Collins is to help find uses for historic buildings.
Comment: Changing from rural to urban - this is inf ill, we must consider what's
appropriate for history given urban setting.
Q: Upgrading utilities - DSL north of Drake may be difficult.
Q: What about mixed uses such as offices etc., employment.
A: Did not consider - saw the need to provide mix of residential.
Q: Cargil?
A: James Co. couldn't come to an agreement given Cargil's needs.
Cargil - research on Canola Oil. Intent is to continue to farm at this location as long
as it makes sense.
• Comment: Edora Park traffic - I will probably cut through Parkwood East.
Comment: Self-sufficiency with regard to schools, shopping, etc. Don't like idea of
all the required pedestrian crossings.
Note: Representatives from the following groups were in attendance at this
meeting:
Landmark Preservation Commission
Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation
Fort Collins Historical Society .
Poudre Landmarks Foundation
•
NEIGHBORHOOD P4FORMATION MEETING
s for
Project: �a�h�ct� vc
Meetina Location: : ( � S
3 City of Fort Collins ' `
. Date:
3 Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to
4 update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at nei;hborhood
meetings. Contact the Planning Dep rtment (221-67-50) if you wish to Did You ReceiveCorrect
receive minutes of this meeting. q rittenNotirtc2tion Address.
7 of this meetino?
Name �n n Address Zip: Yes No Yes I No
�(� {-+`t�l'0 4.JK�OF+c�Z Z�2� �/l�'i/' ��� � 6�e✓ US�.S
f /
/✓ �I//o�. M ,�t/ : ; z atioy IS'1041-xwuu> At IF( SO S2 5 I x
� ✓ /.T /46.tN fit Fc Ol I I X
AR c ADAM/ 1913 �4aSJ. S-C• 1=c SaS25
Us 5-
x ,✓ /Nne 11 - ZO
� V/ C Lam- �<7ir �vS •� .�/f1�LT '� / (Y�r2� / I I� I
1 G: �vj-
/
✓ La�-� ,� � i.J ��-e..:.C� . mac. �S z� x.
PLLI
=,S-4-
%
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
s for
g Project:
City of Fort Collins
Meeting Location:
Date:
Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to
I update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood
meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to Did You Receive— �IC arreet
receive minutes of this meeting. ritt.en NotireattooAddress?
of this meeting? II
Name Address Zip. Yes No Yes I No
Cw JOSe SOA Zra'o ec lace a5 Z- -H
x
✓ ��kG) C,�Il�sla e //l6 PA��<w�,) Z�2iJc� �3oS2S
/ S4 Jc S�q t ma;er
Garg�%I PAC,-CJN orake Roaet f(oS2 ✓
/ $ al'3 V06Za 01J_ 30 Z--;�ST7vvab DW
4 o & p J/
1I/ 7 �tX 77-'rl�P'nt` ss 31 2 5 � n ; I Dr �vSzS ( �� �` ✓
✓ SN�YiH Y</�� "'r^�9� /63/ Ti.y/hvocL �D5d5 ✓ I t/
MR— n1 Ll OOHS
a-Sw Farnall
V
Li.—Ism laden CIDSL-i /
Co FL 46�t "et': 'i V
5( 1-1- 14,✓9 /Z �d
�✓ ;d m 114,1 el 1737 Sal,-"sad b r dd 5'�7
�r'a��' �a L�"Z Z�o / /hell C �ri,{,t, do r� 8a S2� �✓. �'
Concerns Regarding Johnson Farms Rezoning/development Proposal:
1. Demand on Edora Park for soccer, baseball, and open space: Edora Park is
already congested, and there currently is inadequate space to support all the kid
soccer, baseball, etc. demand. Parking is a problem. The new development needs
a 30+ acre park, with play fields, so that it can be self-sufficient in terms of it's
recreational and open space needs.
2. Poor access to Riffenberg Elementary School: A new neighborhood elementary
school is needed on the east side of Timberline, so that kids don't have to deal
with College Avenue-like traffic to go to school.
3. Need for an off-road bike path connection between the Poudre Trail near the
wastewater treatment plant and the new bike trail along the railroad right-of-way.
The city will miss an opportunity to properly evolve its bike path system if it
resorts to only a painted bikeway along Drake Ave.
4. Aesthetic impact to the existing neighborhood: The "city strip"between both
Drake and Timberline Avenues and the development should be wide enough to
accommodate tree plantings.
5. Traffic through the Parkwood East neighborhood: This issue can only be avoided
. if the east side of Timberline can become self-sufficient in terms of parks, open
space and elementary schools.
Sincerely:
William Jackson
Jane Jackson
2418 Creekwood Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Vje
• ���\ ,�
Troy Jones- Follow-u „on last night meeting _ Page 1
From: "Bob" <bvinton@rockysoft.com>
To: FCI.CFCPO(TJONES)
Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2001 9:13 AM
Subject: Follow-up on last night meeting
Hi, Troy. I talked to you at the end of the meeting last night about an item
regarding Johnson Farm and you asked me to send you a reminder, so here it
is.
The issue I brought up was the possibility of integrating the planning for
the lowland/water features at the SE corner of the Johnson Farm property and
the NE corner of the Rigden Farms (in the corner where the new road
realignment will create the spot for the lake on the Rigden property). I
think there is a good opportunity to make that appear as one contiguously
planned open space/water area (albeit with a road going through it to the
water treatment plant). I think it will be very noticeable when driving east
down the hill on Drake and if you can get the two developers working
together on that, it would probably come out nicer than if we don't.
Thanks again for having the neighborhood meetings. They are very useful to
get visibility of what is happening.
One general comment/suggestion -people never seem to have too much to say
about what goes on within the planned neighborhood (other than density which
the group last night did a nice job addressing) -the issue always seems to
be the macro-planning issues about the transportation impacts on the wider
area outside the neighborhood.The traffic concerns generally seem to be
revolving around the two to four square mile area surrounding the
development in question. Next up would be schools.
You and Cameron might be better served by having the transportation dept.
come to these meetings prepared to discuss expected traffic flows and
planned improvements (with maps and timelines and such) as an agenda item,
so it's not interspersed with all of the other info on the development.
Similarly, maybe have someone from Poudre Schools there to address that
topic so you don't have to field that directly.
Best Regards,
Bob Vinton
482-0530
Tro Jones-Johnson FArm
• From: "Joslins" <wsjos@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Rheba Massey" <massey@julip.ci.fort-collins.co.us...
Date: Mon, Jul 16, 2001 11:34 PM
Subject: Johnson FArm
Hi all,
Just got home from the Neighborhood meeting held by the City planners and the James Company
regarding the development of the Johnson Property. Many of you were in attendance, but for those who
were not, I have a brief summary.
The most important aspects of this project involving preservation issues are that 1. the City thinks it does
not have any formal code with which to require buffer zones and design guidelines for adjacent
development for historic agricultural properties, 2. the James Company had reports written giving little
significance to the two farm complexes, 3. I'm hoping they were impressed with the number of us who
spoke to the farm issues from all different angles!
a.. AS it stands now the developer has been asked by several of us to take their plan to LPC for advisory
review regarding the farms.
b..They have agreed to allow HFCDC to participate in the planning for the future uses of those two
farms.
c.. They will consider donating one or both properties to appropriate non=profit entities for reuse,
rehabilitation, etc if they can be shown the financial benefits of doing so.
d.. The developers planning firm would like to have our input at the time of the citys response to the ODP
filing.
This all means we will be writing letters to all three groups (city, developer, planner) with our concerns and
suggested remedies right away! We'll be using the standards we have suggested to the city in rough draft
form for these types of properties.
IF ANY OF YOU HAS ANY CONTACT WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO BE THE PROPERTY OWNERS
FOR EITHER PARCEL AND WHO WOULD THEN (WITH OUR HELP) PRESERVE AND
REHABILITATE AND MAINTAIN THEM PLEASE STEP FORWARD NOW!!!!!!!!
regards and good night
Karen J
Sure was nice to see Carol, Bud, Per, Brad, Alyson, John, Karen and a couple others present to speak up!
•
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
June 29, 2001
Dear Resident:
On Monday, July 16, 2001 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the library in Fort Collins High School, located at
3400 Lambkin Way(at the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Timberline Road),the City of Fort
Collins Current Planning Department will conduct a neighborhood information meeting to discuss a
development proposal in your neighborhood.
The development proposal is located on a 226 acre parcel east of Timberline Road and north of Drake
Road. The property was assigned the Transition (T) zone designation upon annexation in 1997. The
Transition (T) zone is typically applied to properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans
for development. Now that an applicant wishes to propose development plans for the site, the City is
obligated to assign the property a zone district other than the Transition (T) zone in a timely manner. The
neighborhood meeting is to discuss the proposed rezoning and the Overall Development Plan proposed
for the site.
What can you expect from attending the neighborhood meeting? The purpose of a neighborhood
meeting is to open a line of communication between the applicant and the neighbors. This is the forum
through which the neighbors can express their concerns, City staff can explain the development review
process, and the applicant can explain to the neighbors what they are intending to do with the project and
answer questions from the neighbors. Meeting minutes are taken by City staff, and become part of the project
file. Neighborhood meetings are typically scheduled early in the project, before any design decisions have
been finalized so the flexibility still exists for the input of neighbors to perhaps be integrated into the project.
Why did you receive notice of this meeting? Reasonable efforts h e been taken to invite property owners
of record within 1,000 feet of the site. A list of property owners was rived from official records of the Larimer
County Assessor. Because of the lag time between home occ ancy and record keeping, or because of
rental situations, a few affected property owners may have bee missed. Also, anyone who signed-in at the
design charette that was conducted for this area in late Nove er 2000 or at the charette follow-up meeting
in late January 2001 is included in the mailing of this letter. lease feel free to notify your neighbor of this
pending meeting so all neighbors may have the opportunity, o attend. If you are unable to attend this meeting,
written comments are welcome.
If ypu have any questions regarding this matter, pie a call my office at 221.6750.
�ncerely�
Taro W. ones
City PI ner
The City of Fort Collins will ma reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs,
r and activities and will mak pecial communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
�by; Please call 221-6750 for sistance.
fgpJdPl /S o ' 77fvE l+i�� T//� G�ST �ty aPrsEr�T �'Ro/°a3_fLui�S
poA,�4 1 9L ; p�sf)TE VJ4r? Ci7' zZFvI,vpuT 7aT/}CC6,0t-7 4 ey, /,;f/ ,riOT U10s71,(16
,4AIY 6E 6F 111 y w,T)J 111/s C17-Y PP,A,4',4-'14'6 V�, g o6l4-6 7V C&'%,
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 316-2020
YOUR V6U64/1OF 04eA A, q �D53�/TG OVA Ca vcc�e./iS_ �0/3 1'106L1 /
October 21, 1997
1997. He noted the celebration is an opportunity for community members to thank individuals, •
businesses and organizations for their assistance during and after the July 1997 flood.
United Way Director Bill Peck reported on the composition of the Resource Coordination
Committee.
Beth Juday, 716 Peterson, and Executive Director of the Stricker Short Foundation spoke of the
amount of money collected for the flood relief effort, and briefly reported on how the funds have
been used.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Mason stated the Finance Committee met with the Human Resource Director and
discussed the City's Total Compensation package for 1998. He stated adoption of the Consent
Agenda adopted the 1998 Legislative Agenda which addresses issues including education,
environmental quality, home rule,net metering and retail wheeling.
Councilmember Kneeland reported the Growth Management Committee met and received an update
on the West Central Neighborhood Plan and discussed anticipated changes to City Plan.
• Councilmember Byrne reported the Poudre School District Liaison Committee met and discussed •
Light and Power's plan to install a telecommunications"backbone" line.
Councilmember Smith stated that with the adoption of the Consent Agenda, Council approved the
Art in Public Places Project for the Timberline Extension.
Councilmember Kneeland reported the Organizational Development Committee met and discussed
the need for enhanced communication between City Council and Boards and Commissions. She
stated the Committee also discussed updating City Dialogue.
Mayor Azari stated she and City Manager John Fischbach met with the County Commissioners and
discussed the upcoming Growth Management Committee meeting that Councilmembers and
Commissioners would be attending. She urged Councilmembers to attend if possible.
Items Relating to the Timberline Enclave
Annexation and Zoning.Adopted as Amended on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
129
October 21, 1997
•
"Executive SummarX
A. Resolution 97-145 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Timberline Enclave Annexation and Zoning.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 1997, Annexing Property Known as the Timberline
Enclave Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 1997, Amending the Zoning District Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifyingfor Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Timberline
Enclave Annexation.
This is an involuntary annexation and zoning of an enclave area approximately 435 acres in size,
generally located east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, north of East Drake Road, and south
and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks (see attached vicinity map). The property is
primarily in agricultural use, although industrial uses are located along the west side of Timberline
Road, including Bredero Price Company(former ENCOAT site) and a number of small businesses
in the former Fort Collins Pipe Company building. Existing commercial signs located on these
properties must conform to the City's Sign Code at the conclusion ofa five year amortization period.
The largest single property-owner within the annexation is Spring Creek Farms, Inc. (approximately
• 350 acres). The recommended zoning includes I, Industrial, E, Employment, UE, Urban Estates,
LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, MAN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and
NC, Neighborhood Commercial.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, Inc.
c% Glen Johnson
3432 Carlton Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Cargill, Inc.
P. O. Box 5626
Minneapolis, M7V55440
General Steel Industries, Inc.
c% Randall, Rudolph and Assoc., Inc.
P. O. Box 610026
Dallas, TX 75261
•
130
October 21, 1997
• Energy Coatings Co., Inc. •
c%Randall, Rudolph and Assoc., Inc.
P. O. Box 610026
Dallas, TX 75261
Timberline Star Properties, LLC
c% Craig Hau
401 West Mulberry
Fort Collins, CO 80524
BACKGROUND:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: I, E, R-C; electrical substation, existing industrial uses (Prospect East Subdivision)
E: R-C; existing industrial uses, including Larimer County Jail, water treatment plant
S: R-L, L-M-N; agricultural use, existing single family residences (Dakota Ridge)
W.- R-L, M-M-N; existing single family residences (Parkwood East Subdivision)
The Timberline Annexation consists of approximately 435 acres, located generally east of the Union
. Pacific Railroad tracks, north of East Drake Road and south and west of the Burlington Northern •
Railroad Tracks. The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA).
According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Lorimer County,
contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN
GROWTH AREA, the City will agree to consider property in the UGA for annexation when the
property is eligible according to State law.
Enclave areas become eligible for annexation when they have been completely surrounded by
properties that have been within the City limits for at least three years. The area to be annexed has
been an enclave for at least three years and is therefore, eligible for annexation. The area became
completely surrounded through the following annexations:
N.• East Prospect Road First Annexation-September 6, 1973
E: Rigdon Farm Annexation -August 16, 1988
East Prospect Road First Annexation-September 6, 1973
S.• Blue Spruce Farm Annexation - October 6, 1987
Greenwalt Tenth Annexation-June 21, 1977
W.- Union Pacific South Second Annexation -May 17, 1988
This area became eligible for involuntary annexation into the City on August 16, 1991. In
September of 1991, an enclave annexation of the area was proposed by City staff and discussions
• began with the Johnson, owners of the majority of the area proposed for annexation (Spring Creek •
131
October 21, 1997
Farms, Inc.). Of concern to the Johnsons were issues relating to pesticide application, stormwater
management, ditch maintenance, future urban improvements, sales tax and hunting leases.
Agreement was reached between the Johnson and the City on many of these points; however,
several points remained unresolved at the time of the public hearings: exemptions were requested
from the payment of assessments for future street improvements and from paying City sales tax for
farming operations. They also asked for the ability to continue hunting on their property, once it
was within the City limits. However, City ordinances prohibit the discharging offirearms within
the municipal limits. As a result, the Johnons opposed the annexation. Few comments were
received from other property owners within the annexation.
When property is annexed,property taxes are adjusted by adding the City's mill levy and removing
the Poudre Fire Authority's mill levy. Purchases made by businesses within the annexation would
have to include City sales tax. Business expansions would require payment of the City use tax and
storm drainage fees would be assessed for the property, based on the amount of impervious area and
land uses.
At the time of the initial annexation proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended
approval of the annexation and zoning into the I-P, Industrial Park and T-Transition Zoning
Districts. At first reading of the ordinance, the City Council requested that staffprepare annexation
• and zoning option for Council to consider for the area. Staff proposed two options - to annex the
entire 435 acres; or to annex only the 87 acres located on the west side of Timberline Road. The
City Council ultimately declined to annex any of the property.
There are several issues related to enclave annexation areas that warrant the City considering their
annexation. First is the desirability to consolidate the provision of public safety services. While fire
service is provided by Poudre Fire Authority in both the enclave areas and the City, police services
are not. The second issue is the ability to avoid confusion among the property owners, surrounding
property owners and the City or County. Probably the biggest issue here again relates to the
provision ofpublic safety services. People often don't realize that they are actually located in the
County when they are surrounded by City property. The third issue pertains to the likelihood of
development occurring under County regulations instead of the City's. The intergovernmental
agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County only applies to those land use
decision requiring an action by the Board of County Commissioners. In the case of the Timberline
annexation, continued industrial development could occur on those properties zoned Industrial
within the County through the issuance of building permits for permitted uses.
Several issues regarding the impacts of annexation surfaced during discussions with property
owners and the Planning and Zoning Board hearings. While some involved issues similar to other
enclave annexations financial impacts ofannexation, especially the implications of increased sales
and use taxes), others were unique to this area:
• The ability of the existing agricultural operations to remain viable both for Spring Creek
Farms and the Cargill agricultural research facility. Not only does annexation have sales
132
October 21, 1997
and use tax implications, but concern has been expressed over their ability to continue some •
farming activities such as pesticide application, wild animal control and ditch maintenance.
Most agricultural activities will continue to be allowed after annexation. Ditch burning will
continue to be allowed. The application of pesticides is regulated by the Poudre Fire
Authority and also would be allowed to continue. Wild animal control will also be allowed
to continue. The difference after annexation is that shooting of the animals will not be
allowed since firearms cannot be discharged inside the City limits.
• Noise associated with the operation ofthe Bredero Price pipe coating facility. Residents of
Parkwood East (located to the west of the proposed annexation) complained of excessive
noise from the pipe company and asked that either the City's noise standards be enforced
in the County for Bredero Price or that the property be annexed so the regulations would be
enforced.
At the April 14, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, Parkwood East residents testified
to the amount of noise coming from the Bredero Price property and how they had
complained to the City only to find that the pipe company was located in the County and not
subject to the City's noise regulations. As a result, one of the reasons the April 14 meeting
was continued until June 30, 1997 was to give the neighbors and representatives of Bredero
• Price an opportunity to address noise issues surrounding the pipe company's operations. •
Bredero Price has addressed the noise concerns by committing to compliance with
applicable noise standards(although they have indicated they would prefer meeting the State
standards rather than Fort Collins standards since the measurements are taken at different
locations) and continuing to consider operational changes that would limit the amount of
noise.
• The potential increase in the cost of electrical power for Bredero Price when service would
be converted from Public Service to Light and Power.
Electrical service for Bredero Price is currently provided by Public Service Company
(PSCo). Should annexation occur, Fort Collins Light and Power would become the new
provider. 1996 electrical power charges for Bredero Price was over$295,000. Estimated
1997 usage is over$324,000. One of the major concerns with annexation is that Light and
Power rates are higher and would result in a major increase in the cost of electricity.
However, as noted in the attachments, the Platte River Power Authority (Fort Collins'
wholesale power supplier) has agreed to a special rate that would result in an estimated
savings of$20,000 over their 1997 bill.
• 133 •
October 21, 1997
•
Alan Krcmarik, the City's Financial Officer, has prepared a discussion paper outlining general
financial issues that will impact properties annexed into the City (attached). This memorandum
identifies the primary differences in taxation,permitting requirements and licensing between the City
of Fort Collins and Lorimer County. In addition, Dennis Sumner, from Light and Power, has
prepared a memorandum addressing conversion of electrical power in annexation areas from rom Public
Service Company to Light and Power (also attached-please note that this memorandum includes
information specific to the K-2 annexation which IS NOT PART OF this annexation).
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
On June 30, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 3 - 2 to recommend that the City Council
approve the Timberline Annexation with the zoning recommended by staff and that the properties
receiving the I- Industrial zoning be placed in the non-residential sign district. As part of the
motion, the Board asked the Council to consider exempting all farm equipment purchases for Spring
Creek Farms and the Cargill research facility f•om sales and use taxes and that any new equipment
purchases by Bredero Price be tax exempt.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends approval of the Timberline Annexation with zoning consistent with the Structure
Plan and with the 1-Industrial zoned properties being excluded from the Residential Neighborhood
Sign District. Staff does not support the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation of
exempting farm equipment purchases and Bredero Price equipment purchases from sales and use
taxes. "
Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard gave a brief staff and slide presentation outlining the
site location. He stated staff is recommending zoning districts be applied to be consistent with the
Structure Plan and reported County enclave areas surrounded by the City become eligible for
annexation after three years. He spoke of the primary issues associated with this annexation and
stated the agriculture uses could continue and could expand under the nonconforming use review.
He clarified ditch burning,application of pesticides,as regulated by the Poudre Fire Authority, and
live trapping of wild animals would be allowed to continue. He spoke of noise issues and increased
electric rates and responded to Council questions regarding conforming uses.
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik responded to Council questions and stated without extensive
analysis he could not estimate sales and use tax costs.
Blanchard stated operational changes at Bredero Price have taken place in an attempt to reduce noise
levels.
•
134
October 21, 1997
• Christine Bauer, attorney representing Cargill, Inc., objected to the annexation stating she believed •
it was premature, since it was not proposed by landowners or inspired by pending development in
the area. She disagreed with the zoning designation for Cargill and spoke of the type of work being
done and of the variety of conditions needed to perform the work. She stated the facility would be
forced to leave the City within a five year time frame and requested the property be zoned I-
Industrial or E-Employment.
Ken Salazar, attorney representing the Bredero Price Company, spoke of the company's efforts to
reduce noise and stated that if this ordinance is applied, the company would not be able to comply
with the requirements. He requested that as a condition of the annexation, Council direct the City
Manager to work with Bredero Price on a variance that would allow the Company to continue with
compliance of the State noise standards as set forth in the State Statue.
Steve Shenk, resident of Parkwood East,expressed concerns regarding noise levels and spoke of his
desire to have the City's noise ordinance enforced. He stated neighbors expressed concerns
regarding the decreased resale value of their homes due to noise levels at the plant. He reported on
the company's successful attempt in reducing noise levels over the summer, but expressed concerns
that there is nothing that mandates that the levels be kept down.
Armando Ballofet, 2306 Eastwood Drive, thanked Bredero Price for its efforts in reducing noise
• levels and urged Council to require noise levels be maintained at an acceptable measure.
Dr. Lorin DeBonte, 3706 Rochdale Drive and employee of Cargill Inc., spoke of the benefits of
being annexed,but expressed concerns regarding incorporating the zoning plan with the annexation.
Cal Johnson, Spring Creek Farms, spoke in opposition to the annexation and zoning.
Blanchard responded to Council questions regarding the T-Transition zone, stating that the zoning
district could remain T-Transitional indefinitely or until the City or property owners requested a
change. He stated that under the T-Transitional zoning conditions that exist on the current property
would be allowed to remain. He responded to Council questions and stated the Cargill Company
would fit into the E-Employment or I-Industrial zoning district.
Environmental Planner Brian Woodruff reported that, based on survey measurements conducted
during the summer,the plant was in compliance with noise levels. He stated that a representative of
Bredero Price commented on the difficulty in keeping the noise at an acceptable level for an
extended period of time.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution
97-145.
• 135 •
October 21, 1997
•
Councilmember Kneeland stated she would support the motion because it complies with the
agreement the City has with Latimer County regarding land annexation.
Mayor Azari spoke in support of the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason and Smith. Nays:None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Mason,to adopt Ordinance No.
165, 1997 on First Reading.
The vote on Councilmember motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,Bertschy,Byrne,
Kneeland, Mason and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance
No. 166, 1997 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason
• and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Overland Trail 3rd Enclave
Annexation and Zoning. Adopted as Amended on First Reading,
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summarx
A. Resolution 97-146 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Overland Trail 3rd Enclave Annexation and Zoning.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 1997,Annexing Property Known as the Overland Trail
3rd Enclave Annexation.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 1997, Amending the Zoning District Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classing for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Overland
Trail 3rd Enclave Annexation.
• 136
November 4, 1997
On October 21, 1997, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 97-138 Setting Forth Findings of
Fact and Determinations Regarding the Miller-Fox Enclave Annexation and Zoning.
On October 21, 1997, Council also unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 157, 1997 and Ordinance
No. 158, 1997, which annex and zone an enclave area approximately 4.00 acres in size, generally
located on the west side of South County Road 9, between Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road. The
property is an existing single-family residence with accessory structures that allow for horses on the
property. The recommended zoning for this annexation is HC-Harmony Corridor District, which
is consistent with what is identified on the City Structure Plan"
City Planner Leanne Harter reported this item was withdrawn mistakenly by Ms. Craig.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 157, 1997, on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland,
Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland,to adopt Ordinance
No. 158, 1997, on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland,
Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Timberline Enclave
Annexation and Zoning Adopted on Second Reading_
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summaa
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 1997, Annexing Property Known as the Timberline
Enclave Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 1997, Amending the Zoning District Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifyingfor Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Timberline
Enclave Annexation,
On October 21, 1997, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 97-145 Setting Forth Findings of
Fact and Determinations Regarding the Timberline Enclave Annexation and Zoning.
183
November 4, 1997
On October 21, 1997, Council also unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 165, 1997 and Ordinance
No. 166, 1997, as amended, annexing and zoning an enclave area approximately 435 acres in size,
generally located east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, north of East Drake Road, and south
and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The property is primarily in agricultural use,
although industrial uses are located along the west side of Timberline Road, including Bredero
Price Company(former ENCOAT site)and a number of small businesses in the former Fort Collins
Pipe Company building. Existing commercial signs located on these properties must conform to the
City's Sign Code at the conclusion of a f ve year amortization period. The largest single property-
owner within the annexation is Spring Creek Farms, Inc. (approximately 350 acres). The
recommended zoning included I, Industrial, E, Employment, UE, Urban Estates, LMN, Low Density
Mixed Use Neighborhood,MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and NC, Neighborhood
Commercial.
APPLICANT.- City of Fort Collins
OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, Inc.
c% Glen Johnson
3432 Carlton Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Cargill, Inc.
P. O. Box 5626 J
Minneapolis, M7V55440
General Steel Industries, Inc.
c%Randall, Rudolph and Assoc., Inc.
P. O. Box 610026
Dallas, TX 75261
Energy Coatings Co., Inc.
c%Randall, Rudolph and Assoc., Inc.
P. O. Box 610026
Dallas, TX 75261
Timberline Star Properties, LLC
c% Craig Hau
401 West Mulberry
Fort Collins, CO 80524
184
November 4, 1997
• BACKGROUND:
Based on concerns expressed at the October 21, 1997 hearing, Council voted to place all properties
within the enclave annexation area into the T - Transition zoning district. The owners of the
Timberline Star Properties (directly north of Bredero Price, west of Timberline Road-see attached
map) have since requested that they not be included in the T- Transition. The property owners did
not attend the October 21 hearing to voice their opposition to the Transition zoning since they
agreed with the staff recommendation of I- Industrial zoning. The uses and standards of the
Industrial zone fit both their current operation as well as their future plans.
The I- Industrial zoning district is consistent with the City Structure Plan and, as noted, was the
original staff recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Board also supported Industrial zoning
for this site. Ordinance No. 166, 1997 has been amended to reflect this requested change. "
Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard gave a staff presentation on this item and stated the
owners of the property agreed with the staff recommendation to zone the property T-Transition.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 165, 1997, on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland,
Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
• THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Mason,to adopt Ordinance No.
166, 1997, on Second Reading.
Sally Craig, 1409 South Summitview,requested clarification regarding which portion of the property
would be zoned T-Transition.
Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard responded to Council questions and clarified the entire
property would be zone T-Transition with the exception of the Timberline Star property.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Bertschy reported there would be an open house on November 10,to discuss prairie
dog issues.
• 185
PL1�HNt �4ti11tplDNCCYTI=
• ,Ft�t�3# i 7
.
Council Liaison: Mike Byrne Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard
Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3415
Vice-Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Glen Colton.
Roll Call: Davidson, Colton, Gavaldon, Weitkunat and Chapman.
Chairperson Bell was absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Vosburg, Wamhoff and Macklin.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the consent
and discussion agenda's"
1. Minutes of the August 26, 1996 Planning and Zoning
Board Hearing.
2. Resolution PZ97-8 Easement Vacation
Discussion Agenda:
3. #40-91B Timberline Enclave Annexation and Zoning
4. #55-95B Recommendation to City Council on Proposed
Revisions to the Land Use Code.
Member Chapman moved for approval of the Consent Agenda. Member
Weitkunat seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
TIMBERLINE ENCLAVE ANNEXATION AND ZONING, #40-91 B
STAFF PRESENTATION - Bob Blanchard
This is the second hearing. On April 14 the P & Z Board asked that discussion
be continued for the following reasons:
1) To provide time for Bredero Price Company and Parkwood East residents
to meet regarding noise concerns.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 30, 1997
Page 2
2) To provide an opportunity for the Light & Power to develop an electric rate
structure to accommodate Bredero Price's needs.
Both items have been accomplished.
Further presentation was given by Director Blanchard on a brief description of
the property and an explanation of how the issues have been addressed.
The Board packet included a map of the annexation along with
recommendations from the neighborhood.
The neighborhood position paper stated:
1) That Bredero Price commit to meeting the city's industrial noise
standards;
2) That the City and Larimer County will enter into an intergovernmental
agreement that would give the City the ability to enforce noise standards
outside the city limits where it applies to Bredero Price;
3) That if such an agreement cannot be finalized, they would not support
annexation.
There are problems enforcing noise standards. Is the County willing to adopt its
own noise standards?
Platte River Power Authority, the city's wholesale power supplier, has approved
a $20,000 a year rate saving on the electric bill. Bredero Price is eligible for a
sales tax rebate.
PUBLIC INPUT
Christina Bauer from Cargill, Inc. gave a presentation regarding each of the land
owners who are united in opposing the annexation. A letter was disseminated to
the Board along with a handout summarizing Cargill's position, The major
impact is making it a nonconforming use which would subject it to substantial
growth limitations. A second impact would impose the city's design standards on
Cargill. Cargill's recommendation is to either defer the annexation at a later time
to allow for potential growth or to annex with zoning that would allow Cargill to be
in a conforming use to work with Ft. Collins.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 30, 1997
Page 3
Ken Salazar, representative of Bredero Price, gave a brief summary of the
facility's historic relevance in the area. He further explained that basic concerns
have to do with the economics of the annexation such as a higher tax structure,
increased electrical costs, concerns of long-term impacts on plant expansion
relating to storm drainage, police, fire and general government service fees.
He predicted the plant will close if annexation occurs.
Greg Kechter ,, Plant Manager of Bredero Price in Ft. Collins, spoke on the
various procedures the plant has implemented to reduce noise levels.
Operational hours have decreased and there is no work on Sunday. They have
created a noise barrier by stacking pipe against the fence for a wall. The noise
level has been lowered on backup alarms, two lifts and the dust collector
systems. They have repositioned trucks and cranes to direct noise away from
the neighborhood. They have done a noise study which indicated they are within
the standard noise levels. The company would be willing to enter into an
agreement with the city whereby the city could regulate their noise levels under
Bredero Price's costs. He predicts they will be forced to move if annexation
i occurs.
�I Lucia Liley represented Timberline Starr Properties, LLC. She gave a brief
history of the property. Ms. Liley explained that signage was an important factor
and recommended that signage go in nonresidential. There are signs that will
need to be replaced if the annexation goes through. The company would like
written assurance from the city that an undeveloped second parcel could come in
under City Plan as a separate parcel. Additionally, it would also like assurance
that it will not have to plat property if it wants to expand existing buildings. She
recommended that the process be deferred but at a minimum would ask
consideration on the items she mentioned.
Glenn Johnson, owner of Spring Creek Farms property, pointed out reasons for
opposition as follows: Added sales tax on farm equipment, pickups, etc., not
economically feasible, and concern about zoning.
Steve Shank represented the Parkwood East neighborhood. Petitions had
garnered 40 signatures from over a hundred homes or half-mile area
surrounding the annexation. He would like to see an intergovernmental
agreement . He confirmed various facts about the neighborhood meeting with
Bredero Price and were impressed that Bredero Price was making strides to
conform with the noise ordinances. He also explained that there was a two-week
. noise evaluation done which showed noise levels had gone down. He cited that
there was increased home building in the area and people were concerned
about that property values which have not increased the last two years.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 30, 1997
Page 4
Armondo Balloffet, a neighborhood homeowner and professional noise
consultant gave comments regarding the noise issue. He explained the noise
study was done on the basis of one minute LEQ. He would like to see a
mechanism put in place assuring acceptable noise levels for the neighborhood.
Craig Howe, owner of Timberline Starr Properties, gave a history of Edora Park
which was given to the county by the Johnson brothers, owners of Spring Creek
Farms. He felt because the Johnsons have contributed a great deal to the
community that the community should give back.
Steve Effie, a homeower living behind Spring Creek Farms, spoke against
annexation.
John Maleski, who was listening in the audience and is not affected by the issue,
brought up a question about the noise problem and why the city wants to annex.
Steve Statowire, a Cargill employee, spoke for the businesses.
BOARD QUESTIONS
Member Weitkunat asked about the sales and use tax and basic economics on
each of the properties.
Member Gavaldon asked for clarification on the meaning of sales tax and use
tax. Asked if there was an analysis on net gain. Staff responded that an
analysis had not been done but that one could be done if it were requested.
Member Gavaldon asked questions about the noise data, property values and
decibel levels.
Member Chapman asked questions about the sound wall Bredero Price installed.
He was curious if Bredero Price would be able to maintain the neighborhood
noise standards.
Member Davidson asked Mr. Ballaffet, noise consultant, why he chose to buy
near the railroad tracks and Bredero Price if he knew that noise levels would be
high. Mr. Ballaffet stated he thought his family could live with the railroad and
farm equipment noise and was more concerned with the industrial noise. He
specified there was only one year out of eleven that he had heard constant
intense noise from BP.
Member Colton was concerned about the utility rates and asked if information
from Mr. Salazar— if the information could be relied on in the future. Staff
assured the Board that they felt comfortable with the Bredero Price figures. Mr.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
• June 30, 1997
Page 5
Salazar explained the analysis of the sales and use tax and electrical costs.
Staff addressed how they came up with use tax figure.
Member Colton asked if the farm could be exempt from use tax to help maintain
the economic viability of the farm. Staff referred to a 1992 letter from Ken Waido
of the Advanced Planning Staff to Mr. Johnson which quotes from the City Code
Specific Sales Tax Exemptions on certain farm-related goods and services. Staff
said P&Z could recommend that City Council amend the Tax Code to carve out a
new exemption.
Member Gavaldon asked if the other property owners had concerns about
financial impacts. Cargill's stated concerns regarding development fees and new
equipment purchases and what impact it would have on taxes. Timberline
expressed a concern about the sign issue and asked consideration for the 30-
some businesses located on their site.
Director Blanchard went into a brief description of the Intergovernmental
Agreement. He also explained that staff recommended that properties zoned for
• industrial use would not be included in the residential sign district. In addition, he
asked if a specific portion of the Timberline property could come under the Land
Use Code.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that an applicant can define the property
he wants under the Land Use Code.
Member Colton asked about the Structure Plan in this development. Staff gave
an explanation of the Land Guidance Development System.
After some brief remarks by the Board, the following was presented:
Motion by Member Weitkunat, seconded by Member Gavaldon: To
recommend denial of Annexation and Zoning of Timberline Annexation.
Motion did not pass. Members Colton, Chapman and Davidson voting no.
After a further discussion, the following was presented:
Moved by Member Chapman, seconded by Member Davidson: To
recommend annexation with the following recommendations to the City
Council: (1) to consider a change to the City Code exempting all farm
• equipment, including that of Cargill, (2) that property recommended for
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 30, 1997
Page 6
industrial zoning not be placed in the residential sign district, (3) that new
purchases from outside the municipality for Bredero Price be exempted
from all use tax applications.
A further discussion was had on the utility offer. The Board decided not to add it
to the motion. Further comments resulted in the following:
Motion passed three to two. Members Gavaidon and Weitkunat voted no.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON PROPOSED REVISIONS
TO THE LAND USE CODE, #55-9513
STAFF PRESENTATION
Tom Vosburg, presented information regarding the proposed Land Use Code
revisions as part of the preparation for the July cleanup ordinance. The purpose
is to review the Land Use Code Advisory Committee and staff recommendations
for Land Use Code Revisions, to hear public input and to make Planning and
Zoning Board recommendations to the City Council regarding the revisions.
Topics are as follows:
1) Issues from the Land Use Code Advisory Committee regarding concerns
from the Home Builders Association.
2) Staff recommendations that have not been reviewed by the Land Use
Code Advisory Committee.
A staff report was given to the Board which provided a brief review of issues and
recommendations, detailed background information and draft code language and
provided revisions to the Code along with some replacement pages.
The issues are as follows:
1. Small infill parcels in the LMN Zone.
A memo in Appendix 1 outlines this issue. Policy EXN 1.4 exempts such
parcels from minimum density requirement.
Staff recommendation is to adopt a definition of infill development area and to
exempt LMN parcels 20 acres or smaller from the 5 units per acre requirement.