HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHNSON PROPERTY REZONE - 32-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Concerns Regarding Johnson Farms Rezoning/development Proposal:
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.
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.
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
23 Issue Contact. Troy Jones
Type 2 uses for Historic Jessup Farm
Additionally, the following uses would also be permitted (provided the
requirements of 3.4.7 of the LUC)subject to Type 2 (Planning and Zoning
Board) review: any type of group home permitted in the city; boarding and
rooming houses; public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and
high school education; long term care facilities; neighborhood centers that
include artisan and photography studios and galleries; limited indoor recreation
establishments; offices, financial services and clinics which are not part of a
neighborhood center; workshops and custom small industry; light industrial.
24 Issue Contact. Troy Jones
Nonresidential Uses in LMN
One thing to keep in mind if you choose to zone the northern piece. LMN is that
4.4(D)(4) of the LUC specifies that nonresidential uses that are not part of a
neighborhood center shall not be approved in any development project until the
requirements for a neighborhood center have been met. It is my understanding
that you are intending to have a qualifying neighborhood center along the
collector a little ways south of the farmstead anyway, so the uses on the
farmstead would not be limited by 4.4(D)(4).
Engineering
11
No Comments
Transportation Planning
2
no comments
Issue Contact. Sheri Wamhoff
Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
7of7
14 Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Citizen Input
I have attached copies of letters and a -mails that I have received regarding this
project. Please see attached sheets.
15 Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Timing of Hearings
For clarification purposes, I just wanted to go through the process for you. The
ODP application can't go to the Planning and Zoning Board'hearing until after
the property is zoned consistent with what is proposed on the ODP. This
means that we must take the Rezone application to the Planning and Zoning
Board for a recommendation to City Council, then we need to take the rezone
application to 2 readings at City Council. We anticipate taking the Rezone
application to P&Z on September 17, 2001, to City Council for first reading on
October 2, 2001, and to City Council for second reading on October 16, 2001.
This being the case, the timing review of the ODP has a little more flexibility,
therefore you will be getting your first round ODP comments by Wednesday of
next week rather than concurrently with this batch of Rezone comments.
22 Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Type 1 uses for Historic Jessup Farm
If you were to propose LMN for the entire northern piece the following uses
would be allowed for the adaptive reuse of the farmstead (provided the -
requirements of 3.4.7 of .the LUC) subject to Type 1 (administrative) review:
single-family detached dwellings; two-family dwellings; multi -family dwellings;
group homes for up to 8 developmentally disabled or elderly persons; mixed -
use dwelling units; places of worship or assembly; public or private schools for
college, university, vocational, or technical education; public facilities;
community facilities; neighborhood support/recreational facilities; bed and
breakfast establishments with 6 or fewer beds; child care centers; and in
addition to the above said uses, if you design the farmstead as a qualifying
neighborhood center in accordance with section 4.4(D)(3) of the LUC, it could
include retail stores with less than 5,000 square feet of building footprint area,
convenience retail stores, personal and business service shops, small animal
veterinary facilities, offices, financial services and clinics containing less than
5,000 square feet of building footprint area.
6 of 7
1.1
13
Issue Contact: Troy Jones
The Industrial Zone versus LMN
The boundary between the proposed Industrial zone district and the proposed
LMN zone district appears to be based on suggesting a relationship between
the land use of the farmstead buffer and the adjacent residential land. If you
are in fact proposing that the historic farmstead and its buffer area define the
zone district boundary, with the Industrial zone area defining the limits of the
historic preservation buffer area, then the location of the buffer needs to be fully
resolved before we can commit to supporting the proposed location of this zone
district boundary line. After talking with Karen McWilliams and Clark Mapes
about this issue, we all agree that it makes more sense to completely eliminate
the Industrial zone from the plan and just have the whole northern triangle piece
be LMN. If the only reason you were proposing to have any Industrial zone at
that location was to attempt to embrace the current structure plan for that
corner, Clark Mapes assures me that Advance Planning believes that is not
necessary based on this closer look at site specific implementation.
Issue Contact. Troy Jones
Stucture Plan Amendment Justification
If you will be eliminating the request for the Industrial zone district, the Structure
Plan Amendment justification on page 13 of the document titled "Johnson
Property Structure Plan Amendment/Rezoning Application" will need to be
revised to address the two criteria the City Council uses for granting an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), which are: (1) the existing
City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed
amendment; and (2) the proposed 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. This should be a fairly straight forward
argument given the comments staff has made to you in this letter.
Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Revisions
If you agree to change the proposed Industrial zone area to LMN, then the
historic buffer issue has absolutely nothing to do with the rezone request. If you
want to keep the upper piece as Industrial zone, then the appropriate place to
put the zone district boundary between LMN and Industrial becomes directly
related to figuring out where the edge of the historic farmstead and buffer area
are. Let us know your intentions on this issue. If it turns out that you will
propose the LMN for the entire northern piece, then we need you to simply
revise pages 12 and 13 of the document titled "Johnson Property Structure
Plan Amendment/Rezoning Application," revise the petition, and revise the
oversized map accordingly. Be sure to integrate all other applicable comments
into the revisions. If, however, you want to stick with the Industrial zone in the
northern piece, then the historic buffer issue will need to be flushed out before
we can support the proposed location of the boundary between the Industrial
and LMN zones.
5 of 7
4
Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Historic Buffers
We have hired a consultant (Ray Kramer of Winter, Kramer & Jessup LLC) to
do some research for us regarding historic farmsteads. The first task that we
had the consultant do is to conduct a literary search of articles and information
available that speak to what other communities around the country are doing to
come up with appropriate buffers around historic properties. The second task
we had the consultant do is to do a regulatory search to see how other
jurisdictions are regulating the issue of providing buffers around historic
properties. Finally we have arranged to have this consultant help city staff
conduct an "in the field" design exercise to help determine the city's position on
how to best integrate the historic buffers into the proposed development. The
meeting will consist of City Staff from both the Current Planning, Advance
Planning Departments as well as Historic Preservation staff, and of course the
consultant. We would like representatives from your development team there
as well, if you would like to have some "in the field" input on this issue. We
would like to spend 3 or 4 hours on site walking the property around each of the
historic farmsteads, spreading out drawings on tables to skecth out ideas,
discuss and identify the areas that have the most historic significance, discuss
what the specific boundaries of the historic farmstead should be considered,
identify a fair and appropriate buffer area around the historic farmstead
boundaries. I am trying to set up this "in the field" design exercise sometime
between September 3rd and September 12th. I will let you know as soon as
this meeting has been set up. ,
6 Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
It is our intention to bring this rezoning to the Planning and Zoning Board on
Monday September 17th. That is not to say that all issues have been resolved
as of yet, but that we hope to have worked out the solutions to the outstanding
issues with your development team by then. The main issue will be whether or
not the proposed zoning is consistent with the needed treatment of the buffers
around each historic farmstead. As I mentioned in the "historic buffer"
comment above, this issue is to be worked out as a result of an "in the field"
design exercise.
4of7
21 Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
LMN Below Valley Wall: We acknowledge that LMN designation extends
below the river valley wall on part of the property, and that a question about this
may arise. The Structure Plan is not precise at this location, and we do not
believe there is a problem.
There was an intent to limit the intensity of development stepping down toward
the river valley, particularly in the southeastern point of this triangular property,
with a transition to land uses emphasizing the landscape character and
resource -based use of the valley. The point nearest Drake is more sensitive
because it is highly visible, and it is part of the context of the approach to the
Environmental Learning Center. Also, limiting the amount of dwellings and
activity directly across from the sewer plant reinforced this thinking.
We believe the proposal does not compromise the intent to transition down in
intensity toward the open river valley because the LMN below the wall is kept
away from Drake, adjacent to the existing industrial development to the east.
We see no persuasive benefit in pushing for more Urban Estate zoning north of
Sharp Point Drive, next to the industrial district, as opposed to LMN.
We assume that owners of the Cargill facility, notched out of this proposal, are
aware of this item and do not oppose this as a refinement of the current
Structure Plan.
Building Inspection
12
No Building Code concerns at this phase
Current Planning
1
Issue Contact: Rick Lee
Issue Contact Troy Jones
Legal Descriptions
In addition to the legal description for the entire property that you provided in
the application, each zone district proposed needs it's own legal description.
Upon approval, our GIS department needs to change the information on our
zoning map, but they cannot accomplish this accurately without a legal
description for each of the four proposed zoned district boundaries.
3of7
19
Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
I zone in north point: We acknowledge that this proposal reduces the
Industrial area to a token remnant of what is shown as Industrial on the
Structure Plan. We understand that there is zero interest in extending true
Industrial land use (as described in City Plan and the Land Use Code) into the
area curently shown on the Structure Plan; and that the Jessup Farm site will
be preserved and adapted to new uses, but not typical "industrial" uses. After
considering this spot in greater detail, we agree 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. Given all of these considerations, we
question whether the remnant of Industrial designation on the farm site is
worthwhile. Are the applicants truly interested in it on its merits, or is it included
simply to impart a resemblance to the current Structure Plan designation? It
appears that the applicants realize Industrail is not necessarily the appopriate
designation, evidenced by the major limitation on industrial uses stated on the
Overall Development Plan which is being reviewed in conjunction with this
rezoning. If the applicants desire the Industrial zone district, then our response
is that the line be,adjusted south so it does not go right through the barn. It
should move to include the significant historical features including the barn and
the structured grading (a sileage pit?) next to the barn, and some amount of
buffer. The point is to bear a logical relationship to the farm structures.
However, if the remnant of I is left simply for the appearance of fitting with the
Structure Plan, to ease the City's review, then we recommend simply extending
LMN to the northern boundary. We believe this makes the most sense after
considering this site in more detail. This is an appropriate
adjustment/refinement of the Strucuture Plan and it is not necessary to retain
the map image with a token spot of I on the preserved farm. In fact it makes
the most sense for the farm to simply be considered part of the neiahborhood
20 Issue Contact. Clark Mapes
Map Improvements Reflecting NC: The "Proposed Structure Plan
Amendment' implies that the NC District on the Rigden Farm side of Drake will
be updated, which would necessarily require updating the MMN as well. Is this
really part of the proposed changes? I believe it is not at this point, but we
(staff) should include this in the Amendment.
2 of 7
6OW"
a STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Cirty of Fort Collins
..am
DOWNING, THORPE & JAMES
C/O SUSAN WADE, GREG WHITE
1881 9TH ST. #103
BOULDER, CO 80302
Date: 08/23/2001
Staff has reviewed your submittal for JOHNSON PROPERTY REZONE - TYPE II (LUC), and
we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Advance Planning
We
Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
No major concerns, but rather, a question about Industrial in north point and
question about including Rigden Farm on the south side of Drake as a map
improvement "while we're at it" (See issue numbers 19, 20, and 21 below).
Overall, the proposal is a good refinement of the adopted Structure Plan
pattern.
16 Issue Contact: Karen McWilliams
Historic, Preservation Staff have a disagreement with the James Co. and the
James Co.'s consultant as to which buildings, structures and features are
significant
17 Issue Contact. Karen McWilliams
There is the need to resolve the issue of an appropriate buffer around the two
farmsteads, sufficient to maintain the historic contexts of the farmsteads. The
farms' contexts include not only the farm buildings, structures, objects and
features,. but also significant in any determination of a buffer are the historic
viewsheds, land uses (including grazing, vegetation and cropland), and the
historic relationship of the two farms to each other.
18 Issue Contact: Karen McWilliams
Historic Preservation staff is not in favor of the proposal to relocate the
boundary of the I (Industrial) Zone to the north. As currently drawn, the
proposed rezone goes right through the Jessup Farm's barn. The entire
farmstead, including buffer, should be included in a single zone. Staff agrees
with Current Planning's comment # 13: If the entire northern piece including the
Jessup Farm Site is zoned LMN, then the rezoning should not affect the historic
farmstead. If, however, a portion is to retain the I zoning, then it is far more
appropriate to determine the farm boundaries and buffers before supporting the
zone's boundary change.
IWO WA