HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHNSON PROPERTY REZONE - 32-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSJohnson Property
September 4, 2001
Page 4
assures me that Advance Planning believes that is not necessary based on this closer look at site
specific implementation.
We will remove the Industrial land use and make the entire northern parcel LMN.
9. Structure 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 straightforward argument given the comments staff has made to you in this letter.
DTJ to revise Structure Plan Amendment Application and Reasons for
Amendment.
13. 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, the 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.
We have changed the entire northern parcel to LMN. DTJ to revise all above
mentioned items.
14. Citizen Input
I have attached copies of letters and a -mails that I have received regarding this project. Please
see attached sheets.
Comment acknowledged.
15. 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 bring 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.
Comment acknowledged.
22. Type 1 Uses for Historic Jessup Farm
Johnson Property
September 4, 2001
Page 2
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 Industrial is not necessarily the appropriate 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 Structure
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 neighborhood.
We will remove the Industrial land use and make the entire northern parcel LMN.
20. 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.
We will remove the NC designation on the Rigden Farm side of the Rezone
Document.
21. 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 plan 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.
Comment acknowledged.
Building Inspection
12. No Building Code concerns at this phase.
Comment acknowledged.
r^.
Johnson Property
September 4, 2001
Page 5
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 disables 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.
Comment acknowledged.
23. 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.
Comment acknowledged.
24. Non -Residential 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 non-residential 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).
We need to discuss this further with the James Company in terms of phasing.
Engineering
11. No Comments.
Comment acknowledged.
Transportation Planning
2. No Comments.
Comment acknowledged.
SMW:jsi
S:\WPUohnson Properties\Rezoning Comments.doc
Johnson Property
September 4, 2001
Page 3
Current Planning
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.
Troy Jones said he can receive the additional Legal Descriptions prior to the
hearing on October 2, 2001.
4. 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 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 to spend 3 or 4
hours on site walking the property around each of the historic farmsteads, spreading out drawings
on tables to sketch 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 3`d and September 12`h. I
will let you know as soon as this meeting has been set up.
In the field site exercise to occur on September 7th with all interested parties to
hopefully resolve any issues concerning the farms.
6. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
It is our intention to bring this rezoning to the Planning and Zoning Board on Monday September
17'h. 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.
Comment acknowledged.
8. 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 are define the zone district boundary, with the Industrial zone area defining the limits of the
historic preservations 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 his 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
3
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 4, 2001 DOWNING
THORPE
TO: Troy Jones, Project Planner — City of Fort Collins JAMB
FROM: Susan Wade — Downing, Thorpe & James, Inc.
Melinda Bartlette —James Company
RE: Formal Response Comments for Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan
Amendment (based on City of Fort Collins comments dated 8/23/01)
Issues:
Advance Planning
10. No major concerns, but rather, a question about industrial in north point and questions 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.
We've been told that Rigden Farms has satisfied the NC land use, we will remove
the NC on Rigden Farms so not to confuse anyone.
16. 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.
In the field site exercise to occur on September a with all interested parties will
hopefully resolve any issues concerning the farms.
17. 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.
In the field site exercise to hopefully resolve this issue.
18. 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.
We will remove the Industrial land use and make entire northern parcel LMN.
19. 1 zone in north point: We acknowledge that this proposed 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 currently 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 meaningfEuh arnsioiicant 103
industrial use into this small area, isolated from adjacent industrial developrlM'14X °WNOX_75aa
topography and the RR tracks. Regarding the relationship to Industrial usesvacpossldTimaberline to