Loading...
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