The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJOHNSON PROPERTY REZONE - 32-01 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (3)F\C(O*Mevjtj in I J a Comn ity Planning and Environment: ervices Current Planning Citv 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 Noverp6er 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 question/ha er, ple a call my office at 221-6750. $tncerely� fro W. ones City PI ner The City of Fort Collinle accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and willmunication arrangements for persons with disabilities. by; Please call 221-6750 fo p�5Z--r ) PRo/°Q3.�L WAS f� poAI�5 pE4L.� �jesP�TE "J4R C)7-J %v1'14T jD 7i}ccat,7R4CY l/l .rioT [v JT/,v6 %l/Y%/yl6i>?E 6F /n% 7_//011,� WI%}% 7�1/S c/Ty PMA.>/, -6 ��G21� . YGuR� G6/4-,G TU C/e;�%'l \ yoyA 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 V6u6v/01= OqA 14Aq 'D5Wiic ovl� Yo13 //�ScoP- Elroy Jones_Johnson FArm _ Page 11 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 city's 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! ';Troy Jones - Follow-up on last night mF '-ig _ 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 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. 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 NFTGHBORHOOD INFOYN IATION MEETING for Project: Meeting Location: g Ci y of Fort Collins Date: g Attendees: PIease sign this sheet. The information will be used to -4 update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to Did You Receive Correct receive minutes of this meeting.Written Notification ddress. of this meetinoT Name Address zip: Yes No Yes No �bse. �SOA Z$O C\ne-tZS g!CW*14) l//6 PAA1<wOO,) -w/& �Os2S 5+e Je "Ad mo.,'e.r Car9 � \\ pesev--c►N 25q 0 EOL4 Qfa ic¢ ROa X 1 jo 52S 1/oGZ-a d1a 3o �?a5d5 V cs�l`Q K- ML 01 (a Z0.?7 �hCA- wb,,�zD s � et1L f LLryi t 55 3 2 15 i� n ; I Or. o5z,-S na+ ;n --�- s-l",, .J"6, ram, ,7- 163/ Ti•ti/sroorL �D�va5 ' n 2-Svo. Farn�ll _ . I V A V��;� k�:/sue 33vL Coy Al - den CCDSz:-1 V FC- d!6-k / tit e" �r ,C L l�tl <✓ ti/�— aSo o .CAS � woo 7 i . • �/nS� ;d u 1/4/7 e1737 I r 265-d r3Y�t d �oGfi. Z �j a l (s1 cl; C i r�,t, IC/oylh 8o S2� tJ. Y-67 D, Jas) ► ►t ` RveG NFTGHB ORHO OD INFOP MATION MEETING Project: Meeting Location: = F- C- 445 City of Fort Date: 7//6/w s Attendees: Nease sian this sheet. The information -will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood Plannina meetinns. Contact the Dep rtmerlt (221-6750) if you wish to t2 tP Did You Receive orrec, receive minutes of this meeting. 4 ritten Notificatioress] n dd of this meetina? V V ,00000e Name Address zip: Yes No Yes No bA�1'6 -D .250? CReF-f<Qemr�. 7) 9 F. C. 60 qOSlq- I ffi 7 /3016 V/"L)76U 13 PA,(tL W60 Ok FC t0J ^ LA mOeV7--) 2L/09 41LV 0--twow A( R . �-2 121 qSlj 1913 14,k.ss. St7 FC eO�25-- X 17ZO 7 'X� 2 L -br 13 • o �CA Cb i")s o (4 eY Gou 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 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. Comm ity Planning and Environmenta ervices Current Planning City of Fort Collins Johnson Farm ODP & Rezone Neighborhood Meeting Meeting Date: 7/16/01 Staff: Troy Jones, Cameron Gloss, 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' x600' 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. Won't 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 CDPHE-WM Fax:3037820390 Sep 13 2001 13:37 Setbacks from Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works to Habitable Structures Page 2 WON 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). t- � t t t • t Colorado Water Quality Control Division WATER QIJAUTY Sep 13 2001 13:36 P.02 Effective Date- LM Revision No.: Policies & Procedures Revision Date: SETBACKS FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS TO HABITABLE STRUCTURES 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. Non -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. 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. 0 III I 7.1 - PSI Poo - CONCEPT PLAN: JESSUP FARM COMPOUND N. T.S. A l\I• ` .F .r i• I / - ZON[470 plFjlGE 92ilITY UtdR6 ORsfM 4 An B 5. 0.0 2.0 W/A MAMIAwII 171 M/JtiY44a W N LWMMU Nx1i0Rl 44.0E AG 5.0-5.00WAG 470-752tbM I,1Co,OM5%A Nx4auaMlooO 25.52A 12.0. 15.0 DU/AG 905.9524Yn IIOt.511a.LL 12.16 AC NA NA TOTAL 217.47 AC 4.505.2513WAC. 947-1505U1 AVO. 112511v14 Yl '�`ti i' � AYE / �/•... �ti • \`4• PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT ISSUE DA71E, 09-27-01 O 26® O SCALE: 1 " = 500' oil 1 PROPOSED IOWBUFFER .,``: ''� u.::• 1 h•.�.�� ''� FROM WASTEWATER ` ' i . •�� r a TREATMENT PLANT. (No BUILD ZONEWITNSTORM 'k y) '.• / •'- PRAINAGE EASEMENT) �1p" \ j li I` ` 4 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. 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 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 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 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 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 94.89 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. 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 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 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 17th 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 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. Amendinq 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 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: 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." 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. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT