HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHNSON PROPERTY REZONE - 32-01 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 23
zoned LIE, then the current owner and the purchaser could have use of the land and
cluster elsewhere. What we are asking this landowner to do is reduce the value of his
land based on some future anticipated growth of the sewer treatment plant.
Member Colton commented that zoning was specifically developed to keep
incompatible uses away from each other. Although people like to disagree on this, no
one is entitled to the highest and best use of their land. When the public good is
involved, zoning is perfectly legal as long as they have a reasonable use for their land.
Losing, so to speak, 30 acres out of several hundred is not "taking." It may reduce the
value of the land some. It is all give and take.
The motion was approved 3-1 with Member Torgerson voting in the negative,
Member Carpenter abstaining for a conflict of interest and Members Meyer and
Bernth were absent.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 22
also don't know that it is not. When looking at promoting public welfare, that seems that
if we don't have an answer, he did not think that he could change the Urban Estate.
Member Colton felt that if he knew that there was an adequate supply of Industrial
property somewhere else and we were just not pushing the problem somewhere else,
but not knowing he could not be comfortable.
Planner Mapes stated that to get definitive answers there would have to be a market
study done.
Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council that they not adopt the
Structure Plan and zoning map that the applicant has proposed dated 10/18101.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Member Torgerson stated that he would be supporting the motion. The only concern he
has about the proposed zoning is the LMN and its proximity to the sewer plant. He
does not necessarily know that it is a problem, but we also don't know that it is not. In
terms of promoting the public welfare that weighed against the argument that the
applicant made that it offers better -integrated neighborhoods went away. That was his
only concern with the proposed Structure Plan Amendment.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would also be supporting the motion for the same
reasons as Member Torgerson.
Member Colton commented that he supported the motion for the same reasons, and he
felt that the Urban Estate would more appropriately preserve the valley wall.
The motion was approved 4-0 with Member Carpenter abstaining for a conflict of
interest. Members Meyer and Bernth were absent.
Member Craig recommended to City Council that they approve the configuration
that was approved on September 17, 2001, with the exception of the industrial
zoning and that it be changed to what the applicant has shown on the 10/18/01
configuration. This was for the Structure Plan and zoning of the property.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Torgerson commented that he would not be supporting the motion because of
his concern with making the 1,000-foot buffer RC. He felt that it amounted to giving
undue preference to the sewage treatment facility that did not bother trying to purchase
the property from the current owner. It seems that they dropped the ball and if was
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 21
Member Colton asked for staff to explain why we are changing our minds on the Master
Street Plan, to have it go up the wall as opposed to the way it was currently.
Director Gloss replied that we would actually achieve both. We have connections to
Drake and Timberline. From the standpoint of connecting the new neighborhoods to the
entire community, it made sense for there to be additional connections to the arterial
street system. There would be two connections down to Drake and the connection to
Timberline. Staff has been working closely with traffic operations at the sequencing of
connections to Timberline. The conceptual design that has been shown on the plans for
this property does show that connection at Timberline and at a location that works for
Traffic Operations and for connectivity.
Member Craig asked Planner Jones to inform the Board what has happened since the
September 17th meeting that would make them change their recommendation.
Planner Jones replied that staff has discovered a workable boundary for the farmstead,
which we did not have on September 17th. That boundary between LMN and Urban
Estate has a logical place. Also, with regards to the LMN and Urban Estate, we have
worked out a street pattern that works for the area around Sharp Point Drive comes
through, and we did not have that on September 171h. The Urban Estate acreage on
September 17th, the applicant proposed less than they are proposing now. They had
responded from what they heard by the board.
Member Torgerson commented that the Industrial change made sense, especially since
the historical staff supports it. That was his biggest concern.
Member Craig commented that the only reason she would rescind her September 17th
vote would be for the Industrial. She had to trust staff as far as Industrial land etc. It
does bother her that we don't have more Industrial land that is inter-spurced where
someone could walk to it. And she felt that we were losing some of that here.
Planner Mapes discussed the Industrial zoning in the Urban Growth Area. He stated
that there are a lot of caveats on the numbers. There are various types of Industrial
zoning. Some of the I, zoning is out by Anheuser Busch, held by them, with serious
questions and issues about what that land may ever be available for. Planner Mapes
reported that with the compatibility issues on this piece of property, this would not be a
"true" piece of Industrial property. He also reported that the Industrial zoned property
supply would be addressed at the time of the City Plan update.
Member Torgerson shared his concerns on the LMN versus the Urban Estate. He
worries about the sewage treatment plant. While we don't know if that is a problem, we
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 20
that would be that the city's wastewater utility would have to go somewhere else to add
plant capacity, or spend a bunch of money for odor control for the plant.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about putting a condition on the zoning of the RC district.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that as Planner Jones had mentioned, in the RC
district there can only be one dwelling unit per 40 acres. If that dwelling unit would
happen to be built within 1,000 feet of the water treatment plan, that would create a
problem.
Ms. Bartlett replied to Chairperson Gavaldon's previous question. She reported that
there would be 125 units in the UE district. In the LMN district the range would be 317
to 508. In the MMN district it would stay the same 106 to 135 for a grand total of 548 to
768 units. That would be a drastic decrease.
Discussion was held regarding measures that might be taken by the wastewater
treatment plant to reduce the 1,000 buffer. Mr. Janonis stated that a study is being
done for mitigating measures and would not be completed until next August and he
could not say what the measures might be.
Director of Current Planning Gloss wanted to clarify some information about the valley
wall in regards to some questions that have been asked. He stated that it is a feature
that is not shown on the city's natural areas map, which is an adopted component of the
Comprehensive Plan. So we have no regulatory authority over the Poudre Valley Wall
on this section of this property. However, about three quarters of the wall would be
maintained in its natural state. The developer has chosen to do that and show it on
their plans.
Member Colton asked about the Cargill property and the compatibility of the MMN and
LMN right up next to the boarders of a farm. How were they going to buffer for the
farm?
Director Gloss replied that was an issue faced city wide. Presumably being part of the
urban area of Fort Collins, we anticipate that at some future date, the Cargill property
will redevelop at some type of urban density.
Member Torgerson asked about a clump of trees that are located in the LMN zone.
Ms. Bartlett replied that is a 2 1/2acre site and the Natural Resources Department has
asked that they be preserved.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 19
Planner Mapes added that a big difference between the RC, River Conservation zone
on the Rigden Farm side and here is that on the Rigden Farm side there was no need,
with the LMN zoning there to have any units be transferred out of the area that are in
the RC zone. Where as on this side with the UE, the developer can take the overall
gross density and cluster that on part of the site, keeping part of the site open. One way
that the sewer buffer area is not a total loss from the developers perspective, is that if it
is zoned UE, to the extent that there is room to do the clustering on the remaining land,
there may be some benefit to just zoning it all UE. Then, using the intended clustering
ability in the zone district, take some of the units off of that area, which won't have the
structures, built and cluster them on some of the other UE land. If it is zoned RC, there
is an overall reduction in the gross density from what the Structure Plan had shown and
what could be done if it is all zoned UE.
Planner Jones added that one of the other differences is that the current Structure Plan
designates it as UE, whereas in Rigden Farm, the applicant proposed to put that corner
in RC and they proposed the Structure Plan change and it was supported through the
Planning and Zoning Board and City Council.
Member Craig commented that we have had a change in conditions which makes it very
appropriate to change the Structure Plan. As she stated at the last hearing, putting a
condition on a zoning is very inappropriate.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked the applicant to take the recommended configuration that
the Board approved on September 17, 2001 and taking the matrix they provided to
them, calculate the units, and compare it to the current proposal.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked staff to give feedback on the information Mr. Johnson
reported to the board regarding the wastewater treatment plant.
Brian Janonis, Water Resources and Treatment Manager replied that they have been
talking to the Johnson's for quite a few years about purchasing the comer of the
property. He did not think there was anything in writing, although it is his understanding
that in working with some realtors and previous developers that have submitted
proposals to the Johnson's actually had that as a buffer.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the state law and the 1,000 foot buffer and was it
very explicit about habitable structures and did it supercede zoning.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it is a regulation on the utility, not on the
landowners around the utility. It simply says that a utility cannot construct or expand a
wastewater treatment plant within 1,000 feet of habitable structures. The Board could
approve habitable structures right up to the wastewater treatment plant. The result of
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 18
Member Craig asked if when the project moves into the ODP and PDP stages, is there
the possibility that because the industrial is being proposed as 12.28 acres that they
would have to look for part of their buffer in the LMN zone.
Ms. McWilliams replied that at this point, the LMN and Industrial zone they are
proposing, the entire historic farmstead site plus all of the buffer is included in the
Industrial zone.
Member Craig asked to see a map that shows the valley wall and how the proposed
Structure Plan configuration works with the wall.
Planner Jones provided a site map that showed the contours of the valley wall. He
stated that it goes north and slightly west but was not in configuration exactly with the
valley wall.
Member Craig asked if the valley wall was included in the Poudre River Study Corridor.
She asked if that plan ever came to fruition.
Clark Mapes, Advanced Planning Department responded that when the Structure Plan
was done, there was a multi -departmental staff team that did a preliminary assessment
of the Poudre River Corridor. There were some ideas generated regarding the land
uses that led to discussions throughout City Plan, which led to the Structure Plan and
the Zoning. The valley wall was included in the Poudre River Land Use Study that was
done internally. He stated that the Urban Estate designation was proposed for the
lower southeastern part of the area.
Member Craig asked about the southeast corner, and because of the fact of the
topography of this land, what would the need be for the stormwater and would it be of
significant size, so zoning the land RC, but letting them use it as their detention would
serve two purposes, as it did at Rigden Farm.
Planner Jones replied that they will be using it as detention regardless of the zone
district. Zoning it RC may not solve the problem; it may minimize the intensity of
development that the zone district would permit. It does not guarantee that there might
not be a habitable structure, there could be one structure per 40 acres in the zone
district. The only thing that prohibits that from happening would be a condition on the
zoning. The applicant is willing as part of their application to put a covenant that they
will not put any habitable structures in the 1,000 foot buffer zone. City Attorney's office
has asked that a condition still be put on the zone to not have contractual zoning.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 17
Mr. Johnson stated that he was at the meeting a month ago and the sewage treatment
plant was brought up at that time. Speaking for his family, all of a sudden they have
been taken 32.5 acres out of their family land. He wanted the Board to know that the
sewage treatment plant has never given them an offer for that land. It was made to
sound at the previous meeting that they tried to buy the land from them, and that
certainly was never the case. There was some discussions about 10 years ago, and no
offer was ever brought to them. Then all of a sudden, they find out that 32.5 acres of
their land is no longer developable land. They were never notified of that and they were
not happy.
Mr. Johnson addressed the smell of the sewage treatment plant. The days that you can
smell the sewage treatment plant are very few. Those are the days with the upsloped
wind.
Jim Postle, President of the James Company spoke to the Board. He stated that when
he made his proposal to the Johnson family a year ago, he presented to them what he
thought was a vision for a unique piece of property. What their goal is, is to get to the
planning stages. He did not think it was in anyone's best interest to argue over the
exact location of a line. This project is important to the city and to the citizens. Also, as
a community developer, they need to be able to have a wide range of products for a
1,000 home community to make sense. Mr. Postle also spoke about the economics of
the project and how important it is.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Member Craig asked about the Sharp Point access to Drake.
Planner Jones replied that at this point it is still conceptual.
Member Craig asked about the preservation of the Jessup Farm, which is in the
Industrial zone. There was a recommended 500 foot buffer, which would be the
majority of the 33 acres or 20 to 25 acres, which was discussed at the previous
meeting, and why has it now been reduced to 12 acres.
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation responded that staff has hired some outside
Historic Preservation consulting to help identify what sort of a buffer would be best
recommended. What they came up with for the two historic sites was that they would
be looking at a maximum 500 foot buffer. Once the 500 feet is reached, then it could be
adjusted back depending on different scenarios.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 16
1. Why is the Structure Plan in need of this proposed amendment?
The existing boundary does not follow any logical layout. It does not follow terrain and
does not follow a logical road alignment. They believe that the purpose of realigning the
boundary is to follow their conceptual road alignment and create a better defined
neighborhood and separation of land uses.
2. How will this amendment promote public welfare, support the vision, goals,
principles and policies of City Plan?
They believe it does because it focuses on creating better integrated neighborhoods.
By slightly decreasing the UE and increasing the LMN, they are providing a greater
opportunity for mixed neighborhoods, and provide both single and multi -family
residence. The UE limits large lot single family or cluster development, limiting 1 to 2
housing types. The LMN land use allows them to have a better mix and balance of
housing types. One of the city goals is to provide a more compact development. They
believe that this location north of Sharp Point Road, along the railroad as well as next to
the Industrial Park, is a prime location for LMN densities. To reduce the number of
residents next to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, they have adjusted the UE boundary
from the last proposal slightly north in support of the concern.
They have also agreed to the 1,000 no build, no habitable setback, or easement. They
believe that this is a true benefit to the public.
Ms. Bartlett referred to the Comparison Summary (Exhibit 1-A) and would not go over
the numbers again since Mr. Jones already had.
Ms. Bartlett talked about their design intent and went through their vision boards.
Dave Johnson, representing the Johnson Family spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
stated that they were in support of the James Company and Downing Thorpe and
James. He stated that as the city grew around their farm, it became time to sell. They
had a lot of people come forward and try to buy the land. They chose the James
Company because their proposal was by far the best, as well as both companies being
Colorado companies. They wanted to keep things close to home. He stated that the
James Company is also preserving their family heritage as well, and they feel like they
have given up a lot in the areas where they are doing the historic preservation. They
feel that some of the small changes that they are suggesting are justified based on what
they have given up.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 15
Mr. Jones reviewed for the Board the other proposed changes from September 17,
2001 with the LMN, and UE zoning designations. (A map is attached) Mr. Jones
handed out a matrix, which shows the proposed acres, density and number of units for
the current Structure Plan, the proposed Structure Plan Amendment, and what the
difference would be (Exhibit 1-A attached).
Melinda Bartlett, James Company gave the applicant presentation. Ms. Bartlett talked
about the purpose of the Structure Plan. She reviewed the history of the project for the
Board. Ms. Bartlett stated that two of the proposed changes to the Structure Plan were
approved at the last hearing, the elimination of the Commercial designation and the
reconfiguration of the MMN boundary. Tonight she wanted to focus on the other two
that seem to be of the most concern, the reconfiguration of the Industrial boundary and
the adjustment of the LMN and UE designations.
First, she wanted to address the third request for reconfiguration to the Industrial
boundary. The city has asked the applicant to answer two questions:
1. Why is the Structure Plan in need of this proposed amendment?
The city staff and Historic Preservation has asked the applicant to preserve the Jessup
Farm, create a buffer as well as a compound around it. They feel that they need to
adjust the Industrial boundary to provide adjacent land uses that are more compatible to
the Historic Jessup Farm Homestead. They are also concerned with the access. If the
Industrial zone moves forward where it is currently located, the only full movement
access is located down by the Spring Creek access point; so the Industrial zone will
only have right -in right -out access, or Industrial traffic will be pulled through the
residential neighborhood.
2. How will this amendment promote public welfare, support the vision, goals,
principles and policies of City Plan?
They believe that this does promote all of the above and support City Plan. Because of
the adaptive reuse for the Jessup Farm, they believe that it is better suited to be next to
a low -density residential neighborhood than an Industrial use. Staff has also illustrated
for the Board the adequate Industrial zoned land within the city of Fort Collins.
The fourth request is for the reconfiguration of the UE and the LMN boundary, and the
same two questions are asked.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 14
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.
Hearing TestimonV, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this project came
to the Board on September 17, 2001, in which the Board made a recommendation. The
applicant and staff met several times after that meeting to try and resolve some of the
unknown issues. Staff recommend to the applicant after changes were proposed, that
they take that proposal to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to going before Council.
Mr. Jones reviewed the plan that was recommended on September 17, 2001 by the
Planning and Zoning Board. That plan had a 33.4 acre piece of Industrial on the
northern corner of the property; it had a 63.51 acre LMN, Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood piece along Timberline up to the current line where the Structure Plan
designates between Urban Estate and LMN. It had 25.67 acres of MMN, Medium
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood in the same configuration that the applicant had
proposed; and 62.39 acres of Urban Estate and 32.5 acres of RC, River Corridor (which
corresponds with the 1,000 foot buffer area). A map is attached.
Mr. Jones stated that Member Craig had asked for the Council minutes from when the
property was originally annexed. He was not aware until now that staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board had recommended the zoning as seen on the diagram,
back when it was being annexed. Council did decide that they did not want to support
the proposed zoning at that time, and instead wanted the property designated as T,
Transition with the exception of a small piece that was zoned Industrial. The remainder
of the property was zoned T, Transition. At that time the property was found to be in
substantial compliance with the Structure Plan.
The new proposed plan has a different configuration than what was seen on September
17, 2001. It has 85.58 acres of Urban Estate, 25.52 acres of MMN, 94.09 acres of LMN
and 12.28 acres of Industrial. The Industrial designated in the northern corner of this
site is 33.4 acres. Within that 33.4 acres, exists the Jessup Farmstead, and the
applicant is proposing to just have the farm site itself as the Industrial zoned land, and
the remainder of the 33.4 acres become LMN and become part of the adjacent
neighborhood to the south. He stated that staff and the Historic Preservation staff
support this proposal.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 13
staff, the proposed deletions proposed by Member Craig and the Plan as a whole. The
majority of the Board disagreed.
Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the
deletions staff has suggested to the Plan.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that she would be voting for the deletions, but in no way did that
mean that she endorses the Plan, or feel that these deletions go to placating the small
group of people that we are trying to placate. She feels that the point was totally missed
on this. She would say that from the way the Transportation Board and the Natural
Resources Board has responded that these deletions — Council might think that this is
going to placate, but she does not think it will at all.
The motion was approved 4-0 with Member Colton abstaining from the vote.
Project: Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan
Amendment.
Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 217 acres of
property located on the northeast corner of Timberline
and Drake Roads. The property is currently zoned T,
Transition. The Structure Plan designation for the
property is a combination of Industrial, Urban Estate,
Low 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.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat
Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson
Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Phone: (H) 484-2034
Phone: (W) 416-7431
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Colton, Craig, Torgerson and Gavaldon. Members Meyer
and Bernth were absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Stringer, Joy, Frank, Deines and
Alfers.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the November 16, and December 7, 2000
(CONTINUED), and September 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning
Board Hearings.
2. 725 South Taft Hill Road — Modification of Standards
3. #41-98B Pineridge 5th Annexation and Zoning
Discussion Agenda:
4. #31-01 Macallister Residential Group Home
5. #37-01 Recommendation to City Council for Deletions to the Regional
1-25 Corridor Plan
6. #32-01 Johnson Property Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment
Item #2, 725 South Taft Hill Road Modification of Standards was pulled for
discussion by staff.
Member Craig moved for approval of Consent items September 17, 2001 minutes
and Item 3, Pineridge 51h Annexation and Zoning. She offered an amendment to
the September 17 minutes.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
Member Craig asked for an amendment to the September 17th minutes and asked that
a sketch of scenario B and C be included. Also the minutes talk about staff's finding
number 5 and finding number 6, but the minutes don't give any explanation of what they
were. She asked that those amendments be made to the minutes.
The motion was approved 5-0.