Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHNSON FARM - REZONE - 24-00 - REPORTS - FIRST READINGCommt y Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning City of Fort'Collins November 16, 2000 Summary of Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations [This is a staff summary and should be treated as a draft, the Planning and Zoning Board has not yet adopted any minutes for the November 16, 2000 meeting. A copy of this summary was e-mailed to all 7 of the Planning and Zoning Board members on November 20, 2000. None of the board members have indicated that they disagree with the summary.] Item: Recommendation to City Council for the Johnson Farm Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment. • Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation of Approval for the Structure Plan Amendment: vote 4 -3, • Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation of Approval for Rezone: vote 4-3. Neighbor Opposition - Several neighbors voiced opposition to the proposed structure plan amendment which would change the designation of the property from employment uses to resident iol.uses. The primary concern was that residential units in that location would add a significant amount of traffic to the Parkwood and Parkwood East neighborhoods because Edora Park, the EPIC Center, and perhaps Riffenburgh Elementary School will be frequent destinations of the inhabitants of these new residential units. The concern was not just with the units within the 55 acre rezone site, but the units generated by the major activity center as shown on the Structure Plan. The neighbors are very concerned that the thousands of new dwelling units that will be accommodated within Rigden Farm, the land north of Rigden Farm, and this site together will negatively impact their quality of life. Traffic within Parkwood and Parkwood East were concerns, as well as increased difficulty turning left onto Drake. The affect that this kind of density would have on property values was also a concern. Neighbor Support - One neighbor commented that he was glad to see residential uses proposed rather than employment. He owns one of the lot that backs up to the former pipe plant, and after experiencing that kind of noise from non-residential neighbors, he thinks residential uses next door would be much better. He said that he had talked with several of his neighbors on his street, and they also agreed. Board Member Craig - Why was this Employment, and why is the change warranted? Clark Mapes (Advance Planning)- This is a fine site for either Employment or MMN. We are supporting the applicants request because of 2 main points. First, based on the applicant's 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 NOV-22-2000 WED 12:00 PM PROFES010NAL OFFICES FAX NO. 3032201` 1 P. 02 NOV-22-2000 WED 12:35 Ph CITY ni7ORNEYS OFFICE FAX NO. 1970221027 P, 02 WAIVER THIS WAIVER is executed this , day of November, 2000. WHEREAS, the Cumberland Companies has filed ARequest ibrRezoningand Structum Plan Amendment with the City orport Collins (lawwn as Project #124-00) for the purpose of amending the Structure Plan Map of the Cityand the corresponding rezoning ofthat certainpropertyin the City known as the "Johnson Farm" at the northwest comer of the intersection of 11mbad,ne Road and Drake Road; and WHRREAS, the aforesaid property is pnaeady located in the T T�ansiaon Zone District in the City, which zone district reguladon require that the City Council, within sixty (60) days of Wo date that the rezoning is considered by the Planning and Zoning Board, shall change We zoning for the property to another zone district authorized under the City coda; and WHMtEAS, this provision of the Wd Use Code is intended to benefit the party petitioning for tha rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City considered the rezoning on Novemberl6, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Council has scheduled its consideration, on first reading, or an ordi nano rezoning the Property (the "Ordinance') for December 19, 20009 but has been advised of neighborhood concerns about scheduling the first reading onDecembcr 19, 2000 because ofholiday vacations, and the City Council ofthe Cityis desirous ofeontinuing the consideration of the Johnson Farm razoning to January2, 2001, with second reading of the Ordinance to be considered by the City Council on January 16, 2001, The Cutnbcrland Companies has no objection to the continuation of the Johnson Ira= Rezoning to January 21 2001 for hearing and first reading of the Ordinance and to January 1612001 for second rnaclp of the Ordinance and therefore consent: to such scheduling and waives any objection to the fact that the Property will not have been rezoned within the sixty (60) day period required bybivision 4.9 ofthe Lend Use Code, as Ion$ as the property will be rezoned within eighty (80) days ofNovembor 16, 2000. Br THE Brock Chapmon, (title) COMPANIES Division 4.9, Transition District 4b 1 Division 4.9(B) (b) After the property has been placed in the T District, the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance in accordance with Division 2.10 and subject to the criteria established for the City Council in subparagraphs (B)(1)(a)1. and 2. of this Division permitting installation or enlargement of a permanent structure containing a use which was existing at the time the property was placed in this District, or containing a use which is ancillary to such existing use. (2) The owner of any property in the T District may at any time �hh petition the city to remove the property fro�usz a d�istrict_and 1�1A place it in another zone district. Any such petition shallTe� re a the F Board to be considered at the ext regular meeting of such board which is scheduled at least fifteen da s from the date the petition is f,_led_ w� the Ci erk. Within sixty (60) days from the date the matter is considered by the board, the City Council shall change the zoning for the property in question to another zone district authorized under this Article. (3) Any use which was nonconforming upon a parcel prior to placement into this zone district shall continue to be noncon- forming upon removal of such parcel or property from this zone district unless such parcel is placed into a zone district where such use is listed as a permitted use. (Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 177, 1998 §4, 10/20/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §38, 12/15/98) 1 Article 4, Page 62 Supp. 4 Division 2.9, Amendment to Text of Code and/or Zoning Map Section 2.9.4(H) (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing- and nronoSed _uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in si nib ficanljy adverse impacts on the natural enyironnaa=, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a lojic_al and orderly deve! lonment pattern. (1) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (J) Step 10 (Amendments): Not applicable. (K) Step 11 (Lapse): Not applicable. (L) Step 12 (Appeals): Not applicable. (Ord. No. 153, 1997 § 1, 10/21/97; Ord. No. 177, 1998 § 1, 10/20/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 § 10, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 165, 1999 §12, 11/16/99) Article 2, Page 53 Supp. 7 Division 2.9, Amendment to Text of Code and/or Zoning Map Section 2.9.4(G) Step 7(C) (Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing): Applicable. Step 7(D) (Decision and Findings): Applicable, except that the Planning and Zoning Board's decision shall be in the form of a recommendation, not a decision, to Council. In making its recommendation, the Planning and Zoning Board shall consider whether the application or proposal complies with the standards contained in Step 8 of this Section. Step 7(E) (Notification to Applicant): Not applicable. Step 7(F) (Record of Proceedings): Applicable. Step 7(G) (Recording of Decisions and Plats): Not applicable. (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, as follows: (1) Text Amendments and Legislative Rezonings. Amendments to the text of this Land Use Code, and amendments to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of more than six hundred forty V�4�7', (640) acres of land (legislative rezoning), are matters committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council, and decisions regarding the same are not controlled by any one (1) factor. (7amendment Requirements for uasi judicial Rezonings. An o the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning d forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasijudicial all be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and,®r , (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neigl surrounding anincluding the subject property. (3) Additiona—Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: Article 2, Page 52 Supp• 7 Exhibit A Plan Amendment Process and Procedures (Established by Resolution 2000-33, Amended by Resolution 2000- ) All plan amendments shall be considered by the City Council, after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff, and any boards and commissions that may have a legitimate interest in the proposed amendment, provided that such board or commission is duly authorized pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Code to function in such advisory capacity. Notice of such Council action shall be given as required for resolutions pursuant to the City Charter. The City Council shall then approve, approve with conditions, or deny the amendment based on its consideration of the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Board, city staff, boards and commissions, and evidence from the public hearings. Approval of the amendments shall be by resolution. Citizen requests for a Plan Amendment shall be considered by the City Council no more frequently than twice per calendar year (October,'April), unless the Director determines the proposed amendment warrants expedited consideration by City Council. Plan amendment requests based on proposed development projects that involve rezonings may also be processed concurrently with rezoning applications (November,'June). Plan amendments initiated by City Council, City staff, and boards and commissions, may be processed at any time. Requests shall be submitted to the City's Advance Planning Department at least 60 days prior to the hearing date for the Planning and Zoning, Board. The 60-day submittal requirement is necessary in order to permit adequate.public notice to be given and to allow adequate time to complete the background work for considering a plan amendment. plan amendment shall be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: The existing Ci Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment nd The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consist4nLiujLh the vision gtwJL-principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. If adopted by the City Council, City Plan shall be revised to include the changes resulting from the amendment. A letter of notification will be forwarded to the appropriate boards and commissions when the revision(s) have been finalized. A�ivemher pendix C Amendment Process and Procedures 21, 2000 5.17 Aw41 wtrt :ITY OF FORT CC c'RnPOSED STRUI m most most 1 alms m.mm moms Mon mom 0Jl"I. .o 140 i`%: a Gam:; ITS11011�4! t SEi I PROPOSED ZONING PLAT OF SPRING CREEK FARMS A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 1S. TOWNSHIP 7 NORM RANGE SS WEST OF THE STH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FT, COLLINS, LARNAER COUNTY, COLORADO j1 v s-wwrLar i`r`T�wYrr ii l�w[�rl� w�iiL�►.Y{rr I r rr • wrw • rw. h V r w.�i. W ir�;�,� wrr �r:� Y ��. a, inL �;.�t+ u.a�w �w hw A w,. a,rw l..~i u, sr wr ,...o}'hw• •r r,w _wIr .wY%rrrrY Y.• �whr r... h.w _ , w1.7 , .'��ar, hRhsAr.r ewh •.'.':'.:Sl: w.x �... �r y MfIV Y,Y,.I w,4YMrn rr .wY l�,w.,.I bPVY„rR .M Yr `M Nw M.VLr',r. YMYw„re M= Y.wr•. nww.n �, ra ,... •hA h/F rr 4�V, i.r^.Li F+I 4 Arrw M.rw ••wti Vr `ter +i�i,�w „r,.w _.1w'u.wrrlww rw,,.s •_L.. _ r�• �,r�r lr, wr�r Ylrr r.,r h �.rrw, .Rw-rw./.rr.'R.nY—Rrr /LL✓r , Yw• r `—/h.rM WL.r,ww�wr •. .w rw.w —.r —.w.w ,mow rn.w. .rw h..r �, In. ti.rL..rr 6r„•r .... �rR r... .... ._..�r.L.. ......... irr w. �. L.r.R wr, r.rrw �. rl �.... �Yv,r ..�.wwrrE r..rw f—�, wrw rwlL�,,,n r.. n.•—..r �.�r nMi r�IIR M,.r.W+,.V r�r!wti ����w.��•ir IMIF.O w�w ,M1l.�sP,r.w rrw Awrn 1.Vt AR[ ORI 0 Mr WI RV.CI Y rr, nn r.1., Y, r• w.L r.. r ■lasn"O SOYYO. �- D.a. DENSrtE RESoa{TIALI aYY PAYc AAAREY mA•ART [W TSIa Ears'IIL• .,..,...Y®+uma..n..rn.n.n....nn,.......r.... .,..r...®m m PAN Y{...w...,. mow wl[rtr N[roemul................r.........n....r......enn..,..av,...,.r,.,.,.r..nr..nn.,,.n.. mwY- rAAm A wrt s oaEORam- PROPOSED PARCEL A YES) ACRES r/- ELUTNa ZOPER& T ITRANEITNINI PROPOSED SONSq VASE• mow 0ENEn1, YI USE NEY.ORYIaa, ,,.IG I9lD( EL.IL VL RAAm a PRaPOEED PARCEL E SOD's ACRES H- EYETMa EOIAwo •r , TA A NAnIUa PROPOA[O lo1M ' asumni poem, YEED u{E YIa ,OwR000l PROPOSED PARCEL C r.m ACRES ./- 1 Emma EaM 16 T nIIARARYIII PROPOSED EoNEo'C lEraorrn,n TRSYRLAaI ROAD M n r�.�lO v�E,iLY AY AYI Y, AOv,• Awes YPR wwL Emma R T IYI +.rr �ARa `EL 1 11RAN{ITL]MI 41 Mtb MYe,r VI.IwYM 'an`rvNm w, rE.I,s, x rL fYtl am[ rNYA ut LL [EON1tl �.w m.i r��xwlY.xAewEn,1 Emma EDAaEa. T• ITRANEI\,a ) males {,m PalnRlm c.D A[MDaI nm —J} Y . _ _l•f1�_Y ae. l lr r rr,. r.1L ORAPNR: NAM — Jronosed Structure Pi2 a Structure PIS No Text THENCE NORTH 00029'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 80.50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89053'54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 397.68 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY PARCEL OF RECORD IN BOOK 277 AT PAGE 042, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 00028'22" EAST A DISTANCE OF 241.75 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89030' 30" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1057.94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 19; THENCE SOUTH 00029'55" WEST A DISTANCE OF 329.45 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 7.177 ACRES (312,643 SQUARE FEET) MORE OR LESS Section 6. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above -described property in the "E" zone district is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 7. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of January, A.D., 2001, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of January, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 16th day of January, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above -described property in the "LMN" zone district is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. - Section 3. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, amended by changing the zoning classification from "T", Transition Zone District, to "MMN", Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Johnson Farm Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: MMN ZONE - PARCEL B THAT PORTION OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE SOUTH 89053' 54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 660.04 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 19 TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 00029'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1954.61 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89053'54" EAST A DISTANCE OF 660.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE SOUTH 00029'55" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1954.61 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 29.615 ACRES (1,290,041 SQUARE FEET), MORE OR LESS. Section 4. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above -described property in the "MMN" zone district is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 5. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, amended by changing the zoning classification from "T", Transition Zone District, to "E", Employment Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Johnson Farm Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: E ZONE - PARCEL C THAT PORTION OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE NORTH 00029'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1954.61 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89053'54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 66.04 FEET TO A POINT; ORDINANCE NO. 184, 2000 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE JOHNSON FARM REZONING WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the rezoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should be rezoned as hereafter provided. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, amended by changing the zoning classification from "T", Transition Zone District, to "LMN", Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Johnson Farm Rezoning: DESCRIPTION: LMN ZONE - PARCEL A THAT PORTION OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE SOUGH 89053'54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 660.04 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 19 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE SOUTH 89053'54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 396.76 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY PARCEL OF RECORD IN BOOK 277 AT PAGE 042, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 00028'22" EAST A DISTANCE OF 2035.10FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89053'54" EAST A DISTANCE OF 397.68 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00029'55" WEST A DISTANCE OF 2035.11 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 18.557 ACRES (808,348 SQUARE FEET), MORE OR LESS. RESOLUTION 2001-6 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MAP WHEREAS, by Resolution 96-79 and Resolution 97-25, the City Council adopted the City Structure Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Structure Plan Map has .been amended from time to time by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Spring Creek Farms, LLP and the Cumberland Companies have requested the rezoning of certain lands located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Timberline Road and Drake Road (the "Johnson Farm Rezoning request"); and WHEREAS, the Johnson Farm Rezoning request also proposes certain amendments to the City Structure Plan pertaining to the land uses identified on the Structure Plan Map; and WHEREAS, the staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have recommended the proposed changes to the Structure Plan Map for adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the city that the City Structure Plan Map be amended accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, that the City Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 2nd day of January, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Board Member Torgersen - Recommend approval of the rezone request Board Member Bernth - Second The motion passed 4 to 3. Board Member Torgersen - Motion to approve the Structure Plan Amendments. Board Member Bernth - Seconded the motion Board Member Carpenter - I won't be supporting the motion. I don't believe that we have something here that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and I don't believe that there are any changing conditions that warrant a change to the Structure Plan. I also believe that we need to be very careful when we do change the Structure Plan because we do jeopardize predictability. I don't like the way we've been approaching Structure Plan amendments on a case by case basis, so we loose predictability. Board Member Craig - I could support this if the neighbors had come to us saying they wanted the change. I agree with Jennifer that the Structure Plan was supposed to be a blue print that gave some sort of predictability. I won't be supporting the motion. Board Member Gaveldon - I won't be supporting it either. I do believe in the Structure Plan. We need to be consistent with the Structure Plan because that's what the neighbors have had to look to for the future of the property next door, and I don't want to loose the predictability. Board Member Torgerson - I agree we want predictability, but if it's Transition zoning, that was because the property owner didn't want to become E - Employment. Property gets rezoned every day all across America, and that doesn't cause chaos. The reason I support it is that the E zone does allow multifamily residential over 25% of their project. I look at the MMN and E zones and they are very similar. When I look at the criterion that we are supposed to be judging this on, it really seems like the proposal met those and is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. I don't necessarily think that the Structure Plan amendment is warranted by a changing condition, but that is an and/or condition, so basically they have met the criterion. Board Member Bernth - I find it ironic that something that increases density that we are actually voting against it. From a pure sentimental standpoint, I don't like the idea because it's against what the neighbors want. But again, sometimes density is what the city is looking for in City Plan, which is an evolutionary document which is why we are considering changing it tonight. I don't like urban sprawl, and because we have the opportunity tonight to do something that will help combat urban sprawl, I'm voting for it. Board Member Colton - I'm the last guy in the world who likes growth, which is driving a lot of the traffic problems. We did decide as a city to grow denser, and I feel that this does meet City Plan. I don't see how the neighborhood's concerns would be any worse with residential than with employment. The traffic engineers are telling us that traffic impacts would actually be less with residential. I support locating this use closer in rather than pushing it out further out toward the edge of the city. I'll be supporting the motion. The motion passed 4 to 3. city impose its ideas for the property. The property owners in this situation typically just wanted to wait and see. Troy Jones (Current Planning) - The property was annexed in November of 1997 and was zoned Transition upon annexation. The structure plan was already in place at the time that it was zoned, so there must have been some discrepancy with the land owner agreeing to the E zone for the property. Board Member Torgersen - Is traffic one of the criterion we should look at in this decision? Troy Jones (Current Planning) - Only in so much as you consider the difference in traffic impacts between an E zoning designation, which is consistent with the current structure plan, and the proposed zoning of E, LMN, and MMN. Only in those differences is the traffic a criteria. It's not a specific criteria, but I think it's encompassed in the rezone criteria that the proposed rezone be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. There are traffic principals and policies that need to be satisfied. Board Member Torgersen - It seems that reducing peak hour traffic would be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Troy Jones (Current Planning) - One of the issues that the neighbors had made was that if the site were to become residential, there would be a substantial increase in traffic going through the Parkwood and Parkwood East neighborhoods for trip to Edora Park, the EPIC center, and perhaps Riffenburg Elementary. Although the overall traffic on the arterials would be less if the site develops residential, the traffic impact on the Parkwood and Parkwood East neighborhood would be greater due to this destination traffic. Eric Bracke (Traffic Operations)- Because of the location of the railroad tracks, this proposed rezone site will not have any street connections to the existing neighorhoods to the west, and there will likely never be any vehicular connections from the existing neighborhoods. to the east to Timberline. The City made some decisions a long time ago that prevented Stuart Street from ever connecting to Riverside. This created a disconnect in the collector system between the east -west collector of Stuart and the north -south collector of Riverside. There is also a lack of collector streets running north -south between Drake and Prospect in this square mile. The traffic generated by people going to the school or the park is considered neighborhood traffic, and is quite normal traffic for a neighborhood. The streets that would absorb this traffic as a result of this rezone can handle the additional traffic from a traffic engineering standpoint. Eric Bracke (Traffic Operations) - The problem on the residential streets in Parkwood and Parkwood East are that they are fairly wide streets that are a straight shot, so they get a lot of speeders. We have made some traffic calming efforts in this neighborhood in the past, but this neighborhood cannot come to a consensus about what to do about the traffic problem. There is also an unwarranted stop sign that people tend to run because there is seldom any traffic on the cross street. 4 Clark Mapes (Advance Planning) - City Plan is based on a forecast for growth and a decision not to deflect or stop that growth. So then the decision had to be made, how should we best accommodate that growth. We had to choose between the popular trend of single -use auto dominated type of development pattern, or with more compactness, slightly more density as a city overall, slightly more mixing, sort of a moderate degree of growing up as a city. The choice was made to grow up to be a city, not just a great big suburb. One thing to keep in mind is,that it is in one's personal interest of argue against a higher density coming in near their house. We understand that, but we had to sort of break through that with the Comprehensive Plan, because that is not a basis to use to plan for the future of the city overall. There's a fundamental difference between an individual acting in their own interest, and looking at this projection of 50,000 additional people over a 20 year period, and how to accommodate that, and deciding what kind of place you want to end up with in the end. Board Member Colton - How is it that traffic is 40% less under this proposal than if it is zoned E? Eric Bracke (Traffic Operations)- There are a number of uses that could go into an E. The applicant use an office park as the assumed use, which is middle of the road among the uses that could go in E. With a site this size, an office park would generate about 8,000 trips per day. The mixed -use pattern that is being proposed would be about 5,000 to 5,300 trips per day. It's about 40% less, but keep in mind that it's a ball park figure. The Employment trips would be primarily weekday trips, very few weekend trips. The average daily trips in terms of the trips that would cause congestion, the Employment uses would cause more. In terms of the surrounding intersections, the Employment zone would have a significantly greater impact than a mixed use development because you get a high concentration between 7:30 - 8:30 and 4:30 - 5:30. Board Member Carpenter - I agree with Clark about the goals of the structure plan being compactness and walkability, but I also remember predictability also being one of the primary reasons came up with the Structure Plan. I think developers wanted to know what was and wasn't O.K. to put on their land. Predictability was percieved to be one of the major failings of the LUGS, so predictibility was one of the things that we tried to build into City Plan. If there's not a compelling reason to change the Structure Plan, we loose that predictibility for everybody. I'm not saying we should never change the Structure Plan, but when we do, I think we ought to have some compelling reasons. Board Member Bernth - Doesn't the fact that the land was zoned Transition mean that there is some degree of uncertainty about the future uses of the property? Even though the structure plan has a designation, the fact that it was zoned Transition means that there has been some unresolved disagreement about what should happen there. Board Member Colton - Why was the property zoned Transition in the first place? Clark Mapes (Advance Planning) - I think the typical reason a property was zoned T was what happened here, which is that the property owners just didn't know what use would be appropriate after the land was no longer farmed, and didn't feel comfortable letting the 3 market study, we don't have a compelling reason to reserve the site as Employment although we have felt the need to do so in other locations such as along Harmony. Second, it would fit well with the concentric rings of MMN and LMN around the NC of Rigden Farm. Board Member Carpenter - Is there a compelling reason why Employment wouldn't work there? Has there been a changed condition to warrant this change in the Structure Plan? Clark Mapes (Advance Planning) - No, but keep in mind that the criteria that the justification for a rezone can be because of a changed condition is an and/or condition, not a hard and fast requirement. Clark Mapes (Advance Planning ) - We looked at the pattern of the Neighborhood Commercial zone as a new kind of center surrounded by a concentric zone of higher density housing. We think this site, if it were to develop more residential, would help make the Rigden Farm commercial district more viable, possibly sooner than if this isn't housing. We feel that either the E or the MMN are both the types of zones that are appropriate for this property. The two zones in fact have some overlap in permitted uses. The E zone would allow up to 25% of the land area to be housing which would most likely be some kind of multifamily configuration, and the MMN zone does allow for some office uses. The are similar in their intensity and their tendency to locate on arterials. Board Member Gaveldon - Why the property designated E in the first place? Clark Mapes (Advance Planning) - It wasn't that we studied it carefully and determined that the property definitely has got to be E. When you look at the site in terms of a railroad on the west, an arterial to the south, a major arterial to the east, and the pipe plant to the north, it's kind of a transitional area that is probably going to go to some sort of office or higher density housing use. When you look at office and high density housing uses you look at the E and MMN zones. We saw the large parcel as an opportunity for a site for a major employer, which often is a good thing for a city to have room for. Part of the reason it was designated E was to allow for the possibility for a large employer to choose this site to locate to. Make no mistake, E is a fine zone for the property, but the general reasons that make E an appropriate use for the property also make MMN an appropriate use. Board Member Carpenter - Since she served on the LUC Advisory Committee she would also like to share her recollection of why the property was designated E. She doesn't think there was anything magic about E other than we wanted to disperse Employment throughout the city so that you had employment close to some of the medium density housing and commercial areas to provide more opportunities to live, work, shop, play all within your same neighborhood. Board Member Bernth - How do we address neighborhood concern? It seems kind of ironic that typically existing neighborhoods are extremely concerned about density going into their neighborhood, yet the whole goal of City Plan is to increase density. 2 DATE TEM NUMBER: Zoning and Analysis The purpose of the LMN zoning district (Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code) is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community. The purpose of the MMN zoning district (Section 4.5 of the Land Use Code) is to be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district, and to form atransition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the neighborhood commercial center. The purpose of the E zoning district (Section 4.22 of the Land Use Code) is to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This district also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. The LMN zoning district is proposed along the west side of the property, which is adjacent to existing low density residential uses. The MMN zoning district is proposed along most of the property's frontage with Timberline Road, which is anticipated to be a high frequency transit route in the future. Across Timberline Road to the east and southeast, will be a future Neighborhood Commercial Center. The E zoning district will be along the north part of the property to act as a buffer between the residential uses and the industrial use to the north. The Advance Planning Department has taken the position that the site is a gcod location for either Employment or Residential uses. Either land use would greatly benefit from being located adjacent to the Neighborhood Commercial activity center, and both land uses would greatly benefit from being located along the future high frequency transit route along Timberline. Employment uses are transit rider destinations, while residential uses are transit rider origins. It is beneficial for both transit origins and to be located along the high frequency transit route. By recommending approval of the applicant's requested Structure Plan amendment and Rezoning application, city staff is not saying that the site would not v%ork well as Employment. Staff, finds that either use is appropriate here. As proposed with the combination of "E," "LMN," and "MMN" designations, the site would generate 40% fewer vehicle trips per day than if the site were developed entirely with an "E" designation. One area where traffic impacts would be greater with the proposed residential uses as opposed to employment uses is the number of trips anticipated to go through the Parkwood and Parkwood East neighborhoods in route to Edora Park, EPIC Center, and possibly Riffenburg Elementary School. The applicant's traffic study quantifies this projected increase in vehicle trips through the Parkwood East and Parkwood neighborhoods as an additional 16 vehicular trips a day. The City's Traffic Operations staff finds this impact to the neighborhoods negligible. Planniniz and Zoning Board Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation to approve the Structure Plan amendment and the proposed rezone on November 16, 2000 by a vote of 4 to 3. Video tapes of the November 16, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board hearing have been provided. DATE: ITEM NUMBER: SE: NC; The planned Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center, the intersection of Timberline and Drake, MMN; The planned Rigden Farm multifamily housing area, LMN; The planned Rigden Farm multifamily and single family housing area, the planned Timberline Church, E: T: Existing farm land, Cargil seed research facility, 2 historic farmsteads, Timberline Road, W: RL; Existing Parkwood East neighborhood, Union Pacific Railroad tracks, city trail running adjacent to the railroad tracks (on the west side), NW: MMN; Parkwood East Apartments, POL; Edora Pool and Ice Center, Edora Park, Spring Creek Trail. The property was annexed in November 1997 as a portion of the "Timberline Annexation". The property is currently in the residential sign district. Amending the Structure Plan The applicant prepared a market analysis of the site based on current and future land use inventory and absorption rates, and tailored the land use plan to the market demand. The results of the city-wide market analysis indicated that: (1) significant land resources exist to support commercial uses for the next 21-22 years; (2) current land resources within the Urban Growth Area exist to support lower density residential uses (+/- 5 units per acre) for the next 12 to 13 years; and (3) multifamily land resources within the Urban Growth Area will likely be completely absorbed within 7-8 years. The results of the market analysis specific to the site indicate: (1) ample land resources for employment uses exist in better locations (Harmony, Prospect and Mulberry Corridors); (2) this location is at a competitive disadvantage for retail or employment uses because it has no direct connection to I-25, and the Poudre River's location hinders connectivity to the east; (3) the site is large enough to support a broad variety of housing types at various densities; and (4) nearby retail development in Rigden Farm will provide an attractive convenience to prospective residents within walking distance of this site. Staff finds that the proposed Structure Plan amendment is supported by the policies of City Plan, and that: • the location of LMN and MMN is ideal given the close proximity to the Neighborhood Commercial Center (the red dot on the Structure Plan) in Rigden Farm; • the site is well suited for LMN and MMN uses because it is on a designated future high frequency transit route; and • the location is well suited for LMN and MMN uses because of the close proximity to employment centers along Prospect, further south on Timberline, and along Harmony Road. Staff also finds that the loss of E zoned area would not be as significant as the gain in MMN area to the community. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Items Relating to the Johnson Farm Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION: ITEM NUMBER: 31 A-B DATE: January 2, 2001 FROM: Troy W. Jones Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. The Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation to approve the Structure Plan Map amendment and the proposed rezoning on November 16, 2000 by a vote of 4 to 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. EEi)2000-6 Amending the City Structure Plan Map. B. First Reading of rWe)7-oning No. 7, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by ChanginClassification for that Certain Property Known as the Johnson Farm Rezoning. This is a request to rezone approximately 55.35 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road. The property is currently zoned T - Transitional. The Structure Plan designation for the entire property is Employment. The applicant is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to change 18.56 acres to Low Density Mixed -Use Residential, 29.62 acres to Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential, and to maintain 7.18 acres as Employment. The applicant is also requesting to rezone the property to a combination of LMN, MMN, and E to correspond to the requested Structure Plan amendment. The proposed Structure Plan amendment is supported by the policies within the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning districts LMN, MMN, and E are compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land. The proposed zoning districts are appropriate for this property. The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed rezoning results in a logical and orderly development pattern. KGROUND: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: E: Partially vacant industural pipe plant, I; Existing industrial uses, S: RL; Meadows East Neighborhood (single family housing), Drake Road,