Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/21/2005Council Liaison: Karen Chairperson: Judy Meyer Vice Chair: Dave Lingle Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 490-2172 Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Schmidt, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter, Stockover and Lingle. Staff Present: Wray, Eckman, Shepard, Gloss, Buffington and Deines. Citizen Participation: None. Director of Current Planning Pete Wray reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 19th and June 16, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ05-09 — Easement Dedication. 3. Resolution PZ05-10 — Easement Dedication. 4. #32-981 Poudre Valley Health System — Harmony Medical Campus, 5th Filing, Healthy Living Center — Project Development Plan. 5. Choice City Business Park — Out of City Service Request. 6. #18-05B Kingdom Hall — Overall Development Plan. 7. #36-96N Mulberry and Lemay Crossings, Filing Two, Centennial Bank — Major Amendment. 8. #20-00B State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road — Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 9. #17-04A Interchange Lands First — Annexation and Zoning. (Continued) 10. #18-04A Interchange Lands Second — Annexation and Zoning. (Continued) 11. #27-05A Waterdale First — Annexation and Zoning. 12. #16-05 Airpark Village — Annexation and Zoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Items 4, 5 and 8 were pulled for discussion. Member Lingle moved to approve consent items 2, 3, 6 and 7. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 2 Project: Poudre Valley Health System — Harmony Medical Campus, 5t' Filing, Healthy Living Center, #32-981 Project Description: Request for a Project Development Plan to construct a 2-story 138,000 s.f. building housing a medical spa, patient rehabilitation, preventative care, and community health education facilities, medical offices, a health -focused cafe and a membership health club. The project is located near the southwest corner of Snow Mesa Drive and Harmony Road and zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. nearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig stated that she would like to see the site plan and have the applicant address her concern. Her concern was that she remembered when this came before the Board and they sold the Board on this campus affect with the parking on the outside, which is completely against what we had been aiming for for quite awhile. Part of the sale was that the buildings would have a center core of open space that would be full of pedestrian walkways, gathering places and so forth, and on the site plan that came before the Board for the Healthy Living Center, she saw none of those items. She wanted the applicant to talk about and explain why it is not on the site plan and reassure her that that is what this campus affect is going to have in the end. Angie Milewski, BHA Design responded to Member Craig's concern. She stated that they did not have a slide of the Master Plan and that was unfortunate because they do have a fully developed Master Plan that each building that has come forward is in compliance with that Plan and this is no exception. The western two-thirds of the entire PVH Harmony Campus site is designed as a campus; meaning they did not meet the build to line criteria for the buildings. The first phase is already constructed and the concept around it is rather than have the buildings up to Harmony Road and up to Timberline Road, they have an internal loop road system and part of that is a private loop road, part of it is part of Timberwood Drive that surrounds and circles the entire campus area from Snow Mesa to Timberline Road. Within that external loop road system, there is a parking area around the outside edges, inside that there is a ring of building area where the buildings go and inside that is a pedestrian campus core area. What has been built to date; Phase 1 Medical Office Building and Ambulatory Care Center which is in the northwest corner of the Master Plan. This is filling out the northeast corner of the Master Plan and what is not being shown is all the rest of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 3 work to the south. There is a planning bubble that is designated on the Overall Development Plan that is required to become the pedestrian campus core area. This particular project does not build the entire campus core; it is being developed overtime and will come in in a later phase and not with this phase. They have worked very hard with city staff on an infrastructure plan for the entire campus and how that is phased over time. This is still part of what is the first phase of that infrastructure plan. Also included with the first phase is a significant amount of infrastructure that was not part of the pedestrian open space. They built a significant portion of Snow Mesa Drive, a signalized intersection at Snow Mesa Drive; there is a second main landscaped entry now on Harmony Road to help identify that as a second major entryway to the campus. The hospital has been prioritizing the infrastructure piece of this, one of which is the pedestrian campus core as the needs arise and it is basically being built right now from the north to the south with this project included. This plan does not preclude that pedestrian space from happening, in fact they have worked hard to adjust its site plan to be sure they are anticipating the future campus area to occur. There are early plans in place for what that will look like, including a lot of pedestrian connectivity. Initially it will not be constructed, and the reason it is not being constructed in an early phase is because there is another ring of buildings that are as yet unknown uses that they also want to incorporate into that space. The reason it is a later phase of the infrastructure piece is they don't want to preclude those buildings from occurring as well. They want that space to be designed to connect all the buildings together. Member Craig asked if what she was hearing is that phase will not happen until build out. Ms. Milewski replied not necessarily at build out, there are phases that go from north around east and then south; that does not mean it will be the final phase. It is part of the last phase, which is the whole south west portion of the site. Member Craig asked what the reason was that we can't start connecting. Ms. Milewski replied that it is a complicated issue. There are topographic changes, the storm drainage from a master plan standpoint will have to go through this area and will have to go through future buildings to the south. We don't want to put something in that will preclude the way those buildings can be built to that area. It is a key part of the plan and she wanted to assure the Board that it is not at all something they are skating around. Member Craig stated that it was reassuring that we have it on the record that it will happen. She is somewhat disappointed because there are enough buildings to the west that there could have been some inter -connection between this building and those Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 4 so that somebody that is parked in the west building will not get in their car and drive all the way around where they might of walked across the path. Ms. Milewski replied that they feel they have provided good connections to the places where people walk. There is a continuous walk between the building entrances of this walk and the buildings to the west. Member Craig also had a concern about the sidewalk on Snow Mesa on the private drive north of the parking lot, there is a sidewalk across the street, but there is not a sidewalk along the parking lot itself. She wondered why they were making people cross the street instead of being able to go down Snow Mesa down into this building. Ms. Milewski replied that they are continuing the design that was done with phase one. That design has an outer sidewalk and the thought is that they have concentric circles; "�fa Main arterial roadways, then the loop road, parking and then buildings. Along the building faces, between the building and the parking, the intent and it is beginning now with the phases that are in, is there will be a full pedestrian pathway circuit system. They thought that the outer connection might be used for staff on a lunch break to take a longer walk not just around the building face. They would go out the pedestrian connections that go right out the entrances and go across that drive and then take a continuous path alignment around the outside without having to cross multiple driveways. In this area, every 60 feet there is a driveway access into the parking lot. If we put the walk on the inside on this private drive section, you would be crossing multiple drive accesses. Member Lingle asked if staff was confident that we have adequate triggers to require the development of this inter -core. For instance if the development never proceeds past this building and then everything to the south would come in as a completely different plan at some point, do we have the mechanisms in place to build the pedestrian open space. Director Gloss replied that as Ms. Milewski indicated that the Overall Development Plan calls for this grouping of buildings to be in a campus setting. There are 11 buildings total in the entire development site and there are six of them that compose the area that she was speaking of that brings in open space. It is conceivable that these future phases don't come to fruition and we would have to work with the applicant on how that would develop. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Poudre Valley Health Systems Healthy Living PDP, #32-981. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 5 Project: Choice City Business Park Out of City Utility Request Project Description: Recommendation to the General Manager of Utility Services for a request to provide City water Service from existing mains serving the area on the south side of East Mulberry Street between Lemay Avenue and Timberline Road. Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Roger Buffington, City Utility Staff gave the staff presentation. He stated that it became evident during discussions prior to the meeting that this site is contiguous to city limits now and there is a section of the utilities code dealing with the out of city utility service that requires it if eligible for annexation. The site should sign a petition for annexation so it complicates the issue here. The applicant is not present tonight so he would leave it up to the Board as to the direction to take on this. Chairperson Meyer thought that since the applicant was not here tonight, the item should be continued. Member Torgerson moved for a continuance of the Choice City Business Park Out of City Utility Request to a future meeting to be determined by the applicant. Member Stockover seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning #20-00B Project Description: Request to annex and zone a 35.86 acre parcel. The site is located on the east side of the 1-25 East Frontage Road approximately one -quarter mile south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). The recommended zoning is LMN, Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood which is in conformance with the I- 25 Sub Area Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 6 Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave a staff presentation, recommending approval of the annexation and the requested zoning of LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. He stated that this requested annexation did not include the 11.3 acres to the west of the site and includes most of the Boxelder Ditch. Member Craig recalled to the applicant when he had came before the Board in 2002 hoping to get the LMN. At that time it was talked about an open space agreement. She asked if he remembered that and why was he not following through with that now. Les Kaplan, applicant for the request replied that what was being proposed for annexation tonight is lot 2 of a subdivision that took place in the County. It took place August 9, 2004. That is the property that is being proposed for annexation. Lot 1, which is the front part of the property, is currently not under his ownership. The property was subdivided in order to protect the property from the consequences of annexation. One such consequence would be that were this property annexed it would be zoned LMN in the city. The property has greater value potential for conservation easement by remaining commercial in the county. That was the reason it was not included. Member Craig asked if he was in the process of getting a conservation easement at this time. Mr. Kaplan replied that he was not the owner of the property, but the owner of the property was. Member Craig asked who the owner of the property was. Mr. Kaplan stated that the owner of the property is Natural Properties. Member Craig asked if he was connected in any way to Natural Properties. Mr. Kaplan replied that he is not Natural Properties. Mr. Kaplan stated that the history of this annexation was that it was submitted in July of 2000 and it was waiting for the 1-25 Sub Area Plan to be approved. That was supposed to be a year and a half process that took four years. It was resubmitted again in November of 2002 in anticipation that the Sub Area Plan would be approved shortly. It was recommended for approval with the LMN zoning on it to City Council in December Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 7 19, 2002. On February 18, 2003, it went to the City Council and City Council refused to adopt the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation for LMN zoning. Therefore he withdrew the application. His objective all along was to preserve the front area of the property. The method that he prefers to use right now is not to give the property away. It is to get some value from the property in terms of selling it as a conservation easement. The potential for that is higher if the property is kept in the commercial zoning designation and not down graded to LMN zoning. Member Craig asked if the owners of the property of the 11 acres that is west of this decides to develop it instead of doing a conservation easement; was it possible to do it with its eligibility or because it is contiguous to the city. Would they be able to develop it under the County in C, with that contiguity going on? Planner Shepard replied yes they would. Member Craig asked how they would do that. Planner Shepard replied that he was told by the Larimer County Planning Staff that they have a process called a site plan review for permitted uses in the County C, Commercial zone. That allows a certain number of permitted uses to be developed administratively through a site plan review. The key is that it does not go to the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. Therefore it does not trigger the IGA annexation. Member Schmidt understood it as we don't have any guarantee that it would remain open space and it could be developed as commercial in the County and there would be nothing they could do about it. Planner Shepard responded that in a manner of speaking that was correct. The only caveat he would offer if that the Boxelder floodplain and floodway are regulated by other parts of the City and County Codes in terms of development potential. It is not a land use guarantee, it is when the city or the county is approached with a development proposal, and then the floodplain and floodway regulations would go into effect. That is not land use that is floodway, floodplain protection. When you say guarantee, he has to think in terms of permitted uses under zoning. There would be no guarantee under County zoning. Member Schmidt asked if the County floodplain regulations were more relaxed than the city. Planner Shepard replied he checked with the County and just the opposite is true in this particular case because the governing floodplain regulations out there are the FEMA Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 8 maps. The city is in the process of amending those maps based on some master drainage basin studies that have been done and it will take about a year for those studies to be forwarded to FEMA and have the federal maps changed. It just so happens that there is a slight decrease in the floodway/floodplain under the new city mapping versus the existing federal mapping. Member Schmidt thought that part of the idea of zoning LMN was a TDU, transferring some of the density. Planner Shepard replied that you can only transfer units within an LMN gross acreage situation. You can't take C, Commercial units and transfer them over to an LMN. Member Carpenter asked if the 11 acres are not part of this request, can the Board legally have any jurisdiction there. The Board should be looking at the annexation of the acreage that Mr. Kaplan has brought in. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Carpenter said just because he had 11 acres there before really should not have any affect on this request. The Board can't base anything on the 11 acres. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman added that this annexation is as you see it and the Board needs to make a recommendation on whether or not to pass it onto the City Council with approval. The Board certainly can take in any other factors they think may be relevant and connected to this. Member Torgerson moved to recommend approval for the annexation and the recommended zoning of LMN to City Council for State Highway Annexation and Zoning, #20-0013. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Lingle asked for any public participation. Donna Sprague who lives in the Sunflower neighborhood next to this proposed annexation asked if the Board was annexing 25 acres or less rather that 30 something. Planner Shepard replied yes. Ms. Sprague asked when you annex, does there have to be public access to that property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 9 Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied no, not for annexation, there would have to be public access for development. Ms. Sprague asked that if they can't cross Boxelder Creek with road access where that land sits and if he only has access through a private neighborhood, which is Clydesdale community, would that road be large enough to be an arterial street, or a collector street to access the property. She did not see any other access for this property. Would that be up to the developer when a project is submitted? Chairperson Meyer responded yes. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that the project may come before this Board depending on the nature of the proposal. Ms. Sprague also was concerned with Boxelder Creek. Public input closed Member Craig stated that she would not be voting for this, she felt that when Mr. Kaplan came before the Board in 2002, the Board appreciated the fact that he was going to dedicate 10 acres to open space to follow through with the 1-25 Sub Area Plan as we so wanted. That was part of why the Board said that LMN was appropriate there because of the trade off. She felt that she understands why he wants the most value for his land but if she heard him correctly, he has had a year since he subdivided and yet he has not gone about doing anything about this conservation easement. There is the potential concern that he may develop in the County with C, Commercial, which goes completely against the 1-25 Sub Area Plan that he told the Board in 2002 that he bought into. The motion was approved 5-2, with Members Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative. Project: Waterdale First Annexation and Zoning, #27-05 Project Description: Request to annex and zone a 38.69 acre parcel. The site is also known as Sunflower Manufactured Home Subdivision and located south of East Mulberry Street approximately one-half mile east of Interstate 25. The recommended zoning is LMN. Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood which is in conformance with the I- 25 Sub Area Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 10 Hearino Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. This is a voluntary annexation and to clarify that, this annexation has been voluntarily brought forward per the annexation agreement that was entered into by the developer several years ago, which designates the power of attorney to annex the parcel to the City Clerk. Paul Gallenstein, applicant and also the developer of Sunflower Subdivision spoke to the Board. He stated that Sunflower is a 55 plus, fixed income senior community. When he proposed this development, it was required of him to be able to move through the process to sign the document that Ted mentioned to the Board; otherwise they would not have been allowed to move forward. This project and the fact that it is here and very successful speaks to the need in the market place for such a community. As the developer of this property, he has worked very hard to control his expenses, he runs with very lean crews. The purpose of that is to control expenses because they are trying to build as affordable type project as they possibly can. If they annex at this time, the potential for their building permit fees will increase dramatically and it will hurt the people that they were intending to serve. He has to pass those expenses on, he cannot absorb those. He is more than willing to annex in the future, he would just like to build out the project so that everyone is given a fair sporting chance at cost effective housing. He believed that they were in negotiations with the city of Fort Collins to achieve a 3- year delay in the annexation. He has received a letter from the Deputy City Attorney with a durable Power of Attorney that would delay things and cancel the existing agreement. He stated that was currently on his attorney's desk and he is pushing to get it reviewed as hard as he can. Mr. Gallenstein asked the Board to deny this request, but on the other hand he knows that the city is in need of revenue for its tax base. He asked for Planner Shepard to let the audience know the increase in actual taxes on a typical home in Sunflower for the resident it would be very helpful. He stated that Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director had reported to him that it would be a fairly low impact once they are built out. He would like to petition this Board to have understanding and patience. His property is not in any form in the way of annexing other properties in the surrounding area. Member Schmidt asked the applicant if all his obligations, as far as road improvements have been met with Larimer County or is it still by a building permit basis. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Gallenstein replied that the slide did not show Carriage Parkway coming up and intersecting to State Highway 14. There is a proposed traffic light there, of which when he was going through the planning process, he was one of the first developers to stand up and say he would participate voluntarily because he believes in that light. That money has been paid by him for his share of that light. The light has not been built because after four projects were approved, the State of Colorado on Highways changed the standard for traffic lights. A traffic light went from $150,000 to $300,000 to in excess of $500,000 per light due to wind standards and things like that. He thought that was the delay because now the State will have to participate in putting in that light. The other thing is in each of his building permits, there is a contribution to a fund that will continue the monies that have been approved for the reconfiguration of Highway 14 and 1-25. Member Schmidt asked how many building permits were left before they were built out. Mr. Gallenstein replied that their predicted build out is 191 homes and they have 111 permits issued to date. The build out is two to three years. Member Lingle asked if the annexation agreement was disclosed to the residents who have purchased lots in the subdivision. Mr. Gallenstein replied that the document is of public record and is recorded at the courthouse. He stated that as people asked if this property would be annexed, we explained to them that it depended on whether or not they become contiguous with the city boundaries and once that happened they could. Chairperson Meyer asked what brought this annexation forward at this time. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that this annexation gains its contiguity from the State Highway 14 Annexation; in addition, the annexation agreement that the County required Mr. Gallenstein to execute is a 20-year power of attorney to the City Clerk. There is a provision in it that says that if for any reason that 20-year power of attorney is shortened because of the statute that exists that says that these powers of attorney can only last for five years, then it is good for five years. He would like to not have that headache worrying whether it is a 20 year or a 5 year. If it is a 5 year, it expired on June 29, 2005. So, the City Clerk took action before June 29`" to petition for annexation before it expired, so it would be a valid petition for annexation under her power of attorney. But, as Mr. Gallenstein explained, he has been authorized by staff to draft a new power of attorney and forget about the old agreement and use the new 5-year power of attorney but would be un-exercisable for the first three years in order to accommodate the concerns he has expressed regarding the building permits and how Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 12 he has a process with the County that is working well for him now. At this time, staff is asking that the Board take favorable action on this in case the other does not work out. Member Schmidt asked if Mr. Gallenstein was correct in stating that if his parcel is not annexed, the other parcel that is northwest of him would still be annexable, in which case, his parcel surrounded and the city could take him in three years anyway. Planner Shepard replied yes it would be possible to annex the Interchange Business Park without the contiguity by Waterdale, but no there is very strong likelihood that Waterdale would not become an enclave. PUBLIC INPUT Al Corbett, Sunflower resident stated that they have all the amenities in Sunflower and what could the city offer them other than them paying more taxes. Seventy percent of the residents are on a fixed income. He called and got a tax estimate based on today's mill levy and it was over $100 per household. He stated that the city cannot bring anything more to the plate than they already have. Member Carpenter asked staff about the taxes to these homeowners. Planner Shepard replied that the standard generic answer without looking at individual tax bills and mill levies is that if you are in the County right now, you pay a separate mill levy line item to the PFA, upon annexation, that goes away. It gets replaced by a city of Fort Collins mill levy and he is told they are very close. Deputy City Attorney added that there will be a difference in Sales Tax. Member Lingle said he was not familiar with the infrastructure improvements that are there, is there anything that they would be adopting that would be considered substandard to current city standards in terms of streets and sidewalks. Planner Shepard replied that the sidewalks in Sunflower are attached instead of detached and there is curb and gutter. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department added that the roadway systems are all private drives and they are not publicly dedicated to her knowledge so they would continue to be maintained by the HOA. Marilyn Corbett, Sunflower resident stated that they all realize that annexation will happen eventually no matter where they go. They chose this community because of the lower cost of a permanent place where they could stay and afford. The problem is if this Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 13 development is not finished, the base price of these homes will have to go up and that will mean the completion of this development will take forever. The people who were intended to be in this development will not be able to afford to be there and people who are already there will be forced to leave. Member Schmidt asked when doing building permits in an area that it is presumed that all the roads are going to stay private drives, do they still pay into the Street Oversizing Fund. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Schmidt asked if they would be paying for road improvements right in front of the house because they would be maintaining those themselves. Planner Shepard replied that the Street Oversizing Fee is a building permit fee that goes into a city wide fund. That is very different than the developer doing the local street improvements within the internal streets of a subdivision. Jim Mokler, who lives on the north side of Mulberry just west of their main entry in the old Boxberger place suggested to the Board that they delay their annexation for three years, work through the agreement with Mr. Gallenstein because it is a nice answer to this problem. Ultimately, he will be the developer of Interchange Business Park which is being continued tonight and while they signed the same annexation agreement that Mr. Gallenstein did, they knew this day was coming and their preference would be to not annex into the city because every building permit that they pull gets a lot more expensive and taxes from commercial properties go up a lot more than residential. They are heavily impacted by that and ultimately there really is not many dollars that come from this community and there are a lot of dollars that come from Interchange Business Park, which is about to be annexed next. He was there to say that they are willing participants in that process and they would like to work cooperatively with the city on some longer term things that they have already met with the city about. It would involve almost two miles of 1-25 frontage and so they would like to get into a cooperative spirit with the city to try to encourage the development of retail tax dollars and employment districts. Marshal Van Thor, owner of land in the Interchange Business Park and owner of a business there had a question regarding city of Fort Collins utilities when annexed and that the city would have to pay a percentage of the bill back to REA for a period of ten years for existing customers and five years for new customers. He stated that it was to be charged back to the owner of the property and he wondered if that was the case. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 14 Planner Shepard replied that it is called the REA Service Rights Fee and is negotiated by REA and successfully passed by the State Legislature, kind of a buyout provision. It is true that it is a ten year period. The converse to that is that our rates are lower, by the time you take our lower rate combined with the REA Service Rights charge, it is almost comparable to what you are paying already. Les Kaplan, applicant of the previous annexation stated that without complicating things he wanted to give the Board a bigger picture. He feels that no one would be here this evening if it were not for the fact that he initiated his annexation for a number of strategic reasons. One is that it sets the stage for the city to be able to annex the Interchange Business Park, which is a revenue producing property for the city. This is also something stated when he submitted this annexation petition previously. Related to that is the fact that once that annexation takes place of the Interchange Business Park, it creates the contiguity for the city to annex property north of that, which is at the northeast Interchange of 1-25 and Mulberry, which happens to be shown on the 1-25 Sub Area Plan as a major activity center. That property would be an enormous asset to the city if it were developed in the city. His annexation sets in motion those two annexations. The second reason he initiated his annexation was in order to put pressure on Waterdale, on Sunflower and he would try and be as frank as he could. When the Waterdale property was approved in the County there were comments that were made by the Fort Collins Planning Department indicating that they believe that there was not proper connectivity between that development as a gated community and properties to the south, which is now his property. When the Waterdale property was recently amended to increase the number of pads by 17, Cameron Gloss attended the County Commissioners Meeting and appealed to them to make as a condition for approving that amendment the introduction of an emergency access connection to his property. The Planning Commission, although acknowledging the fact that that would be good planning, did not include that as a condition in their recommendation to the County Commissioners because they did not know if they had the legal right to do so. What he is hoping with his annexation is to be able to accomplish the emergency access connection through Waterdale because for him to annex these 37 acres at this time without having an emergency access connection makes his property undevelopable. The Waterdale property really represents the only really economically feasible means for him to get an emergency access connection. Unless he waits for the property to the south of him to develop, the Galatia Annexation, which will have a lot of difficulty developing because of the need to improve the Prospect and 1-25 interchange. If he waits for that to happen, he could be waiting an indefinite time period. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 15 The only other way he can get an emergency access connection is to go through a natural area, which he did not think was advisable. He could potentially go to the west, which means he would have to go through a floodway area, an area that has been designated by the County as having unique natural characteristics and the cost to do that would be exorbitant and is not something he wants to do to that environment. He has offered to the developer of Waterdale that he would withdraw his annexation if he could get an emergency access connection. He would give him those three years for his build out period. If the city and Mr. Gallenstein unilaterally negotiate an extension to his annexation agreement, where the city gives him three years, he does not have any leverage and if he does not have any leverage he will withdraw his annexation because he does not have a piece of property that is developable. If he withdraws his annexation, they the Interchange Business Park does not annex and that means that the northeast corner of 1-25 and Mulberry will develop in the County. He is supporting the three year delay for the annexation of Waterdale and he asked that the city allow himself and Mr. Gallenstein to negotiate the emergency access and not to jump into an automatic extension because the city is concerned that if they lose this opportunity for five years that they might have to go to court if they annex this. Member Schmidt asked Mr. Kaplan if he already had access through the diagonal road shown on the map in Clydesdale. Mr. Kaplan replied that was primary access and the PFA requires that you have a secondary access and there is really no other way for him to accomplish secondary access. Sue Green, resident of Sunflower stated that she bought there for two reasons, one she could afford it, and it was single family dwelling. The access he wants goes right through the community for emergency vehicles. Once that road is there won't other vehicles be allowed to use it, not just emergency, and then we are no longer a community that is gated and secured. She asked for the three year build out and gives the 90 some people more of a chance to have affordable housing for seniors. They are a community that all of Colorado is looking at because of what they have. She did not feel that the Board would want to put an emergency vehicle or road right through the middle of the community. Donna Sprague, resident of Sunflower asked that emergency access be explained. Planner Shepard replied that typically throughout the city, situations where the second point of required emergency access for PFA and ambulance is controlled in such a way that only the emergency provider can gain access. This access is only needed if the primary access is blocked. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 16 Ms. Sprague asked if it would be something of the size of an alley. Planner Shepard replied that the PFA likes 20 feet of width of unobstructed access and an alley would not do that. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Carpenter asked that staff comment on Mr. Kaplan's testimony. Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that during the development review process many of the residents will be here to make sure that the Board makes certain that it stays a guarded situation so that the public does not just ignore the situation and flood through their community. He thought that what Mr. Kaplan has said is that as amongst Mr. Gallenstein's property here — he thinks he leases these pad sites to the owners and then the owners buy their homes — he did not know how all the taxes work but the taxes must be paid on the pad sites by Mr. Gallenstein. Mr. Gallenstein responded that the property was a cutting edge property, which he worked very closely with Freddie Mac, which is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the US. They pioneered a 35 year lease hold property where through very restrictive covenants and controls they developed a community for seniors and these are both manufactured and modular units that are owned by the individual homeowners. They enter into a 35 year lease agreement, which is five years beyond the 30 year mortgage, which is what Freddie Mac stipulated. It is deemed real property, both the house and the underlying land and that was a requirement by Freddie Mac. He has negotiated with Larimer County to make sure that indeed did happen. That improves the marketability of the home. In Larimer County, the tax rate for personal property as well as residential is the same tax rate, it just depends on the assigned value. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that in terms of Mr. Kaplan's remarks. In a nut shell what he is saying as it relates to his property, the Waterdale property and their annexation into the city and the city's cooperation with that is that if we don't work together, none of this happens because he will withdraw his annexation and then this won't annex because of the lack of contiguity and then the Interstate Business Park and 1-25 and Mulberry won't annex and so forth. That is why we have worked together to draft a new Power of Attorney that gives Mr. Gallenstein his three years of development in the County which would be to his benefit as well as people who already have invested in that community. If he and Mr. Kaplan can work their arrangement out so that Mr. Kaplan won't withdraw his annexation, then all the pieces of this puzzle will come together all right, if not we will just have to wait and see how it will come out. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 17 Member Craig asked if we do annex this piece in and we do get the three years, at the end of three years, Mr. Kaplan decides to develop, because this site is in the city are they required to offer him the emergency access. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it would be off site and we could not require Waterdale to grant Mr. Kaplan's property anything. Member Carpenter asked if there were not connectivity standards within the city that there be connections through Waterdale. Planner Shepard replied that we can only require the project that is in front of us at the time and hypothetically it would be Mr. Kaplan's parcel. The way we would require connectivity is we would require him to stub streets to his property line. Member Carpenter asked if actuality it would not have to connect. Planner Shepard replied not if we cannot successfully negotiate on the other side of the property line a connection. Member Torgerson stated that this clearly meets the requirements for annexation and he moved for approval of Waterdale, First Annexation and Zoning, #27-05A and the associated zoning as a recommendation to Council. Member Stockover asked for a friendly amendment stating because it is a recommendation to Council that he would like City Council to know that the Board does want them to pursue extending the agreement. Member Torgerson had a problem with that — the impact fees that the developer wishes to avoid paying and obviously will have to be passed on to the homes, fund Police Stations, Libraries, Parks and fund all the things that those that live out there utilize but don't pay for and he would not accept that friendly amendment. There was not a second so the motion died. Member Stockover moved to recommend the Waterdale, First Annexation and Zoning, #27-05A for approval with the understanding that city staff and Council are still going to try and negotiate an extension to the Power of Attorney that is in place but in risk of expiring. He also wanted to reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusion on Page 5 in support of the motion. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 18 Member Lingle commented for the record that the findings are very clear on what we evaluate an annexation on and it does not include whether bringing a property in is beneficial to the city in terms of tax generation on a drain on tax services. He thought that was clearly an area that should be left for City Council to discuss and he thought it was irrelevant at the Planning and Zoning Board level for this annexation and all the ones that may be coming forth in the future. Member Craig commented that with all the issues that are going to come up with the Southeast enclave, we are going to end up taking them piece by piece because they are going to come to the Board. What bothers her about this piece of property and she sees it also down in the southeast is yes, they pay impact fees, but it is proven when it is residential, for every dollar they pay to the city, it costs the city a dollar and a quarter to maintain them. What we are going to run into in the southeast as well what she really feels this little piece sitting out here is to maintain services out there is going to be more than the dollar and quarter. She wondered when we start taking in these little pieces of residential what the benefit of our doing it, so she is not going to support this. Member Carpenter would be supporting the motion. She appreciates all the residents coming out and encouraged them to talk to Council as well. When and if we end up with a development plan, come back and talk to them, they do want to here from them. She would just like the residents to understand that they certain criteria to go by and in this case it does meet all the criteria. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Project: Recommendation to City Council for an Amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Project Description: On May 19, 2005, The Planning and Zoning Board voted to approve the annexation of the Airpark Village but with a recommendation of Industrial zoning versus the applicant's preference for Employment zoning. The applicant has re -submitted a request for Employment zoning which requires an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Overlay Framework Plan. Planning and July 21, 2005 Page 19 Zoning Board Minutes Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave a staff presentation. He stated that this was a reconsideration of the Structure Plan Amendment request and subsequent recommendation to City Council for the zoning. It is not a continuation of the annexation and that is not an issue. That was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board to indeed be annexed. No one is contesting the annexation, what is up for consideration is the Structure Plan Amendment which would lead to the applicant's request that the entire site be placed into the Employment Zone versus the Industrial zone, which is what was recommended back in May. Chairperson Lingle asked if the annexation is proceeding, it has to have a zoning attached to it, so would it be I, Industrial. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that annexation. Unless the Structure Plan is accordance with the Structure Plan. it has to be zoned 90 days following the amended, it would have to be zoned in Troy Jones, MTA Architects gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that they were here tonight to present an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Last time they were in front of the Board they did not dive into a lot of detail because they had the annexation and zoning on the table at the time, as well as the Plan amendment. They tried not to show too much design that would be down the line in the development type of detail at the time of annexation and zoning. They thought that it would be important to clarify some things that they did not present last time the Board heard this project that is very relevant to why they feel it should be re -designated employment rather than industrial. Mr. Jones showed on a map the portion of their property that they would like to zone Employment rather than Industrial. He stated that in 2002 the East Mulberry Corridor Plan was adopted and in that Plan a Framework Plan was adopted. There were two scenarios; the first being the Framework Plan that assumed that the airport would stay in operation. The second plan acknowledged that if the airport were to stop operation, that the area should be treated as employment and not industrial. Mr. Jones showed the Framework Overlay Plan which showed in the event that the airpark would close and redevelop the area that would be appropriate for employment. He stated that their request was to piggyback onto that; the East Mulberry Corridor Plan already established that down by the intersection of Mulberry and Timberline that it would be appropriate for employment. What they wanted to do is include the 80 acres on the north part of their property that they would like to be employment rather than industrial. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 20 If the 80 acres were to be designated employment and not industrial, the ability to do some uses will be lost as a result of this change; heavy industrial, recycling facilities, recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage, outdoor storage, resource extraction processes and sales, junkyards, airport and airstrips, transport terminals and farm implement and heavy equipment sales. By making the change there are new uses that were not permitted in the industrial zone. Out of those he made a list that they would intend to do; private and public schools, convention and conference centers, lodging establishments and personal and business service shops as part of the ultimate development that you could not do in industrial. He also noted that there were more residential uses allowed in employment zone than in the industrial zone. They were only intending on doing mixed use dwellings units. There were several uses that are overlapped in what they intend to do that you could do in either one of the zones; mixed use residential units are allowed in both industrial and in employment. That is the only residential type that they are planning to use. He would be getting into the difference of how you can use them in each zone and that is part of the main reason why they want employment rather than industrial. It is also worth mentioning the last item on the list and that is heliports and helipads that are available in both zones. A lot of conversation previously was about whether it was appropriate to put employment to helipads and the impact that would have on the development. It was lost site of that you could put a new helipad in employment that is permitted and it was not really a zoning issue so much as a site planning issue of how do you buffer against that. Why do they want employment versus industrial? It boils down to two basic reasons. The first is that as part of the development, they would like to include a hotel and convention center and that is not allowed in industrial and it is allowed in employment. The second is that the mixed use dwellings are treated differently between the two zones. Mixed Use dwelling units in industrial; you can do them but you have to have fifty percent of your building or more be the non-residential use. The mixed -use dwelling unit has to be above the non-residential use on the ground floor. Basically you have a two-story building that has the first story non-residential, the second story residential. In employment it works differently and it works a lot better for what they intend to do. Residential is a secondary use in the employment zone. However, mixed use residential depends on how it is done to determine whether it is a primary or secondary use. If the mixed -use residential unit is above a primary use such as an office, that residential above it is counted as a primary use. If the residential use is above a secondary use, such as a restaurant or retail store or a convenience shopping center, then that residential counts as a secondary use. It is an equation that needs to be closely followed as the development goes through as to how much of that has qualified as primary and how much is secondary. The way that the intend to do it is quite a bit of their residential will be over primary uses, they were basically limited to all Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 21 of the secondary uses that qualify as such can be no more than 25% of the development plan. Mr. Jones explained that the Board received a copy of all their meeting minutes and all the stuff that the public sent in, the sign in sheets and everything of the multi -meeting process that they had. They rented a public room at the Ramada Inn and hosted meetings that they really tried to engage the public. They sent out mailings to 250 business owners in the vicinity and had a web site they encouraged people to go to and had a topic every month that they tried to engage the neighbors in to try and help shape the input of what was wanted next to them as they moved forward with this development. The East Mulberry Corridor Plan was an excellent effort as well, but it was more of a broad brush for a larger area. In their plan they are only talking about 150 acres out of the plan so they dived into a finer level of public participation, specific to a lot smaller area and that is why they feel they are not disregarding the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and there if much more information now because they have engaged the neighbors to the degree they have. They would like to call it a refinement of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan rather than saying that it was wrong in the first place. Mr. Jones talked about the amount of industrial land in the GMA and it totaled 1,901 acres. There is the airpark area, the New Belgium area; there is some off of North College, Riverside and quite a bit out by 1-25, some of which is Anheuser Busch property. Out of the 1900 acres, they are asking that 80 acres be taken out of Industrial and that represents about 4.2% of the Industrial designated land. Advanced Planning provided the information that 928 acres out of the 1900 acres are vacant right now, and their 80 acres represents about 8.7% of what is vacant. Mr. Jones spoke about the intensity of jobs. Industrial type jobs seem to be less concentrated than what you can do in employment. Their intent is to have mixed use buildings with some of them having residential on the upper floors and some of them having employment type uses on the ground floor. By going to employment allows them more efficient use of the land, more urban type of environment. The other thing is housing and jobs balance; ultimately with their development they want to have a research and development park as the primary anchor for this development, but at the same time they want to have a lot of mixed use residential units. Within the project they want to have this housing and job balance; having housing close to jobs is doing their part in reducing vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Jones stated that the last time they were before the Board there was quite a bit of discussion about helicopters and it ended up being a surprise what the issues related to helicopters were. Prior to that meeting, they had gone and talked to some of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 22 helicopter neighbors and started to figure out what are their needs and what are our needs. It did not occur to them that it was going to be as big of an issue with regards to changing to employment from industrial. They were not prepared to talk about helicopter issues last time and that is one of the main reasons they wanted to come back before the Board to follow up on what they have done since then to try and figure out how they can co -exist with the helicopter operators and what is the best solution for that. Obviously they are not going to make them 100% happy because they are used to being next to an airport, which is ideal if you are a helicopter operator. If there is any sort of development next to it, there is going to be some growing pains. They are gong to try and minimize that. Mr. Jones discussed the plan and stated that they were looking at right along the edge that is adjacent to the existing business and industrial park. They have analyzed where the three heliports currently out there are, two to the south and one to the north. They interviewed all three operators and tried to figure out what would make it easier for them to operate and co -exist with them. They came up with the idea of a safety zone where they don't put any buildings in and they don't put any big canopy trees in and they minimize the things that would conflict with helicopters taking off and landing. They do that along the areas where the helicopter pads would have access to. They want to work out a win win and they think that there is a workable solution, but because employment zone and industrial zone both allow heliports and helipads, they think it is more of a project development plan issue, or even an Overall Development Plan issue of how do you mitigate between the two. They feel that it is not a zoning issue at all since it is allowed in both zones and they wanted to represent that they are making all the efforts they can to come up with a win win. Alan Krcmarik, for the applicant testified that the proposed use could be a very viable economic generator for the community. The economy is going through a rough patch and for the past several years the city has been studying the ideas of economic vitality and sustainability. They took a look at the report put out by the EVSAG and this project as proposed ties right into that. They are looking at a research and development use relatively high density, a lot of jobs fit into this site. It could also fit into the concept of being a business cluster as outlined in the EVSAG report. The idea is to be a hub of transportation oriented research. He was also asked to develop financing tools, but that would be further down the road, they did include in the packet an appendix that summarizes potential economic activity. Mr. Krcmarik reviewed the appendix for the Board. Suzanne Durkin, representing the applicant stated that what they were talking about tonight is the first steps in the process and the questions before the board whether or not to amend the Framework Overlay Plan and City Structure Plan; is the amendment necessary and will it promote the public welfare, consistency with the Visions and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 23 Goals, Principles and Policies of City Plan. Is it necessary, and they have gone through the list of changes that would happen. There is an airport that is not longer going to be feasible after 40 years of operation. Heavy industrial is very unlikely on this site because of proximity to neighborhoods. This would allow a residential use that we see in other areas. Why do we need additional residential; look at Rigden Farms, they needed that residential in order to gain the momentum and the dollars it needed to put in the rest of it, it is no different here. We are talking impact to Airpark Village, what is it going to do for us if these amendments go through. We will be able to expand uses to include more residential, compatibility with the neighborhoods and uses that are essential to this new economic generator that we really need. It also permits uses that support the expansion of the city's central core, the downtown. This is a mixed use revitalization and economic growth project in a transitional area. It promotes public welfare by creating jobs and housing in balance with each other. It integrates with existing residential and it places new residential in proximity to shopping, recreation and employment. Does it meet the needs of the community; when they did the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, these are the things people talked about, better overall appearance in the area, more employers, and avoidance of big box developments, storage yards and industrial uses. New development that looks good based on sound design, principles and lots of landscaping. This is not a development that is looking to the city for handouts, they are going to be refining the site design and continue outreach to primary stake holders and they have a track record of going above and beyond that. The development will also include a financing plan in working in concert with other business owners along Mulberry to come up with ways to create that Mulberry Corridor that we have all dreamed about for so many years. PUBLIC INPUT Robert Dean, owns Front Range Helicopters spoke to the Board. He stated that there were many points about this and the first is the East Mulberry Corridor Plan assumed with the airport leaving that there would be no air traffic. That is not true and there will be a considerable amount of air traffic remaining. The employment zone allows schools, lodging and a considerable amount of residential with the plan that they are promoting. The other aspect is the intent is not the issue here; it is the zoning of the parcel. What they say may not come to pass, but it will be zoned employment with all these uses available. The consideration is how this air traffic is going to relate to the residential and other public intensive uses. They mentioned residential stacked so that would mean several floors up. If the Board saw the pictures of the industrial park they are one story buildings, maybe two. If start stacking building up it becomes more of an obstruction issue and certainly a noise issue. That will be an enhanced annoyance to anyone who lives there. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 24 Fie believes that someone on the Board made the comment that residential units cost more than they contribute through fees. If that is true then these residential units may not pay their own way. The reason they are down there at the airpark is because it was for aviation use. They are also down there because it is relatively inexpensive land and that is why many of the businesses are down there. The fact that it is industrial is not negative, it is positive in terms of attracting many businesses that serve the community. It is very difficult to get a new heliport. It may allow it, but if you try and run a heliport through the planning process, you will find out how many people want one next to them and it is not very many. The fact that they have heliports in existence means that they will continue to operate from them because the cost of relocating and the difficulty is considerable. He believes the city is charged with protecting their rights to operate their businesses. He thought they can continue to operate no matter how it is zoned, it is a matter of obstructions, egress and ingress, whether it is industrial or employment they can address those issues at the time of planning. He thought the issue with employment is protecting their rights to operate in terms of complaints that they are going to receive and protecting people who will move in there from the noise effect. Larry Hansen, founder and CEO of Century Helicopters stated that he came here in 1970 and brought the helicopter industry. They located at that time at the airport because it was an airport. All along he has never had many concerns about if the runway would go away that they would still have the ability to operate helicopters. With what they see now with the decisions that may be made by what is going to be placed next to them, it could create some problems and could put them out of business. They currently operate a multi -million dollar business and they employ 30 or more people at their facility. What is being proposed is "we think we can do this and we think we can do that'. We know what we can do, we are there and we are doing it. There are others there that are the same way. All they are asking that what ever decision that is going to be made, that they be accounted for and that some provision be made that will allow them to continue to operate without being hassled by their neighbors and forced out of business. In the last two weeks they have received multiple calls from the low income housing on the north side of the airport complaining about the helicopters. They have received calls over the years from a hotel located on Highway 14 owned by one of the principles of the airport for the helicopters making noise and bothering the people staying there. If you are going to try and put a hotel next to them, it probably will not work. Loren Maxey, Vice President of Community Airpark Corporation and the owner of the airpark. This is a privately owned facility and it was started in 1966 by a group of local aviators and has fortunately has been able to stay around for 40 years. For the last several years it has been declining and now has a negative cash flow and now has an opportunity to sell the airport to a developer. There are many factors for the negative Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 25 cash flow. The opportunity with the developer has arisen and the stock holders have chosen to accept their offer for the facility. Michael Hansen, General Manager of Century Helicopters and Avian Technologies, which is the manufacturer of aircraft accessories located at the airport as well. He stated that this was discussed at a previous meeting that the noise is a big complaint of theirs and that will continue as they build and expand their business. They have expanded the employment of their companies by 20% in the last month. Two years ago they doubled the size of their building and they hope to double the size of their building again. That will continue to add more helicopter traffic. The aviation industry is stronger than ever particularly since the terrorist attacks on 9/11. People no longer want to go to the airport and stand in line and go through security searches. Those people who can afford it start buying helicopters and airplanes. Avian Technologies is the number one leading supplies for infra red surveillance integration equipment with an aircraft. Their supplies include the FBI, Boarder Patrol and those types of entities. They fly their helicopters in from all over the United States to be worked on again increasing the amount of air traffic that they will have coming in and out of their facility as well as increasing the noise. As they expand their business he hoped the Board would recognize the fact that they are there and they are continuing to grow and this is not something that is just going to go away and they want to mitigate the noise complaints that they have already seen over the years. AJ Glaser, property owner at 200 Rome Court which is to the northeast of the airport. He was there to talk about process, he did not ultimately care that much about what was being proposed here, but he also really did not care that much about helicopters. What he did care about is his property. Over the 10 years he has been an owner out there, he has gotten a lot of post cards in the mail from the city saying that stuff is going on. He has gone to almost everyone of those meetings and some of the worst have been the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and also Dry Creek. What happened at those meetings is that you show up and they show you a plan and they say `oh this is the deal and if you want to complain we will listen to a couple of things" and the rest is a done deal. What was unique about this process what that he got his card and he thought "oh great here we go again", showed up and basically it was a blank piece of paper. There were forty or fifty people in the room and the developer says "what would you like us to do?" That started the process and from there the process developed for six months and over the course of time there seemed to be no agenda other than you as the neighbors saying what they would like to see this be. It was, in his opinion, a phenomenal process and is something that should be the rule for everyone to do. It bothered him to see this tonight which is almost negating everything that he thought they did. He went to everyone of those meetings because he thought what they were doing as the neighbors Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 26 giving input and participating meant something. He was not sure what is going on here. He did not see many people here tonight, but there were a whole bunch of people who showed up at those meetings. He thought what was presented here was the culmination of what they as a group said what they wanted as neighbors. He thought that the Board's job would be to say that the people spoke. PUBLIC INPUT Member Lingle asked the Helicopter owners that based on the applicants presentation of some ideas on how to allow for continued helicopter access with the safety zone and are they uncomfortable with that process. Mr. Hansen replied that they were still uncomfortable with the ideas. They show up at their doorstep at 3:30 this afternoon with this proposal and this is what we think we are going to do. That was three hours before this meeting. He found that to be a knee jerk reaction. Also, in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan there was a lot of foresight and a lot of effort and a lot of study put into the fact that this should be zoned industrial. The city of Fort Collins spent a lot of money doing this. They spent a lot of time and blood, sweat and tears trying to make this plan work. We need industrial, there was a plan put forth and there was a lot of effort put into it and we should stick to that plan. With industrial they feel they can operate within what the city has already put down what they would like to see this developed as. Member Carpenter asked if it was at all possible to have an employment district here and the kind of development we are talking about and still allow a way for them to operate, or to him, the two are completely incompatible. Mr. Hansen replied without being an expert at the employment zoning, he thought that the thing that concerns them about the employment zoning is the residential capacity that is being proposed, 1600 units. That is 1600 telephone calls he could get everyday and that is 1600 phone calls the city is going to get everyday. Their issue is the residential portion of the employment zoning. That is why the industrial zoning was put there because it is the most compatible with the neighboring land uses that already exist. The city foresaw that and that is why it is part of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Member Schmidt commented that she thought the plan has some innovative ideas and she thought that the concept is creative and part of that is good — if the helicopters and the other industrial were not there, if there were just employment adjacent to it something might work out very well, it just makes her nervous about where it is right now. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 27 Member Schmidt asked if their R and D plan that they have described mostly fit into the employment that is already there in the overlay plan. It looks like the R and D was going to be the first portion and the residential was going to be in the back. It sounds like the R and D is going to be the main economic driver. Mr. Jones replied that the R and D are intended to be on that end where it shows employment. R and D could go into Industrial to some degree but you could not put the hotel and convention center which needs to be a big component of that in Industrial. It is different but the same concept as Rigden Farm. You could not build the King Soopers first and expect the residential to come in. You need the critical mass of the other part of the development to get your anchor later. They need the employment all the way because they need the north end of their development to create the momenturr to bring along the south end of their development. It can't happen in Industrial on the north end to get that momentum going. Member Craig asked Mr. Jones that without the residential rooftops, the R and D Center will never come to fruition. Mr. Jones replied no, he thought they needed momentum. The momentum will happen in both the north end and the south end. To some degree yes, but to some degree he thought that was over simplification to say without the north end it will not happen. Ms. Durkin added that the market study that was done for this project indicates that right now there is no market. In order for them to get at least started to at least create this new R and D Center, is to start with some type of residential on the end that they are asking to be rezoned. From there they can build up the momentum and they are hoping that the majority will be the type of research and development that provides new jobs, the additional employment and the economic generator that we so desperately need right now in this community. Member Craig said so the market needs residential, so we fill the area with residential so people are already are there and then we create jobs for people who aren't there that need residential. To her this is backwards; to her you create the jobs first and then the area around that develops with houses, so the people can then have a place to live. Ms. Durkin replied that it is a balancing act right now. What they are looking to do is create the vision and the opportunity for people to understand that this is the type of development where you can work and live at the same time. It is hard to describe until we get down to the ODP as to where they are going to put that kind of emphasis. Mr. Jones added that they need this momentum early because they have all this infrastructure to pay for. They intend to establish a metro district or some sort of way to Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 28 pay for this parkway, but they need to start to sell property in order for that equation to keep rolling along. The north end of the property is the thing that is going to help that infrastructure take off and be able to be put in so when the national marking they are doing for the R and D park; they can come out and kick the tires and say they have the infrastructure in place. The north end of the development is proceeding nicely and it needs to happen in the chronology according to their calculations in order to make it work. Member Craig stated that there is a lot of vacant land around there that they could be involved in getting residential without them having to rezone this particular area. Have they looked at that at all? Mr. Jones replied they don't own any land there. They need to get this critical momentum going to pay for the infrastructure to get to draw their R and D park and they need the development itself to be diverse and have the initial sales of the north part of the development to pay for the infrastructure to put in the south part. Member Craig asked about the overlay employment and why could they not start putting residential in that to pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Jones replied that they asked the neighbors a lot of questions and one of the questions was residential appropriate. They got mixed answers and they got a lot of some residential was appropriate. They asked the neighbors what percentage of residential would be appropriate. They got some answers that some residential would be fine and some answers that said not residential. The majority said about 40% residential. Member Carpenter asked Mr. Jones to point out where the heliports were located. Mr. Jones responded by showing a slide of the heliport locations. Member Carpenter commented that there are some exciting things here but when you start marketing residential with the kind of helicopter traffic, she believed there would be a problem there. Member Lingle stated that with the intent to maximize the number of residential units that you can get on the site because they become primary uses instead of secondary uses smacks against the whole compatibility issue to the point where it does become a zoning issue not necessarily an ODP issue. He stated that it would be in the best interest of the city to have a mixed of residential and commercial uses would be ideal if this was not adjacent to county industrial development that already has the kind of uses Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 21, 2005 Page 29 it already has there and that is where the compatibility issue becomes much more important. Member Schmidt to not recommend approval of the annexation with the amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. They recommend that the annexation should stay with the present zoning. Planner Shepard added that the Board needed to define that they were referring to the Overlay Framework Plan which presumes the scenario that the airpark is closing which allows the southern 1/3 to go E and the northern 2/3 to remain in the I, Industrial. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig clarified the motion to be an amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan to the proposed amendment under the quotes of the Overlay Framework Plan. We are allowing the employment there at the intersection of Highway 14 and Timberline and the other section being left as Industrial. Member Schmidt clarified that they were amending the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the Structure Plan to what is in the Overlay Plan. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. These meeting minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 19, 2006.