Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST SKYWAY REZONING - 19-07 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGLI • Not only inconsistent with structure plan, it is inconsistent with the history of the properties. Need to furnish history to P&Z and Council. The history of the properties which is clearly a rejection of commercial use consistently and over time, and much of it could have been controlled by the City. • What happens if approved?? What uses are allowed without review and meeting city standards? Existing residence should be included in RL. Are building codes compliant for commercial use? Neighborhood Meeting Comments Page 3 August 30, 2007 Are the existing buildings on 209 Skyway compliant w/commercial use standards? Supports change as proposed In support of change The following comments were forwarded the next day by one of the property owners who attended the meeting: My concern is the migration of commercial zoning to the east. Existing structure plan zoning seems appropriate to me. If we are going to allow commercial east of Kelmar Strip, then all properties on the east side of the future Aran street should have the same opportunity to be commercial. I am very troubled by code compliance. It always slips its way into the discussion when staff states the business can continue. It is the use by right of home occupation as defined by the Larimer County Land Use Code that continues, not the current zoning violations on the property. Staff cannot simply say the business use can continue. Need a code compliance expert at P&Z and Council. The Whitman's want to be developers and it is not about their small business. Developers must pay their own way. I believe it is inappropriate for staff to process this zoning change. It is not in the best interest of the City. The property owners should be doing it. Staff talks about a better transition along Skyway. What is wrong with what is there, which is exactly what was planned (except for the zoning violations). a Why is 225 E Skyway included??? Its use is legal and conforming, so why include it? Why are properties to the south not included??? The proposal is a patchwork of zoning, inconsistent with the structure plan. Will proposed zoning changes create a change in condition that allows other zoning changes? Why do this now? Why not wait for the South College Corridor Plan? Neighborhood Meeting Comments Page 2 August 30, 2007 Attachment No. 5 East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning — File # 19-07 Summary of Neighborhood Meeting Held on August 30th, 2007 A neighborhood meeting was held on August 30`h, 2007 for the East Skyway Plan Amendment and Rezoning item. The meeting was held at the Montessori School located at 225 East Skyway Drive beginning at 7:00 p.m. In addition to two City staff, 6 property owners attended the meeting. The following comments were recorded: The two long-term existing businesses located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive are good neighbors and I have no objections to the proposed amendments. I would like to see them continue in business and support whatever they want. We don't need any more additional hoops and City requirements to regulate existing businesses out of town. Why not focus on Kelmar Strip commercial businesses? • What is the rezoning going to improve in the area? • Is the City initiating the amendment and rezoning? • What do we want the alley for? What happens with the garages on that alley? • The existing businesses do not need City intervention — leave them alone. • Is the small engine repair business legal as operated today? Is outdoor storage allowed with existing zoning? • Why do we need commercial east of Aran Street? For 209 Skyway, any change of use would trigger a development application. Why not address vacant properties to south? P & Z Board and Council should get history of 209 Skyway actions I have a fear of addressing these individual properties w/o comprehensive plan — appears patchwork Does this rezoning set a precedent?