HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND - ODP - 49-02A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCIL (3)2. Only non-residential secondary uses should be limited in the Employment
and Industrial Districts.
Staff does not agree with this concern and will continue to recommend the land use
restrictions prohibiting all secondary uses in the Employment and Industrial Districts
from locating.in close proximity to I-25, as discussed above. Prohibiting residential uses
from locating in close proximity to I-25 helps protect residents from the negative noise
impacts of traffic on the highway and reserves the Employment and Industrial Districts
for primary job creating land uses.
3. The Activity Center at the northwest corner of Prospect and I-25 should
be enlarged.
This was a potential solution to the concern expressed in # 1 above. Staff does not agree
that the Prospect interchange Activity Center needs to be expanded and offers the
solution to use the center -line measurement as suggested in #1 above.
4. Areas west of I-25 that are zoned LMN should not be subject to the UE
"cluster" requirements.
The UE cluster requirements to not apply to LMN zoned areas located either east or west
of I-25. There is no cluster development option in the LMN zone. The cluster
development requirement only applies to UE zoned areas located more than 11/4 mile, but
less than ''/z mile from I-25.
5. The Subarea Plan should not be applicable to properties that have made
application for an ODP or PDP prior to the effective date of adoption.
Although the subarea plan is applicable to all properties within its boundaries, it is not a
regulatory document. Applications for an ODP or PDP are subject to the Land Use Code
provisions in effect at the time of such application. The City is required to comply with
the state's Vested Property Rights Act which provides that:
"...an application for approval of a site specific development plan ... shall be
governed only by the duly adopted laws and regulations in effect at the time the
application is submitted to a local government."
August 19, 2003.
Memorandum
TO: Mayor Martinez and City Council Members
TH: John Fischbach, City Manager
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Department Director
FM: Ken Waido, Chief Planner
RE: Western Property Advisors, Inc. Concerns with the I-25 Subarea Plan
The City Council has received a letter from Western Property Advisors, Inc., listing
several concerns with the I-25 Subarea Plan. The purpose of this memorandum is to
present staff responses to the concerns.
1. Measurement of the '/. mile restricted area should be measured from the
centerline of I-25.
On Thursday August 14, staff met with representatives of Western Property Advisors,
Inc., property -owners of land at the northwest corner of the 1-25/Prospect Road
interchange. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the I-25 Subarea Plan's policy
and development requirements restricting secondary uses, that include commercial and
residential uses, in the E, Employment and I, Industrial, zoning districts from locating
within'/4 mile of the I-25 right -of way. When reviewing the approved Overall
Development Plan (ODP) for the property, staff realized the proposed policy and
development restrictions would have unintended consequences on the development plans
for the property. The focus of the concern was with the location of the rerouted frontage
road through the property and where the measurement of the '/4 mile distance would
commence.
After reviewing the property -owners concerns, staff believes the solution to the problem
is to change the '/4 mile measurement from the edge of the I-25 right -of —way to the
center -line of I-25. So, instead of stating the restricted distance as'/4 mile (1,320 feet)
from the edge of the right-of-way, the distance should be stated as 1,445 feet (1,320 feet
+ 125 feet [one-half of the 250 feet of I-25 right-of-way]) from the center -line of I-25.
Staff will make the changes to be included in the second reading of the ordinance
adopting I-25 Corridor Development Regulations.