HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCMURRY NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION & ZONING - 29-10 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board
November 18, 2010
Page 2
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the October 21, 2010 Planning & Zoning Hearings
2. McMurry Natural Area Annexation and Zoning, # 29-10
Member Carpenter moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Member Smith seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7:0.
Member Schmidt noted this is a voluntary annexation —the City being the owner and requesting it.
Usually the only time the Board might not approve an annexation is if the property/property owner being
annexed had valid reasons why they should not be annexed.
Discussion Agenda:
3. The Grove Project Development Plan, # 16-10A
Project: The Grove Project Development Plan, # 16-10A
Project Description: This is a request for a multi -family residential, student housing project containing
216 dwelling units in 11 residential buildings + 8 dwelling units and 1 manager's
unit in a clubhouse building. The site is located at the southwest corner of Centre
Avenue and existing Rolland Moore Drive, directly south of the Gardens on Spring
Creek, in the Centre for Advanced Technology. Rolland Moore Drive would be
realigned onto the southerly portion of the subject property and extended east,
from the existing terminus approximately 800 feet east of South Shields Street, to
connect with Centre Avenue just to the north of the Larimer No. 2 Canal. There
would be about 550 parking spaces on -site and 86 parking spaces on Rolland
Moore Drive. The property is 22.9 acres in size. It is located in the MMN - Medium
Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and E - Employment Zoning Districts.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Steve Olt said at their public hearing on October 21, 2010 the Planning & Zoning Board
moved and approved the requests for Modifications of Standards in Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall
Dimensions and Section 3.5.2(D) (2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. The Board denied the request for
Modification of Standard in Section 4.6(E) (1) Block Requirements. At tonight's meeting the Board will
deliberate and take action on the Applicant's request for a modification of the block standard requirement
in Section 4.6(E) (1) (a) Block Structure and The Grove, Project Development Plan. In addition, the
Applicant is requesting a modification of the standard in Section 3.5.2(C) Relationship of Dwellings to
Streets and Parking, which requires action by the Board.
Olt described the changes made to the proposal since the October 21 st meeting. He said staff makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
1. The PDP is in conformance with the approved Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced
Technology, ODP.
2. The proposed land use is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
District.
Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Campana, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Virata, Wempe, Schlueter, Stanford, and
Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review
Director Dush reviewed the agenda.
Citizen participation:
None
Chair Stockover asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any item from the
Consent Agenda.
Ben King, 1203 Harris Drive, has the property due north of the McMurray Natural Areas Annexation. His
concern is related to a letter he received which stated that no enclave was being established. Two of
four sides of his property will be adjacent to the annexed land. He's not interested in getting annexed to
the City. He asked if the annexation would increase the likelihood of him being annexed. Director Dush
said it would not increase the likelihood of annexation. His property already has the required 1/6th
contiguity so adding additional contiguity and not creating an enclave doesn't allow for a unilateral
annexation. If an enclave is created whereby his property is completely surrounded by the City (which it
is not in this case), only then after a period of years could a process be initiated to annex the property.
King asked if a process would still need to take place —it's not a "done deal". Dush said that's correct.
Member Schmidt said if at some point an enclave was being created, an annexation would follow. King
asked if the only way he could be forced into annexation is if he's surrounded —other than that it's his
choice. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that's correct. After 3 years of having been fully surrounded
by the City, then the City could annex you involuntarily.
King asked why the City was electing to annex at this time. Director Dush said the City wants to annex
the property to get it into one jurisdiction. It's currently in Larimer County. Our Natural Areas Program
manages that property now, but it's preferred to manage fewer than two sets of rules. Also, according to
an intergovernmental agreement if we have property within our Growth Management Area, we want to
get that property into the City limits. The City owns the property so they're initiating the annexation.
King said all his questions have been addressed and he did not want the item pulled from consent