Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTATE HIGHWAY 14, EAST FRONTAGE ROAD - ANNEXATION & ZONING (RESUBMITTAL) - 20-00B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning 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 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, #20-00113. 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 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 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 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. Hearing 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-OOB 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. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 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 19`h 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, 51h 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.