Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LANDS REZONING - 55-95C - CORRESPONDENCE - REZONING RELATED DOCUMENTWe respectfully ask that the City Council drop the proposed condition from the Interstate Land Rezoning. Sincerely, JUr E t4- Stanley Whitaker Jr�vice President LGT Real Estate Advisors Inc. cc: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design Lucia Liley, March & Myatt • The proposed zoning condition is essentially a declaration that the New Land Use Code does not work; although it has not yet been used in any way applicable to this item. The two years of work by CPAC, Staff, City Council, and the greater community should not be summarily dismissed based on a five minute spontaneous discussion by P&Z. • There is no good reason to treat this property differently than other large parcels in the 1-25 Corridor study area. A number of other properties in the area - zoned E, Employment, C, Commercial, and/or I, Industrial by the City Council in March - are affected by flood plains, adjacent interstate interchanges, access limitations, existing County subdivisions, and other site design constraints. All these factors will be reviewed with the area plan for the 1-25 Corridor. It is inappropriate to discriminate against this property at this time. • To impose a "Type 2" review on all development proposals on this property would in fact create exactly the type of "...institutional barrier to prevent or limit the successful implementation of City Plan." that CPAC asked City Council to avoid in their February 21, 1997 memo recommending adoption of the Land Use Code. The promise of predictability and fairness were key elements of City Plan as it was presented to all members of the community. The proposed zoning condition in question - likely a precursor of conditions to be placed on other properties - would be a breach of faith with CPAC and the greater community. We are also concerned with the P&Z review procedure. The zoning condition was added to the P&Z recommendation by a Board Member who we feel should not have participated in the hearing or the vote on this matter; and who should not have lobbied against the proposal at the Board's work session on the previous Friday. As an affected property owner within the notification area, Sally Craig has consistently opposed planning applications by Interstate Land, citing perceived impacts on her neighborhood. She was the only person to speak in opposition to the applicant's zoning request last March; and at the October 21" Council Hearing. We should have been entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board. We feel that was not possible with Ms Craig's active participation as a Board Member at both the work session and the public hearing. Please understand that we are committed to addressing the development planning issues raised. However, the appropriate time to address those issues is with the ODP, and as part of the 1-25 Corridor Plan, not with the proposed, ill-conceived, zoning condition. LGT Asset Mar. ament A Member of Liechtenstein Global Trust LGT Real Estate Advisors Inc. Stanford Plaza Fort Collins - 970-223-3933 3555 Stanford Road Denver - 303-440-3433 Suite 100 Longmont - 303-651-6336 Fort Collins, CO Facsimile - 970-223-4671 80525 October 29, 1997 City of Fort Collins City Council P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Council Members; During your consideration of first reading of the Interstate Land Rezoning, additional information regarding the condition included in the P&Z recommendation - that all uses proposed on this property be subject to the "Type 2" review process - was requested. In order to make an informed decision on Second Reading , the following items should be clarified: • The C, Commercial district at Interstate Land, as established by the City Council is not proposed to be changed, and should not be included in any zoning condition. It was clarified at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting that the changes in zoning requested include only areas west of the C, Commercial area. • On July 24" a neighborhood meeting was held to review our zoning request. We revised the proposed zoning pattern as requested by the neighbors. As a result, there was no neighborhood opposition at the October 161h P&Z Meeting. • At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the suggested zoning condition was added after the public hearing was closed; so that neither City Staff nor our consultant had an opportunity to respond to the condition. It was not made clear to the P&Z Board that the planning concerns indicated as reasons for the condition, will be reviewed with the ODP on the property. At that time, these concerns can be reviewed based upon factual information, rather than the spur of the moment conjecture that created the proposed zoning condition. The important point is, the planning concerns raised by P&Z can and will be addressed; without the need to initiate the undesirable practice of conditional zoning.