Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREA ANNEXATION AND ZONING OCTOBER 16 1997 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING - 64 93D - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 8 Member Colton commented that he has concerns about the existing condition on that site and that they should be aware of it. Chairperson Bell concurred and wanted the comments regarding their concerns about the condition of the property forwarded to Council. Member Davidson commented that his concern is that this was a dangerous situation where someone can get a building permit and build within the County, then get annexed into the city after the fact when it is in the Urban Growth Area to begin with. He felt that both should happen simultaneously and both should have to come into the city or stay in the county. Not half and half. Member Colton felt this was unusual and that he was frustrated with the whole process. He did not know where the lack of trust came from, but he felt the applicant or the previous owner was trying to get around what City Plan was supposed to do, regardless of the assurances that they are getting. Chairperson Bell concurred and added and urged the neighborhoods to be strongly involved in this. She hoped that we could have a car dealership on College Avenue that sets a standard of excellence rather than the same old thing. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Interstate Lands Rezoning, #55-95C Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 121.8 acres located north of Prospect Road and west of 1-25 from the T, Transition Zoning District to the following districts: UE, Urban Estate (2.0 acres), LMN, Low -Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres), and E, Employment (104.1 acres). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested districts. Staff also recommends approval of a change to the City Structure Plan map designating a portion of the Interstate Lands property an employment district. Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Waido reviewed the Structure Plan Map for the Board Planner Waido stated that the focus of the staff report is the T, Transition Area, but the focus should be the whole 191 acres including the C, Commercial and the UE, Urban Estates area also. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 7 terms of sidewalks and gutter, this site is being developed with a 6 or 7 foot sidewalk along College, and to the best of his knowledge it has been designed toward compliance with the City Land Use Code. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant stated that they did not have a presentation tonight because this was a request for annexation. Mr. Ward stated that the unusual conditions on this site could be revisited at the time of the PDP application. Mr. Ward stated that this was the third or fourth attempt at annexing this site. The previous owner REA was not willing to complete annexation of the site without assurance of a specific use. They were not willing to annex the site and the buyer was not in a position to annex the site and sit on it and wait many months to see if they would be able to use it. The only way this could move forward with this use was to move ahead in the County. Mr. Ward stated that the applicants are coming forward in good faith and have kept contact open with the neighborhood. They have met with representatives of the neighborhoods several times and do have a neighborhood meeting scheduled in the near future. Public Input Paul Hefferon, property owner to the south, stated that they have been in contact with the owners of this property and would like to work along with them. He stated that they are also anticipating annexing in the near future. He stated that they are working with Spradley Barr for access through their site and have also voiced their concern with them regarding drainage. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked about the drainage issue that Mr. Hefferon discussed. Planner Olt replied that they are not prepared to discuss that until a plan is submitted and reviewed by the City. It should not be an issue at annexation. Member Weitkunat recommended approval of the annexation and recommend that the property be placed in the C, Commercial zoning. Also, that this property be excluded from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Member Weitkunat commented that this was a logical southernly flow of the city and was appropriate to put this property into the city limits and designate it commercial. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 6 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in the C, Commercial Zoning District. Staff is recommending that the property be excluded from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this property be placed on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Steve Olt, City Planner gave a staff presentation recommending approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the C, Commercial Zoning District. Also that the property be excluded from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Chairperson Bell asked for clarification of how this could be annexed if the property is currently being developed (on the back portion) in the County under a building permit review and the only part of the property that will be developed in the City is the front portion. Her concern is that only certain things will apply to only a portion of the property. Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that the car dealership was approved under County jurisdiction under a building permit review and it is now under construction. He strongly presumed that their vested right is in the County and that would give them the right to proceed with the building. They are also constructing, on the front portion, a parking lot, that was also approved through the County because that was all that was allowed under the County zoning, not a "car display area". Chairperson Bell asked if the parking lot will already be built under County Standards and the only thing that will happen when it is annexed, is the City giving them the opportunity to have a car dealership there. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that they could have a car dealership there anyway, but the front portion would be a parking lot for customer parking. Mr. Eckman's understanding is that they want to use it as a car display area and that would require them to come to the City for a PDP approval. They will be coming to the City to change the use from a parking lot to a car display/sales area. They are not applying for a change to the other 2/3 of the property. Director Blanchard stated that Chairperson Bell's concerns about sidewalk connections, etc. would be reviewed by the City under the County Referral process. The City is offered the opportunity to suggest site development standards and this was reviewed by the Planning and the Zoning Department and also the Engineering Department. In Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 1997 Page 5 Member Chapman commented that the neighborhoods are already having some traffic problems, and as the schools grow the problems will become worse. He felt that the City should keep track of what is going on with the traffic and to address the issues. Member Weitkunat commented that when it comes to school's we look at traffic in far more detail because of the safety issues with children. She was real concerned with the traffic around schools and the movement of people. She hoped that the School District would look at this more closely for future planning. Member Davidson commented that the record should show the Board's concerns with the left turn onto Timberwood Drive while there is a steady flow of traffic going up and down Corbett Drive for two hours. Also the fact that there is no light to stop them coming off of Harmony. Member Colton felt the Timberwood/Corbett intersection was a prime candidate for a round -a -bout. He also was concerned with the parking and how people get to it. He would also like to see a few trees and some landscaping near the rear of the school and he agreed with the walkway and bikeways to the school. Member Gavaldon was concerned with traffic and felt that the School District should take responsibility along with the City to bring in a complete plan. He felt the immediate problems should be addressed and not put off until the future. Chairperson Bell thanked the District for coming down and listening to the Board's comments. She proposed that the School District and the Board have another worksession to discuss some of the things like the Board discussed tonight so future projects could have more detailed information from them. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: REA Annexation and Zoning, #64-93D Project Description: Request to annex and zone 9.39 acres located on the west side of South College Avenue, south of Harmony Road and the Arbor Plaza Shopping Center, and n orth of Fossil Creek Nursery. The Burlington Northern Railroad is adjacent along the west property line. The property is developed and is in the Business and Commercial Zoning Districts in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City is C, Commercial.