HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEW NOTE PARTNERSHIP FIRST ANNEXATION & ZONING - 5-89, A - REPORTS - FIRST READINGAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 20 a-c
DATE: March 21, 1989
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Albertson -Clark
SUBJECT:
Items Relating to New Note Partnership First Annexation and Zoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and adoption of the Ordinances
on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 89-59 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding New Note Partnership First Annexation.
U/ C' B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 40 , 1989, Annexing
lit Approximately 149.8 Acres Known as New Note Partnership First Annexa-
tion.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 41 , 1989, Zoning
Approximately 149.8 Acres Known as New Note Partnership First
Annexation, into the IL Limited Industrial District, with a planned
unit development condition.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 149.8 acres, located east
of Hewlett-Packard and north of Harmony Road. The requested zoning is the
IL Limited Industrial District.
APPLICANT: New Note Partnership OWNER: Same
c/o Jack Blake, Managing Partner
P. 0. Box 429
Fort Collins, CO 80522
The applicant and owner, New Note Partnership, has submitted a written
petition requesting annexation of approximately 149.8 acres, located east
of Hewlett-Packard and north of Harmony Road. This is a voluntary
annexation.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and
Larimer County contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT
COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, the City will annex property in the UGA when the
property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property
gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common
DATE: March 21, 1989 -2- 1 ITEM NUMBER: 20 a-c
boundary with the Harmony 5th Annexation to the west and the Stute #1
Annexation to the south. The requested zoning for this annexation is the
IL, Limited Industrial District. The IL District designation is for light
industrial uses. Given the property's location adjacent to I-25 and its
proximity to the Harmony Road interchange, the eventual development of
industrial and commercial land uses is probable. According to the City's
Land Use Policies Plan, industrial and commercial uses should locate near
transportation facilities that offer adequate access without creating
demands which exceed the capacity of the existing transportation network,
and in areas where adequate utilities can be provided. This site addresses
these locational policies. State law requires that within ninety days of
when property is annexed, it is given a zoning designation. The proposed
zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the existing
zoning in the area. There are no immediate development plans for the
property.
FINDINGS:
The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and
agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins
contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN
GROWTH AREA.
2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a
voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
3. The requested IL Limited Industrial District is in conformance with the
policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board heard this request at its regular monthly
meeting on March 6, 1989 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the
annexation and the IL Limited Industrial Zoning, with a planned unit
development condition.
0
RESOLUTION 89-59
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE NEW NOTE PARTNERSHIP FIRST ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated for property
to be known as the New Note Partnership First Annexation; and
WHEREAS, following Notice given as required by law, the City Council
has held a hearing on said Annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the petition for
annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that there is at least
one -sixth (1/6) contiguity between the City and the property seeking
annexation; that a community of interest exists between the property
proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will be
urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or
is capable of being integrated with the City.
Section 3. That the City Council further determines that the
applicable parts of said Act have been met, that an election is not
required under said Act, and that there are no other terms and conditions
to be imposed upon said annexation.
Section 4. That the City Council further finds that notice was duly
given and a hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with
said Act.
Section 5. That the City Council concludes that the area proposed to
be annexed in the New Note Partnership First Annexation is eligible for
annexation to the City of Fort Collins and should be so annexed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of
Fort Collins held this 21st day of March, A.D. 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
ty Cler
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 40, 1989
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
NEW NOTE PARTNERSHIP FIRST ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 89-24, finding substantial compliance and
initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the
Council of the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has found and
determined and does hereby find and determine that it is in the best
interests of the City of Fort Collins to annex said area to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the following described property, to wit:
A tract of land situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 33
and the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, all of Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which
considering the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said
Section 34 as bearing N 00°09'27" W and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto is contained within the
boundary lines which begin at the Southwest corner of said
Section 34 and runs thence N 00°09'27" W 150.00 feet to the True
Point of Beginning; thence along the North ROW line of State
Highway 68 N 88°32'42" W 469.00 feet to the Northeast corner of
Stute Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado;
thence N 84°03'25" W 201.00 feet; thence N 89°46'03" W 400.00
feet; thence S 84°31'19" W 130.74 feet; thence N 17°22'44" W
208.32 feet; thence N 22°14'01" W 500.00 feet; thence
N 36°59101" W 200.00 feet; thence N 32°29'01" W 400.00 feet to
the Northeast corner of the Harmony Annexation No. 4 to the City
of Fort Collins, Colorado, which point lies on the North line of
the South one-half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33;
thence S 89°45'25" E 1782.26 feet to the Northeast corner of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33;
thence N 00°09'27" W 1123.12 feet; thence S 89047'40" E 2181.88
feet to a point on the West ROW line of Highway I-25; thence
along the arc of a 5565.00 foot radius curve to the right a
distance of 1028.04 feet, the long chord of which bears
S 07031'02" E 1026.58 feet; thence S 02013'31" E 556.05 feet;
thence S 13041'34" W 165.61 feet; thence N 89°50'27" W 715.52
feet; thence S 00°09'33" W 560.50 feet; thence N 89050'26" W
1575.18 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 149.7863 acres.
be, and hereby is, annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of
said City, to be known as the New Note Partnership First Annexation.
0
0
• Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City of Fort
Collins, the City of Fort Collins does not assume any obligation respecting
the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service
lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the
property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the
City of Fort Collins.
Section 3. That the City of Fort Collins hereby consents, pursuant to
Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the
Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered
published this 21st day of March, A.D. 1989, and to be presented for final
passage on the 4th day of April, A.D. 1989.
ayor
ATTEST:
ity Cler
Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of April, A.D. 1989.
isATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
0
0
ORDINANCE NO. 41, 1989
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES
THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE
NEW NOTE PARTNERSHIP FIRST ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning District Map adopted by Chapter 29 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, changed and
amended by including the property known as the New Note Partnership First
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the I-L Limited
Industrial District:
A tract of land situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 33
and the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, all of Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which
considering the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said
Section 34 as bearing N 00°09'27" W and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto is contained within the
boundary lines which begin at the Southwest corner of said
Section 34 and runs thence N 00°09'27" W 150.00 feet to the True
Point of Beginning; thence along the North ROW line of State •
Highway 68 N 88°32'42" W 469.00 feet to the Northeast corner of
Stute Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado;
thence N 84"03'25" W 201.00 feet; thence N 89°46'03" W 400.00
feet; thence S 84°31'19" W 130.74 feet; thence N 17°22'44" W
208.32 feet; thence N 22°14'01" W 500.00 feet; thence
N 36059'01" W 200.00 feet; thence N 32°29'01" W 400.00 feet to
the Northeast corner of the Harmony Annexation No. 4 to the City
of Fort Collins, Colorado, which point lies on the North line of
the South one-half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33;
thence S 89°45'25" E 1782.26 feet to the Northeast corner of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33;
thence N 00°09'27" W 1123.12 feet; thence S 89°47'40" E 2181.88
feet to a point on the West ROW line of Highway I-25; thence
along the arc of a 5565.00 foot radius curve to the right a
distance of 1028.04 feet, the long chord of which bears
S 07031'02" E 1026.58 feet; thence S 02013'31" E 556.05 feet;
thence S 13041'34" W 165.61 feet; thence N 89°50'27" W 715.52
feet; thence S 00009'33" W 560.50 feet; thence N 89050'26" W
1575.18 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 149.7863 acres.
Section 2. That the zoning granted herein is expressly conditioned
upon the entire above -described property being developed as a planned unit
development in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins.
0
Section 3. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed
to amend said Zoning District Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered
published this 21st day of March, A.D. 1989, and to be presented for final
passage on the 4th day of April, A.D. 1989.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of April, A.D. 1989.
ATTEST:
ity Cler
•
Mayor
•
HORSETOOTH r77 -- -----
ti i
0
O
cc
4k,� - - -- -
I.
•:•••:
HARMONY ROAD .•r.'ti.
by
o
m
� Q
ITEM NEW NOTE PARTNERSHIP
NUMBER Est Annexation &Zoning 5-89,
2nd Annexation &Zoning 6-89, 0
U L;11 W U� U LUJ
•
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
OF CONTINUED ITEMS
MARCH 6, 1989
NEW NOTE #1 ANNEXATION AND ZONING
NEW NOTE #2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING
Sherry Albertson Clark gave a combined summation of the projects. She noted
that staff recommended approval of the requested annexation and IL zoning
district with a condition that a unified PUD Master Plan be submitted and
approved by the Board prior to any development of the site. She stated that
there was an additional staff memo to address the concerns expressed by the
Board at worksession. It also suggested four options which could be considered
by the Board.
Member Walker asked for a description of surrounding areas.
Ms. Clark used the vicinity map to point out the surrounding areas and the
zoning designation. She pointed out the residential area to the west and the
location of the Poudre River.
Eldon Ward, represented the applicant. He stated that the site contained part of
the Poudre River Floodplain. He believed that only half of the property was
developable. The applicant would like some certainty of allowed uses. The
applicant would like to have the option of the IL and IP zone process. It
would respond better to the proposed uses. He noted projects in the area
which did not have to go through the PUD process. He believed the condition
needed further discussion. He said that a letter was sent to the Board which
stated that a Master Plan was a good compromise. After review of the staff
memo, the applicant still was unsure, how detailed the condition should remain.
Member Walker asked how the area near the Poudre River might be developed.
Mr. Ward stated that at the moment, the floodway still needed to be
determined. He thought that the area adjacent to the river would not be
developed except for the trail corridor. He said the ponds, which had been
mined in the past, were examined for possible reshaping to enhance
attractiveness. He stated that they could give a better idea of development
when the floodway was established. He estimated that would take six months.
The applicant wished to be annexed prior to the increase in REA rates.
Member Groznik asked if the applicant had had any conversations with those
involved in the Poudre River Study.
0 Mr. Ward did not believe anyone had spoken with them.
J
U
Member Edwards asked if the annexation and zoning could be dealt with
separately.
Mr. Ward said yes. He stated that the applicant was familiar with the current
county zoning and land uses and would like to know how they would be
effected by the City's zoning and uses before they were annexed.
Mr. Eckman noted that the zoning would not have to happen with the
annexation but would have to occur within 90 days of the annexation.
Member Kern asked how the City's zoning would differ from the County's
zoning.
Mr. Ward stated the only difference was the use by right versus the PUD
process.
Member Kern would not want to zone the property for other than commercial
uses, but his concern was that Harmony Road would continue to be developed
as it was in other developments along Harmony. He believed the concerns
were that the City maintain an appropriate gateway on one of the City's more
developable entryways.
Mr. Ward asked if the condition could be dependent upon review of the
streetscape plans. Based on the projects that the W.W. Reynolds Company has
worked on, he saw no disparity of intent. He believed if a Harmony Corridor
Study could be done by the city, then future projects could comply with the
guidelines. He stated that they could respond to those concerns and believed
the IL to be compromise of proposed zonings on the site.
Mr. Peterson pointed out the importance of Harmony Road as a gateway. This
was the reason for the condition. The condition was an attempt to provide the
necessity for any developments to meet certain standards and conditions. He
stated that there will be similar development proposals in the future.
Mr. Eckman stated that a zoning with the PUD condition was the more simple
process. He hoped the condition would not limit land uses, but outlined how
the uses would appear when built. He said the first part of the condition was
information needed for submittal and the second paragraph outlined the review
and approval process by the Board.
Member Kern agreed with the Master Plan concept.
Member Walker believed this could be a process, but would not like to shorten
the process time by going around the PUD procedure.
Member Kern asked staff what would be the criteria by which staff judged
whether or not to put on a condition. If the criteria was not fully developed,
then the Board had no basis for judgement.
Ms. Clark replied that the criteria would be based on property location,
surrounding land uses, and existing residential zoning.
-2-
•
0 1—
r1 7 •
L���T
Member Kern asked if there would other projects along Harmony Road which
could require the same treatment.
Mr. Peterson answered yes.
Member Walker asked if the Harmony Corridor could be developed by a PUD
process and the remainder by a master plan process. He would not be sure
that conditions on a master plan could address concerns and would like to
review each PUD on that part of the property.
Mr. Peterson stated that Member Walker's comments could be made into a
condition.
Chairperson O'Dell had concerns as to the view offered by this site to persons
on 1-25, which was adjacent to the property.
Ms. Clark stated that staff reviews all annexation and zonings in much the
same way and does not always recommend a PUD condition on the zoning, as
the uses are fairly specific. She said that in this case, an IL with a master
plan condition would accomplish the concerns of staff.
Mr. Ward pointed out that in an IL Review, the Board would review the
subdivision plat and major street landscaping would be included on that plat.
Member Edwards voiced concerns that the applicant wanted to avoid the PUD
process.
Mr. Ward stated that the applicant did not wish to get out of the PUD process,
but would like to know the land uses allowed. In the IL process, the specific
uses were determined, while in a PUD process, it was uncertain.
Mr. Peterson noted an IL site plan would create a vested right and the plans
would be reviewed at a public meeting.
Member Kern stated that given the surrounding area, he could not imagine the
need for a neighborhood meeting and given the uses permitted, he could not
see the uncertainty expressed by the applicant.
Mr. Ward said that with a PUD, you don't have the use until Board acts upon
the proposal.
Member Walker had concerns that the applicant felt the PUD process took too
long and the Board was expected to remedy this situation. He believed that
they were asked to create a policy on an alternate approach to annexation and
zoning. He agreed that a master plan with street design specifications would
be fine, but he was not comfortable with a new policy.
Ms. Clark gave staff report and stated that staff recommended approval with
the condition that unified PUD Master Plan be submitted and approved by the
Board prior to any development of the site. She noted additional wording by
the City attorney in the condition.
-3-
Member Kern asked how the site plan for IL-IP was different from PUD.
Ms. Clark
stated the PUD site
plan requirements, such as landscape, setback,
elevations
are also required on
IL-IP. With
a PUD, the staff could negotiate
on things,
such as setbacks, etc.
The IL-IP
Review dealt with City Code and
staff could
not go beyond those
guidelines.
The added condition would require
more specific and restrictive guidelines than
what the Code required.
Member Kern asked if the master plan would have the guidelines necessary for
development.
Ms. Clark replied yes and that the plans could be reviewed by staff at
submittal and brought to the Board.
Member Kern asked about amended master plans.
Ms. Clark stated that any amended master plans would come to the Board.
Bill Swets, a county resident, had concerns that the Boxelder Ditch would be
affected by the development of the property and that in turn would affect
their farms and other farms in the area. He believed any paving could cause
Boxclder Ditch and Arthur Lateral to overflow and damage irrigation systems.
Ms. Clark explained that with any review, the storm drainage department
would analyze the site based on the proposed development. She noted that any
ditch located on a development site required a signature of approval on the
final utility plan by a representative of the ditch company, prior to
finalization of any plans. She said this gives the irrigation company a chance
to make sure there are no negative impacts.
Member Groznik stated that if staff had 15-20 projects with varied guidelines,
how effective will the review be.
Mr. Eckman stated that if they review each project as it comes along, they will
end up with the plethora of these zonings, each with different criteria and
will be a difficult administrative problem in the future.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that Staff frequently reviews projects with design
guidelines attached. It is not an undue administrative burden but did require
work. He did agree with Mr. Eckman and one possible way to address this
situation would be to create an ordinance to deal with these applications.
Chairperson O'Dell asked Ms. Clark to explain what type of development was
allowed in the floodplain areas.
Ms. Clark stated no permanent structures were permitted in the floodway and
the Storm Drainage Board did review variance requests for different types of
construction uses in floodplains. The study underway to determine the actual
floodplain will give better direction in terms of development.
Chairperson O'Dell asked how the wetlands would be treated.
-4-
•
Mr. Peterson noted the wetlands located on the site, werw along the Poudre
River and the artificial pond, created by gravel mining. He stated these areas
would be reviewed closely.
Chairperson O'Dell asked if a warehouse -type development would be allowed
along the River.
Ms. Clark responded by stating that the wetlands would be protected. Any
development impacts would be reviewed to determine if mitigation would be
appropriate.
Member Kern believed it was appropriate to annex the property but asked if
the site should be given a T-Transition zone and wait for an ordinance to
create guidelines. He suggested a worksession to discuss such an ordinance.
Member Burns had concerns about how the guidelines were developed and
applied. He stated he would favor a worksession to develop the idea in more
detail.
Member
Walker had concerns about
the treatment of the Poudre
River
Floodway
and the Harmony Road site.
If the site
could be developed
under
the IL Zone to everyone's satisfaction,
then either
a master plan with
detail
regarding
Harmony Rd. frontage or a
PUD condition for the strip
along
Harmony
and the remaining an IL site review could
be pursued.
Mr. Peterson
stated that an 80' strip was
appropriate
along Harmony Rd.
•
Member Walker did not believe the Board was concerned about the whole site
and it's development, just the Harmony Rd. frontage.
Member Edwards was concerned about the whole Harmony Rd. corridor process
and the River corridor.
Member Kern believed the applicant had some certainty in regards to the use.
Chairperson O'Dell asked if the applicant's wish was to make this a
competitive piece of property and wondered if the Board was giving an unfair
advantage, as they had not reviewed similar projects such as this.
Mr. Ward cited properties which were reviewed under these rules and stated
that many annexations were zoned with a unified master plan and not a PUD.
He believed it was hard to develop an industrial area with a PUD, as the
tenants were unknown.
Member Kern pointed out that even when building a home, it was necessary to
make it attractive so it would sell. In an industrial area, it was less expensive
to put up a plain box. It was a concern that the proposal be attractive.
Mr. Ward stated that they are searching for the necessary quality control
without going through the whole PUD process.
-5-
LJ,
Member Edwards asked the applicant if he was agreeable to the master plan
condition.
Charles Dean, W.W. Reynolds Company, stated that he would like specifics
relative to land uses. He noted the constraints caused by the floodplain and
Poudre River and believed that they would be coming back with PUD projects.
He believed there were concerns on how the Poudre corridor was going to be
developed. If annexed, they could dedicate the corridor to the City and let
the City deal with it. It was in a floodway and undevelopable from the
standpoint of warehouses. If the property was purchased, mitigation relative to
the floodway will need to be done in trying to channelize the waters to
salvage the site. He stated the other concern was to have some assurance
everything will turn out alright. He said that one of their concerns was that
as Boardmembers change, what was agreed upon originally may not be
interpreted the same way in the future. In regards to the concern about time
frame, the uncertainty of the outcome was why they did not want to deal with
PUD, but would probably deal with the PUD process from time to time. He
would be agreeable to a master plan and covenants as staff has recommended.
He will not be ready until a better understanding is achieved as to what kind
of property can be salvaged out of the 240 acres due to the floodline.
Member Edwards asked which are industrial sites along Harmony with Master
Plan provision?
Mr. Peterson clarified that the applicant had the property under contract. They
were exploring the development potential of the property. They were not the
property owners and the contract will expire if they decide it does not meet
their particular needs.
Member Kern believed the developer wanted the security of use by right. If
the property was zoned IL or IP with a PUD condition, he would be assured
of all these uses. He could not see why a new policy should be made tonight.
Mr. Frank thought the Oak Cottonwood Farm was zoned RLP with a master
plan requirement and possibly the Oakridge development had mixed zoning
with a PUD requirement. He said many of the PUDs that had a unified
Master Plan have been residential. He stated the Anheuser Busch property was
zoned IG with a PUD condition but with a unified master plan requirement.
He stated there have not been many recent IL or IP zonings, mostly PUDs.
Member Burns asked if areas along Prospect Street, Prospect East Park and
Seven Lakes Industrial Park zoned with a Master Plan condition?
Mr. Frank stated he couldn't recall if Prospect East was. Seven Lakes was
zoned with a PUD condition, which required a Master Plan.
Mr. Peterson noted that the first 400-600 feet of Prospect East had a PUD
condition on it.
!M
Mr. Frank stated that Vipont wanted to do a Master Plan for the entire site.
He stated that the first use on the south side of Prospect came in as a PUD
and subsequent phases of the development have been done under administrative
review of the IP-IL districts.
Mr. Peterson stated the Tiley piece on Timberline where a Fish and Wildlife
Service building was propsoed came in as a PUD, while another portion of it
in the back of the property, the CBW application, came in as an IL plan
review. He suggested holding a worksession to discuss these issues, because
staff at this point will need guidance from the Board.
Member Edwards noted that whatever precedent was established by way of a
compromise position, it will create the model for what transpired in the future
with other properties.
Member Kern stated his inclination would be first to annex and then either
zone it T or IL with a PUD condition. The Board could always lower that
but you can never turn it the other way. He believed this gave the developer
the assurance that it will develop with a list of uses and gave him a sellable
product.
Member
Kern moved to
recommend approval of
the New Note First
Annexation to City Council.
Member Walker seconded
the motion. The motion
passed 7-0.
Member
Kern moved to reco
end approval of the
New Note First Zoning
of IL to
City Council, with
it condition., t
ma--stef-plan be
appreed
pmen"f-thv—site. Member Walker
seconded
the motion.
is
Chairperson O'Dell asked if the meeting should be continued in order to
discuss with staff the zoning and possible ordinances.
Member Edwards asked that the worksession consider different guidelines.
Mr. Peterson stated that the first reading of the annexation would take place
on March 21 and second reading on April 4, so any recommendation would
need to be done prior to April 4.
Chairperson O'Dell asked if the Board could look at this at the regularly
scheduled meeting in April.
Mr. Peterson stated yes and that the Board could also schedule a worksession.
Motion passed 6-1. Mr. Burns in the negative.
Member Walker moved to recommend approval of the New Note Second
Annexation to City Council. Member Groznik seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0.
-7-
Member Groznik moved to recommend approval of the New Note Second
Zoning of IL to City Council with aPiVndition, th�f—*--�n+fle AjD-_master plan
be anncnp�i� rhP Board_prior to And dp�pinpment nf rti- - e. Member Kern
seconded the motion.
Chairperson O'Dell thought the decision was based on the applicants belief that
the PUD process was too lengthy and would like to recommend guidelines for
the entrance to the City.
Member Groznik stated the applicant would probably come before the Board
with a PUD application, so he did not believe the applicant should be further
burdened, hence his motion.
Member Walker believed the issue was the appearance of the entryway and
there was no other way except a PUD. The Board was restricted to the
recommendation.
Member Edwards said the Board had expressed a desire to develop guidelines
to expedite the matter so the developer would have direction as to how
development along Harmony Road streetscape would occur in the entryway
areas.
Member Kern agreed that the Board desired attractive development in that
area.
Motion passed 6-1. Mr. Burns in the negative.
Koldeway Annexation and Zoning
Member Kern moved to recommend approval to City Council of the Koldeway
Annexation. Member Walker seconded the motion.
Charles Dean, the applicant, stated he asked for BP zoning because he believed
he was constrained with the PUD condition, and that it seems there was no
real criteria under which applicants were judged.
Ms. Clark gave a brief summary. She stated staff recommended approval with
a BP zoning with no PUD condition on the zoning because the BP district does
permit some uses as uses -by -right. Staff has no concerns about those kinds
of uses. Staff felt no need to attach that condition to this particular zone
request.
Motion passed 7-0.
Member Kern moved to recommend approval of the Koldeway Zoning of BP,
Planned Business to City Council. Member Groznik seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
-8-