City Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Let's do a roll call. Frank here. Jeff here. Keith here. Lynn Snow here.

And Dale Tribe. Anybody see any corrections in the minutes?

I motion to approve.

I second it.

Do you need one for each? One at a time, yeah.

Oh, for that, for the original meeting? Yeah.

Hold on.

Put one.

Just one at a time, and then we'll go.

All in favor? Aye. Are there any opposed? Second. Is there a special meeting on the 20th? May 20th? I approve.

I make a motion that we approve the motion and it's also.

I'll second it.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you. Okay, Drew, you want to run us through the Lance Denver zone change before we open it up for a public hearing?

Good evening, Planning and Building Commission members. It's good to see you. I'm going to just read the mail out that we sent for the public notice. And if you have any questions, just let me know. The application has been submitted to Roseville City Alliance Denver for a rezone request for parcel 00-0027-7719. The address is approximately 490 south, 3000 west, just out by Nate's development that we've rezone. Just beyond Jean Osler's, just south of Jean Osler's? So the above-mentioned property is currently zoned in M2, which is our heavy manufacturing and industrial zone. The request would change the land use to an R110 for the use of 10,000 square foot minimum, single-family dwellings. If there's any questions other than that, it would be a 20-acre parcel, and I can pull it up on the parcel here.

Not real wide, but quite deep there. Yeah. And he's going to have sewer.

All right. So the proposal would be to run sewer from Stonegate, which is on the right side of the screen. He is working with Allreds Surveying to come up with that detail for us in the future.

One with the road through it. So all the zoning around this is M1.

So M2. M2. To the south. To the north would still be county. This would be the far north side of our Roosevelt City. Boundaries to the east. West. To the east would be, well west.

That's PONR.

just sliver appeal and on our coordinate snow we we did that for him several months ago the rest is county across three thousand on the west side of three thousand back towards stone gates that would be an rr1 because we inherited that from the the county and at that point there was not an improved sewer as you recall so the one acre minimum was the county requirements 10 000 square foot would allow developments at a minimum of 10 000 but they can go greater than 10 000 square foot they just can't go less than there will be some future um interest i'm sure they a couple property owners that surrounded this called after we sent out the public notice and wanted to jump on this public hearing as well so we'll probably be seeing some property to the south as well come for a zone change in the coming month or two so

how much ground is in the city going south

Okay, so that gives you the snapshot. The purple would be our N2 zone to the top of the purple. Oh, there is a sliver on the rr1 of jeans that is in city limits as well okay stand corrected on that one we do have a sliver of rr1 to the north so we're kind of creating a new zoning area for higher density than an rr1 where all this was county before they did not have the sewer we have the sewer now and for development to take place One acre minimum is really hard for a return on investment for rooftop. So that would be the request that the landowner has made in this application is for R110.

So I'm all for it. I think it's a great idea. My only concern is in the future, because now we have across to the west of this, we have PONR. We're still going to have M2 and R1, and then this will be R110. So we're going to have four different zones conglomerated right there. So I guess to me, my only concern would be future from here out to make sure any new zoning that comes in correlates with what it abuts to. So that we don't keep having these islands because the PONR right now is kind of an island.

The M1's a little bit of an island.

There's a lot of acreage there.

Yeah, if you'll zoom out just a little, Sarah. The reason they did this was for Stumpgate. And they did a continuation of the M2 zone in our heavy industrial area, our industrial park, and went south or to the north, thinking that that would, and some has developed out there, past verdicts, LaRose Construction, they're in the city limits as well, I believe.

Oh, LaRose is? It's just not showing up here?

Actually, no, they're not. They annexed the county So they had to get to A to B with the thought that that would grow for industrial and manufacturing. But with the opportunities of sewer in that area, now that's opening up for residential. And the need is there for residential. The PONR, the thought behind that one was it was touching the M2 zone, which is manufacturing. It kind of follows the same. It doesn't show on there because it was pretty recent.

Yeah, we don't have that updated yet. Somebody will get that taken care of for you.

Sorry. The property to the south, can you zoom in just a moment? Yeah. So the property, let me step over here and show you. The request has come in for this sliver as well through here. I think there's two parcels to the south. of lances. There's this one of lance. Rory Russell owns this one. And then there's a third parcel. Yeah, this one here. So this parcel, Rory Russell is the owner of record and he is interested as well. Jared West is also interested, closer to Stonegate, of developing property there, so the thought was keep consistent with that R110 potentially if that works.

Well, the sewer would have to run through West's property, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Any other questions?

We need a motion to open.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Is that what you came for? I just come to support you guys.

Okay. Make a motion that we leave the public hearing for the Lance Denver zone change. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Just to let the public know, it's closed. I don't want any more comments from the public. Please.

My only comment, Drew, and you and I talked about this a little bit, is maybe it would behoove the city to put a little bit of general planning effort into if this area is going to annex in or has the potential, what would the city like that to be? Right. And I think that kind of goes to Dale's point of be nice to not have a whole bunch of zones if it doesn't make sense.

The city had...

has a master plan somewhere yes we do and it outlines that i'm just curious if we look at the master plan what it has out there yeah we can look into that i think the master plan more or less had an annexation area i don't believe it actually identified the zoning particulars but it did have an annexation we have to have that annexation boundary in order to annex property in we have to have that within our with our scope i thought it might have had

So in recommendations, there's only dots on it. It may, Grant, I believe it probably does. But it's pretty big, if I remember right. We can look into that. OK. Looking forward. That's a good point. And then I mean, how often does that master plan need to be updated? I don't know if we're coming up on the time period of that. It should, I think it was 2018, last time we looked at that. I remember I was around for it.

Drew, how big of a trunk line did they run from Stonegate over to Summerall?

I think it was only an 8-inch line.

It's 15-inch from the intersection in Summerall to...

In Stonegate itself, were you asking the main line or the Stonegate line?

So it's 15 up for Weiss, and then it's 12 into Stonegate, and then all the laterals in Stonegate are 8. So we would only have, we would have only, and there would be an eight inch line coming from, it's not south of Stonegate, right? It's on that last, actually it's the second cul-de-sac up. You can actually see it in the imagery where that scar is. So there is some coming out that direction. Otherwise it would have to come below this, the subdivision. I do believe it's eight or 12. Sorry. The trunk line going north is 12.

What they would be tying to would be aid.

Okay. If they're going to tie out in the field right there. The proposal would be here. And maybe we need to have somebody look at that, too, just to say if somebody's going to run a sewer line, because if we just run an aid, it's going to run out of capacity relatively quickly compared to other things. But just along with, like, however many people are interested in the future. You know what I mean?

And we'll look at that in the design of their subdivision, so yeah.

So we talked about creating islands, zoning islands. Is there like a minimum acreage that isn't considered an island? Like if you were to rezone 20 acres, is that considered an island or is it like two acres?

But this, like I said, this one is an inherited issue that we have with the county where we had R1. That's fully inherited. So as far as a 20-acre parcel, that would not be considered a spot zone. The two-acre parcels within the city limits, and I can pull up the zoning map and show you. As you can see, we've got all over three and four zones. We have an RR1 smack dab in RM18. We have RR1-6 here in commercial. So at some point, they've got a cluster and have a variety. You can't just have all, you know, we want the growth opportunities and mixed zone use is encouraged, but the slot zone, just a house here and a house here. That's what is trying to be discouraged by the state, but 20 acre is not considered. Go ahead.

Okay. Any other questions? We have a motion to...

So the motion, does the motion need to include any special things?

I think right now we're just changing the zoning, and then once it comes through as a development, then all that stuff gets taken care of then.

Yeah, this is just for the zoning.

Well, I'm at the motion for a zoning change.

To R110. Yeah.

Second that.

Any other discussion on it? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Planning and zoning report.

I don't have a lot for you, just an update. We did have the Ross annexation on last month, as I think all of you were here. Unfortunately, I was as well. So with that, the county, originally we tried to get the county to take this over as a public access because per our code, we cannot create flag lots. It has to abut a public street. The county didn't want anything to do with it. That's why we pursued the annexation of that roadway. Since then, the county commissioners, as of last Monday, approved with all of the properties sign off without having defined exactly who was the owner of the lot. But all of them signed off that had easements and rights to that. So they have accepted that as a county roadway as of Monday. So we struck that from the agenda for tonight. We'll move forward with the county as the provider of the public access. So that's an update for you on that one.

in the city? Yes.

Access by the public county road which satisfies our code and originally that was our intent but they didn't want to do that the county did not but now they they have decided to accept that so so we're happy to move forward with that. Other than that we will be hopefully presenting you a draft version of some code updates that we've been working on for the past several months it's in our attorney's hands grant charles on a red line version for his review and we'll have a public hearing it's not as extensive as what we had last time it's just trying to do our annual cleanup of anything that we need to to address so we don't have a 10-year pile up like we did this last cycle sorry where the building

The additions and those zones added to that don't change. Sorry, sorry, I don't know how to word it last. Meeting we had to approve the addition to. that building and we... Oh, for the site and land?

Yeah. Yes. So we will be putting that on there as well, yeah, for your review, definitely.

So I guess my question would be concerning the folks from So is that roadway going to be a roadway and access to that property development?

It potentially could be because it will be a county public access. So nothing's really changed other than county specs versus city specs. I don't know what they agreed on. The city was going to move forward with the allowance of the one split before it triggered asphalt, and I don't know where the county landed on that, but whatever their arrangement is, we will also enforce as far as more development, whatever the county standards are, we'll be on that road. We will hold them to that before the development takes place, if that happens or when that happens.

But from his property line in the city, so we'd regulate that from there in.

Whatever requirements the county will require for upgrades, it will be an upgrade at that point.

So there's still, if that development happened, those folks still could be getting all that traffic through there.

Potentially. Okay, that's all I have unless there's any other questions for me.

It's got a reorganization on there. Do we want to reorganize?

If you guys are ready, yes. I'll make a motion.

We have Dale Drive as our adjournment. Continuing our adjournment.

I second that.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Now's your chance, Jim. Do you want a vice chair? We have in the past, but currently it is Tommy.

Yeah, I'd say let's do a vice chair. Can I motion on this one?

Sure. I can't do a motion. Can I motion to be a chair?

Well, the motion's open. Anybody want to second the motion?

Well, I'll make the motion. We have Jeff be the vice chair.

I'll second that. I should have seconded the motion. You have a chance, Jeff. You have a chance. All in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. ADJOURNMENT.

ALL IN FAVOR?

AYE.