Laserfiche WebLink
3. The City's objection misstates the future uses of the Tanabe property <br />set forth in its own Comprehensive Plan. <br />Versions of the City's Comprehensive Plan that aze available to the general public, <br />including MPC, appear to be conflicting were the potential furure uses of areas including the <br />Tanabe property aze concerned. While one of the "Future Land Use" maps suggests that area <br />may be slated for residential use, the "Future Land Use -with Airport" map in the City's <br />Comprehensive Plan 1985-2010, designates the Tanabe Property as "Commercial/Industrial" see <br />Exhibit A).Z In addition, the "Existing Land Use" map in the 1985-2010 plan designates the <br />Tanabe Property as agricultural see Exhibit B). Finally, the City's Pazks and Recreation Master <br />Plan (adopted June 6, 1994) designates the Tanabe Property as an industrial zone see Exhibit C). <br />The City's Comprehensive Plan also states that it is not intended to be an annexation plan. See <br />Plan at 15. Therefore, it is not at all cleaz how areas that may include the Tanabe property <br />located in unincorporated Adams County may be designated in the future. <br />It is uncleaz why the City has chosen to formulate its objection as it has, particulazly since <br />its own comprehensive planning documents appear to be conflicting to some degree. More <br />important for this Board however, is the fact that the City lacks jurisdiction over the property. <br />The most appropriate forum for any concern the Ciry may have regarding futwe land uses in <br />Adams County is before the Adams County Planning Commission, not this Board. <br />C. Commerce City -Engineering Department <br />Statement oj'Issue: Whether the disturbances to [he First Creek floodway and the <br />floodplain will be minimized during the mining and reclamation <br />1. This objection was provided only after the close of the public <br />comment and informal conference periods and should be precluded <br />from the final Pre-Hearing Order. <br />By letter to the DMG staff dated Mazch 10, 2000, Commerce City questioned whether <br />MPC would be installing any stotmwater structures within or immediately adjacent to the First <br />Creek floodway channel. This issue was re-articulated by the DMG staff in an adequacy <br />comment letter dated March 30, 2000. T'he issue was addressed in responses to adequacy issues <br />supplied by MPC to the DMG staff on May 24, 2000. MPC's responses confirmed that ao <br />stormwater drainage structures would be installed within or immediately adjacent to the First <br />Creek floodway channel. The City confirmed that at the Pre-Hearing Conference it was satisfied <br />with MPC's responses to the issues raised in its Mazch 10, 2000 cotttment letter. <br />Z The Ciry Planning Department has confirmed that the only changes to the Ciry Comprehensive Plan 1985- <br />2010are reflected in: (a) the New Lands Comprehensive Plan (April 1992), prepared to address the Commerce Ciry <br />annexation area located north and west of the new Denver International Auporc; (b) the Irondale Comprehrnsive <br />Plan Amendment, addressing areas located between 88ih Avenue and certain reiUoad tracks in the City; and (c) a <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment pertaining to areas along the South Platte River between 88m and 96'" Avenues. <br />None of these Comprehensive Plan amendments operated to change or adjust the area that comprises the Tanabe <br />property in the Comprehensive Plan 1985-2010. <br />6 <br />