Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOURTNEY ANNEXATION - ANX110004 - MINUTES/NOTES - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board October 20, 2011 Page 2 Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes for the August 18, 2011 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 2. Courtney Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110004 Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda which consists of the minutes of the August 18, 2011 Hearing and the Courtney Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110004. Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4:0. Member Schmidt commented for the benefit of the audience the Board normally reviews agenda topics at Work Session the previous Friday. If something is on the consent agenda, it does not mean they have not previously discussed it in more detail than might appear this evening. Discussion Agenda: 2. 2011 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code — Section 3.4.1(E) — Point of Measurement for Buffers 3. Leistikow Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110003 Project: 2011 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code — Section 3.4.1 (E) — Point of Measurement of Buffers Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual update to the Land Use Code, specifically Section 3.4.1(E) that identifies where the buffer zone should begin in regards to rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the sections of the Code that requires this point of measurement to be from "bankful discharge." Instead, the term "top of bank' is recommended as the most appropriate term for this point of measurement. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chair Stockover said the Board's spent a lot of time on this topic. It was considered at a previous hearing and it was sent back to City staff for another look. It was almost considered for the Consent Agenda because of the time already spent but for the benefit of the public, the Board decided to have a quick presentation to bring everyone one else up to speed. Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said the previous concerns surrounding the term "bankful discharge" included that it is inappropriate for our community because it is difficult to define. In addition, many experts argue that you cannot consistently apply it in the field, especially in systems dominated by incised channels (which are the majority of the streams in our City). Ex said based on research, meetings with experts, and reviews of other municipal, state, and federal codes and recommendations, staff is recommending the adoption of the term "top of bank' as an alternative to "bankful discharge" because it is the most readily identifiable and consistently applied term in the field. In addition, based on discussion with numerous experts, it is the most widely used term Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Lingle, Schmidt, and Stockover Excused Absences Campana, Hatfield, and Smith Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Ex, Varrella, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Director Dush reviewed the agenda. NOTE: Because proper affected property owner notification was not given on the Courtney (#ANX110004) and Leistikow (#ANX11003) Zoning topics, the items were reheard by the Planning and Zoning Board at a Special Meeting on November 3, 2011. Please go to those minutes for information on their deliberation on those Items. Citizen participation: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, recommended a change in the procedure for hearing ODPs (Overall Development Plans) and PDPs (Project Development Plans). His suggestion is the process change to an entirely different format —from an oral to a written review. He said in a recent case (the Grove ODP and PDP/Plan A and Plan B) it was readily apparent that the protections embodied in our LUC were not observed. He thinks the protections that should have been given the citizens of Fort Collins did not comport with the LUC. He thinks it failed because the City influenced the outcome of the process by virtue of City's staff's involvement with the development review process, even down to imposing a gag rule on citizens which is completely counter to our rules of public process. He'd recommend moving completely away from the situation where dozens of people line up and talk about a particular development without any reference to what section of the LUC might be relevant. He said at the end of the day, that's what the Board uses for making their decisions. Further, he thinks the appeal process should go to an all written format. In the case of the Grove, he thinks "you missed it". He thinks there's no rational explanation why you can build residential in an "E" zone without a primary use. It doesn't matter what the percentage is. If you throw that condition out, you throw out the whole LUC with it. He thinks it's unfair to citizens who have to use their own time and "dime" when filing an appeal. He thinks developers have deep pockets and a feeling of entitlement. He asked the Board to consider his suggestion —all written comments and only arguments pertaining to specific citations of the LUC. He thinks with that process in the case of the Grove it would have been much more favorable to the citizens Chair Stockover asked if the Board was ready to act on the Consent Agenda as proposed.