Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOURTNEY ANNEXATION - ANX110004 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT (8)Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 4 End of Public Input Director Dush said the only thing he'd like to add is this zone change is in the Growth Management Area and it does comply with the City Structure Plan. Board Discussion Member Lingle said their charge tonight is to establish the appropriate zoning for the property. The annexation was found to be compliant with State requirements. Tonight, the recommendation is to place that property in the UE — Urban Estate District. That seems appropriate to him because it follows the City Structure Plan. He said the potential purchaser of the property is irrelevant to the Board's deliberations. Member Schmidt said she agrees. She thinks the UE is appropriate and it is a voluntary annexation request. She has no issues with it. Member Lingle moved to recommend to City Council that the Courtney Zoning, # ANX110004 be approved with UE, Urban Estate zoning, as recommended by staff. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Project: Leistikow Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110003 Project Description: This is a request to zone 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road. The entire abutting segment of street right-of-way for Timberline Road is included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is partially developed with one house and currently zoned FA-1, Farming in Larimer County. In accordance with the City Plan's Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the requested zoning for this annexation is U-E, Urban Estate. The surrounding propertiesare currently zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood and U-E to the north (Westchase P.U.D.) and FA-1, Farming in the Larimer County to the east and south. Recommendation: Staff recommends the property be placed in the U-E, Urban Estate Zoning District. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard said this is a request to zone as Urban Estate 18.04 acres located east of South Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The site is within the boundary of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The primary purpose of zoning is to facilitate the future development of a place of worship. As approved by the Board at their October 20, 2011 Hearing, the parcel would be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. At that meeting a condition of approval of annexation was to recommend the parcel would require disconnection in the case of residential development for the benefit of implementing Larimer County's Transfer Density Units Program. Applicant's Presentation Ken Merritt, Landmark Planners, Engineers and Landscape Architects, reviewed the site map graphic with the Board. He said the parcel is located on the southeast comer of Trilby and Timberline Roads. is approximately 18 acres of property within the Leistikow Amended MRD (Minor Residential Development). Merritt described the surrounding zoning as: Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 3 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Steve Olt said this is a request to zone 3.13 acres, being the property known as the Courtney Annexation, located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for the annexation is UE — Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 — Farming in the Larimer County to the north, east and south; and, UE — Urban Estate in the City to the west. Staff is recommending that the property be placed in the UE — Urban Estate District, which is in conformance with the City's Structure Plan. Member Lingle asked this is a little different because of the notification problem. How do we annex land and not have it zoned at that time. Eckman said the zoning portion of the item was taken off the November 1 City Council Agenda. It was set aside for their November 15 meeting because City Council wanted to hear the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation before it considered zoning for both the Courtney and the Leistikow annexations. The State Annexation Act requires municipalities to place all lands they have annexed into a zone district within 90 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. Eckman said we are well ahead of that 90 day deadline. Applicant Presentation Julie Perridge of ReMax of Alliance stated that she is the listing agent. She said she did not have a prepared statement. She added they have a seller that would like to sell and a buyer who would like to buy so they are just going through the legal application to see if they can make it work. She is available for questions should the Board have any. City Planner Olt said this is a 100% voluntary annexation requested by the current property owners. Public Input Eric Sutherland of 3520 Golden Current said there is a requirement in the City Charter that the City Manager resides within the city limits. The Deputy City Attorney just outlined what the law is relative to disclosure_ The ethics of disclosure that make public process to work —what allows the governed to consent to be governed —sets a much higher standard for disclosure. He said the item came before the Board on October 20. He's reviewed those materials and did not see a disclosure saying the City Manager had any personal interest in this issue. Sutherland said if a disclosure fails to be revealed by a motivated citizen, it's not public information. It does not meet any of the standards of public disclosure. He thinks there are significant problems here. He said it's a % of a million dollar house. It was kept a secret and that is not good. He said he believes we need a much higher standard of ethics in the City. Leslie Hinkle, ReMax Alliance, stated she is the buyer's agent for Deborah and Darin Atteberry. She would like to take issue with what Mr. Sutherland said. There have been no ethic violations here — they've done everything right and by the book. Hinkle said Darin was very upfront. He put a conflict of interest in immediately after the contract was signed. Hinkle said she's known Deborah and Darin Atteberry for a very long time and she's known them to be of the highest level of character and integrity of anyone that she knows. She would encourage the Board to consider what Mr. Sutherland said with a grain of salt because he doesn't know them. She thinks "it's just wrong" what he is saying. Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 2 Sutherland said that ethical observation is interesting in light of certain circumstances. He reviewed a sequence of events that outlined his experience when he learned that the City Manager was intending to purchase property that was being annexed into the City. He made inquiries relative to any disclosure that represented a potential conflict of interest. He was not able to obtain the disclosure that was said to be on file. He said the essence of our civil society is built around standards of ethics. Disclosure isn't just an ethical "thing"; it's a standard of conduct. When disclosures happen, all kinds of good things happen. He'd like to see more of a conversation of what is ethical and what is not. Member Schmidt said she'd like to make a comment that addresses the concerns raised. Many have been on the Board for some time. Although they don't formally ask for conflicts of interest in a meeting, during their work session those issues come up. There are forms that need to be filled out relative to conflicts. If it comes up in a meeting, that individual usually leaves the room. It is not something the Board overlooks. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said we follow Robert's Rule of Order and we also follow our Charter which trumps RRO. Our charter requires that if you have a personal or financial interest in the decision, you have to disclose on the forms mentioned by Member Schmidt. That must be disclosed at the commencement of the meeting if not before. What's he's seen is Board members disclose that quite a while before. The Board member will declare the conflict and explain why they need to recues them — removing themselves from the room and returning when that item is finished. Consent Agenda: 1. Courtney Zoning, # ANX110004 —MOVED TO DISCUSSION Vice Chair Smith asked the Board and members of the audience if they'd like to pull items from the Consent agenda. A member of the audience requested that Item 1, Courtney Zoning, # ANX110004, be moved to discussion. Discussion Agenda: 1. Courtney Zoning, # ANX110004 2. Leistikow Zoning, # ANX110003 Project: Courtney Zoning, #ANX110004 Project Description: This is a request to zone 3.13 acres, being the property known as the Courtney Annexation, located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for the annexation is UE — Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 — Farming in the Larimer County to the north, east and south; and, UE — Urban Estate in the City to the west. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request for the property to be placed in the UE — Urban Estate Zoning District. PlanningSPECIAL HEARING and g Board Minutes 00 . Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Steve Dush Chair: William Stockover Phone: (H) 482-7994 Vice Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, and Smith Excused Absences Carpenter and Stockover Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Director Dush reviewed the agenda and stated the reason for the Special Hearing tonight is that the Planning & Zoning Hearing items related to the Courtney and Leistikow Zoning were not properly noticed for the October 20, 2011 hearing —mailings to affected property owners, as required by the Land Use Code (LUC), were not sent. That has since been corrected and we are here tonight to make recommendations on the zoning portion. Dush added annexation notification requirements fall under the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS). That process was followed for the Hearing on October 20. The recommendations relative to annexation were forwarded to City Council and they were initially reviewed and approved by City Council at their November 1 meeting. Citizen participation: Jonathan Anderson, 1230 Paragon Place, said he'd attended a County Hearing on this question where the Robert's Rules of Order (RRO) were not followed. He reviewed the Fort Collins website and noted Fort Collins is committed to the RRO. Upon reviewing the agenda items, he said a council should call for conflict of interest. He would encourage the Board to review the agenda and for the Chair to call for conflicts of interest should they or an extended family member have a financial interest or would benefit from the projects presented. It's important to him because the County did not follow RRO. It looked bad and led to some hard feelings by the citizens in attendance. He would appreciate it if individuals would disclose any conflicts of interest if they have them. Eric Sutherland said his comments would follow the previous speaker, who is a gentleman he does not know. He referred to a comment made by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson relative to the prescriptive LUC which we currently employ to make decisions related to land use. It was built on the idea that if you comply with the standards, you "skate". If you don't there's a mechanism whereby decision makers (in some cases the Planning & Zoning Board) make the decision whether or not standards can be modified to allow a particular development. Sutherland said it doesn't really matter how much "juice" (favoritism or influence) you have, it's supposed to be prescriptive —it levels the playing field. Planning & 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 (#ANX71003) 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 staffs 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. Planning, Development, & Transportation Fort Collins City of Executive Offices 281 North College Avenue, Suite 100 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6601 970.416.2081 - fax fcgov.com/pdt MEMORANDUM DATE: November 10, 2011 TO: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager FROM: Karen Cumbo, Director, Planning, Development, and Transportation SUBJECT: Maintenance of Newly -Annexed Streets At the City Council meeting of November 1, 2011, some questions were raised about the City's policies for maintaining streets in an area that is annexed by the City. The question was raised by a citizen about the pending Courtney annexation, but the same issue has been addressed recently in conversations about the Southwest Annexation and community discussions about the street maintenance in Milfred and Primrose Lanes. In 1998, the City adopted Ordinance No. 182 (attached), which establishes policies regarding the maintenance of, and improvements to, newly annexed streets and infrastructure. That ordinance distinguishes between streets that are built to City standards and those that are not. Streets that have been built in the County to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), and then annexed to the City, are maintained like any other City street. For gravel roads, that is primarily grading, and the frequency is totally dependent on traffic and conditions. It is estimated that the cost to maintain the streets included in the Courtney Annexation would be approximately $400 per year. For streets built in the County that are not built to LCUASS standards, the ordinance states that the City "shall provide only minor maintenance to the pavement surfaces to keep them from becoming unsafe. Minor maintenance may consist of periodic grading of gravel surfaces and filling potholes in asphalt streets..." (Section A.01.02.02 of Appendix A of the Ordinance). This is the policy that guides the maintenance of most of the streets in the Southwest Annexation areas. The ordinance further provides that, if the City determines that minor maintenance is inadequate to protect public safety, the City may require the property owners to construct improvements at no expense to the City. This can be accomplished through the formation of a Special Improvement District or other financing structures. This is a significant issue in the Southwest Annexation areas, and we have conducted an inventory of those streets and met with some residents. Our work plan for 2012 includes further research and identification of options for the improvement of those streets. Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk -3- Mayor angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears N31012'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South right -of --way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of- way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet, whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86031'48"E 36.92 feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right- of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107015'00", the long chord of which bears N36049'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16°48'00"W 56.63 feet, and again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears N55015'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said North line, S89°-33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295 acres, more or less. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above - described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk -2- Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 152, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE COURTNEY ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the property known as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate ("U-E") Zone District, which property is more particularly described to wit: Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. 5-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court, situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. 5-60-87 as bearing 589'33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot 3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S2003113011E 193.45 feet to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3, N89033'00"W 605.44 feet to apoint on the existing Easterly right-of-way line ofNite Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet, and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63'18'00", the long chord of which bears S31 ° 12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot.radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose central angle is 75°31'05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, NO2°00'16"W 38.73 feet to the centerline of Nite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk -3- Mayor the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet, whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86°31'48"E 36.92 feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right- of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107° 15'00", the long chord of which bears N36049'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16048'00"W 56.63 feet, and again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears N55015'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said North line, S89°33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295 acres, more or less. is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Courtney Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City 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. Section 3. That the City 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 1 st day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk -2- Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 151, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE COURTNEY ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2011-088, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City 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: Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court, situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. 5-60-87 as bearing S89°33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot 3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S20°31'30"E 193.45 feet to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3, N89033'00"W 605.44 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line ofNite Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet, and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears S31°12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose central angle is 759 F05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, NO2°00'16"W 38.73 feet to the centerline ofNite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63018'00", the long chord of which bears N31 ° 12'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South right -of --way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of- way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 12 (a) The City shall provide only minor maintenance to the pavement surfaces to keep them from becoming unsafe. Minor maintenance may consist of periodic grading of gravel surfaces and filling potholes in asphalt surfaces. In addition the City will maintain all culverts and storm drainage pipes that pass under an annexed street. (b) The property owners adjacent to annexed county streets will be responsible for maintenance of curb and gutter and/or borrow ditches and culverts that cross under driveways. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, on Second Reading and Ordinance No. 152, 2011, on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On November 3, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend the Courtney Annexation be placed in the LIE — Urban Estate Zoning District. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011 (w/o attachments) 2. Vicinity Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Structure Plan Map 5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 20, 2011 and November 3, 2011 • ' - AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY • FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 121 Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Courtney Annexation to the. City of Fort Collins. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 151, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, annexes 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152, 2011, will place this annexation in UE — Urban Estate Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an established residential area. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. There are no issues or known controversies associated with this annexation. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On November 1, 2011, Council asked what the cost associated with the Courtney Annexation would be to the City. The City's Streets Superintendent has indicated that the potential cost of maintaining the gravel portions of Charlie Lane and Nite Court would be approximately $400 per year for once a year grading, based on the following criteria in the Municipal Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards: Section 24-97. Annexed Streets of the Municipal Code ... Streets annexed into the City that were not designed and constructed to comply with City standards shall be maintained and upgraded in accordance with the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. G.02.01.02 STREET Section G.02.01.02. Streets Not Built To City Standards of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ... All other streets and roads that have been annexed into the City and not constructed to County Urban Standard nor to City standards, shall be handled in the following way: