Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOURTNEY ZONING - ANX110004 - MINUTES/NOTES - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning 8 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 5:0. 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. It 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. ZoningSPECIAL HEARING Planning and Board Minutes 6:00 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 process was followed for the Hearing on October 20. forwarded to City Council and they were initially reviE November 1 meeting. under the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS). That The recommendations relative to annexation were Ned and approved by City Council at their 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.