Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEISTIKOW ANNEXATION & ZONING - ANX110003 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (10)Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 12 Member Campana said he'd also like to thank the audience for their input and the time they've put into that effort. He agrees with Member Schmidt that the annexation and UE zone are appropriate. If a PDP comes before the Board for a temple, that's the appropriate time to have a lot of the dialogue they want. Member Lingle asked Eckman if it would be appropriate, if the Board so chooses, to reaffirm the annexation or should they just be silent on that. Eckman said whatever is the will of the Board is appropriate. Member Lingle moved that the Planning and Zoning Board reaffirm their earlier recommendation on the Leistikow Annexation and recommend to City Council zoning the property to UE — Urban Estate based upon the Findings of Fact found in the Staff Report starting on page 4. Those Findings of Fact would be numbers 3, 4, and 5. Member Campania seconded the motion. Member Schmidt wanted, for the benefit of the audience to know, the level of detail at which the review was done. When Member Lingle made the motion with the Findings of Fact, we are finding that this request for the UE zoning is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Fossil Creek Area Plan. The request is also in conformance with the City of Fort Collins' LUC. Member Schmidt asked staff if he feels confident in the remarks the applicant made concerning the first person's discussion about the view sheds. Is that pretty specific in the area plan that it applies to that particular management area? Shepard said the Fossil Creek Area Plan is a little vague on that. The Plan contains a lot of broadly worded statements with which the Board may be familiar given their review of a number of subarea plans. What is clear is the Land Use Framework Map. The map calls out very clearly for this parcel to be UE without any kind of conservation or any ecological restriction subject to a PDP going through Article 3 review. Schmidt asked if that map was shown on the applicant's slides. Shepard said their slide was roughly equivalent. Member Lingle said he agrees with Member Schmidt and Campana's comments. Member Smith said he's going to support the motion. He believes the applicant has demonstrated and the staff has concurred that the annexation and the UE zoning are appropriate. He said our LUC does provide a lot of very strict criteria. He's been convinced they've met all of those criteria. The motion was approved 5:0. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m Steve Dush, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Vice -Chair Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 11 streets, sidewalks, turn -lanes, traffic signals, etc. The system is growth shall pay its own way. A member of the audience asked about the Resolution before City Council with potentially a false statement. Why was that included if it was not appropriate to discuss environmental issues at this point? Shepard said we have a requirement that every City Council Agenda Item Summary addresses the issues of financial & economic impacts, environmental impact, what the staff recommendation is, what the Board recommendation is, and what the public outreach has been. Typically for an annexation and for zoning, it's hard to address. But rather than risk not addressing them, we add a statement about what we do know. What we do know is that this annexation is not within 500 feet of a known natural area or ecological resource. Is it a detailed analysis of the environmental impact; no, because that comes at the PDP stage. Member Schmidt asked staff where that 500 feet taken from. Is it from the corner of Trilby and Timberline? Shepard said it's taken from the property's perimeter. Schmidt said what she thought she heard the citizen saying is he feels that it is 500 feet to the RMA. Shepard said they've had this annexation and zoning request reviewed by the City's Environmental Planner. The Planner has been out to the site and it was her analysis that led to the statement in the annexation impact that it's not within 500 feet of a designated natural resource area. Member Schmidt said that the first individual that spoke might be under the impression that nothing happens in FA-1 because he wanted the land to remain in the County. Shepard said for this particular project a place of worship is allowed by special review. Shepard suggested that Merritt may have a little more detailed response given his recent experience with the County MRD process. Merritt said the FA-1 Zone allows for more than farming. It allows single family detached residential. It could be 2.92 acres parcels if it's not serviced by sewer. Because this property is serviced by sewer it could be'/z acre lots. This property is a TDU sending area so 10 acres doesn't necessarily equate to 20 units --there's a reduction in the number of lots because of the transfer development units. There is also some commercial activity allowed in FA-1 at the correct location given the availability of transportation networks. It's a misnomer to think it's just agricultural. Because it's serviced by water and sewer this property is intended to become urbanized at some point. Merritt said they could have gone forward in the County but they thought it more appropriate to move forward in the City. It would allow the City's development standards to govern and guide the development of the site. Board Discussion Member Schmidt thanked the citizens for coming and raising the issues. She said it's always good for everyone to know up front what the concerns will be. As they've heard from the attorney and as the Board's discussed there are certain guidelines on what the Board can consider tonight with regard to annexation and zoning. She said the issues they raised will be addressed in great detail as we move forward with what's submitted. With the condition on the annexation, it could even turn back into residential. Schmidt said looking at the issues, the annexation into the city is appropriate. She also thinks Urban Estate zone is the most appropriate zone. She said the developer takes the risk (with time and money) so they take steps to understand what the infrastructure can handle. They are listening very carefully to the input given so they know the direction they need to go and the standards they need to meet. At this point the detail is not there for the Board to decide what can or cannot happen. Member Schmidt added why she thinks the annexation is appropriate. The City makes a great deal of effort to have a lot of codes and standards so that projects that get developed are done to a high level. It's much more detailed than in the County. There is also a much more extended appeal process. You have a larger Board here and it goes to City Council for their review. Planning &•Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 10 800 to 1000 feet from that resource management area. They believe any impacts will not necessary be a result of their development. South of that green line and north of the green dashed line is Urban Estate. He believes an argument could be made the Westchase development as it currently exists might have the greatest amount of impact at it abuts directly up to that boundary of the RMA. Merritt said there's an area of rural/urban estate residential which will stay in the 5 to 35 acre sized parcels which will act as an additional buffer between the RMA and the Leistikow Annexation. They want to be concerned about the resource management and the impacts of development adjacent to that. He's sure when they get to the site -specific PDP work that if there's a requirement for the preservation of natural sources City staff will request they mitigate any impacts that may be a direct result of the proposed development. Merritt said with regards to endangered species, any development that occurs on this property will have to comply with federal regulations regarding the Endangered Species Act. That will also come at the time of the Project Development Plan. There will be full opportunity to vet issues of impact related to development as it might extend to roosting or nesting birds of prey that are present either adjacent to the site or within the RMA. Merritt said with regards to transportation issues and the impact of development. He would admit that today, given the development that exists with Westchase and further north on Timberline Road, there are inadequacies to the existing transportation network south of Trilby Road. The intersection of Trilby and Timberline is an incomplete intersection with less than adequate auxiliary lanes. As the Board is aware, development pays its way. This development will, in fact, do any of the required and necessary improvements to both the intersection of Trilby and Timberline as well as further improvements south of Trilby Road directly adjacent to the property. It's his belief that development will only improve; not create additional congestion. Merritt said with regard to land use, one gentleman who got up to speak indicated he was not being fully transparent with regards to what exists. He indicated on a slide that due north of their property is the existing church. Trilby and Timberline are a part of a major transportation network. It made sense when Westchase was developed to cluster those non-residential uses at that intersection. They have an existing church, north of that a day care, and north of that a fire station. He said likewise it makes sense to use the future development of this parcel as a transitional land use placing the place of worship at that intersection. Merritt said with regard to cost impacts, development in Fort Collins pays its way. This project, if it moves forward, will make the requisite improvements to Timberline & Trilby and any improvements to utilities (water and sewer) that are necessary in order to mitigate the impacts that this development might have on the surrounding infrastructure. It should be cost neutral from the standpoint of capital infrastructure improvements. Any costs to the City will be offset with capital expansion fees and fees paid at the time of building permit. Merritt said that concludes his comments and he's happy to answer any additional questions the Board may have. Shepard said he would just add that the wildlife issue will be addressed at the time of the Project Development Plan (PDP) under Standards 3.4.1 which have to do with both quantitative and qualitative aspects of how to protect an ecological resource. The same is true with transportation issues. As explained at their development review outreach meeting, the subdivisions that are on the edge of the city (Westchase in this case), there is always a lack of public improvements. There is a lag between residential development and the ability to provide the entire required public infrastructure simply because from a fiscal perspective, the City is not in a position to be able to "front" improvements such as roads, Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 9 understands it, people who will be using this temple are encouraged to visit once a month. She said we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people from Wyoming, Nebraska and Northern Colorado. She said the only way they can currently get out of the Westchase neighborhood are via two streets — Fossil Creek Road and Westchase. She thinks it'll make the Timberline much more dangerous. If there's any way possible way, she'd recommend people using the temple should be rerouted using 1-25 via Carpenter Road. Sky Rynker, 2202 Westchase Road, asked if we're discussing annexation or are we discussing the project itself. Vice Chair Smith said we're really discussing the zoning but if you'd like to comment on annexation, please feel free to do so. Vice Chair Smith said there will be a lot of opportunity for public input before there's ever a development proposal. Rynker said he understands it will be a place of worship and that there will be a resident at the parsonage. On the applicant's slides he did not see a picture of the actual church that is already there (north of the subject property). Are we trying to minimize the fact that there is already a building there? What he is concerned about is we are not showing the Kechter Subdivision being annexed and its impacts. He asked if it is not listed as being UE to the south. Vice Chair Smith advised him to please continue his comments and when Public Input is closed, staff will respond. Rynker said to annex as UE and to leave all the other lots in the County where there are fending for themselves is ridiculous. He lives in this area and he has to answer to his daughters as to why they need to build such a big building there when they already have a place of worship which they do not have the right to attend. He said it's going to greatly impact those two developments as well as everyone else around. He asked the Board please think about it before you ruin the southeast part of Fort Collins. Shane McGregor lives at 2220 Fossil Creek Parkway. He lives there with his wife and three children. He's here in opposition to the proposed project. While he completely understands Mr. Leistikow's right to utilize his property in whatever capacity he chooses, what is interesting to him in the presentation is they thought the transition from residential to a rural area would be properly buffered with a temple that could potentially have one to two thousand people a week coming to it. He said it's on the scale of the number of people who go to Hughes Stadium for football games. McGregor becomes a little bit concerned because the roads on Trilby and Timberline are one lane traffic roads and there is no chance for that road that travels under the railway could expand to accommodate those numbers. He said he looks at the numbers of homes that have gone up for sale just west of the subject parcel. These are $500,000+ properties that have seen very little activity since this use was proposed. He doesn't understand why this happens to be the best location for this use. David Vigil lives at 6314 Tree Stead Road. He is concerned about building something that large and its impact on animals —specifically bald eagle and coyotes. We'll be taking away more land and pushing them into the residential area. Have we really looked at what impact this will have on animals? Secondly, what kind of expense will that be to the City? There are going to have to widen those roads and it's going to cost. Have you taken a look at that? Merritt said he's going to try to walk through the comments made. He'll try to hit those issues of major concern. The first gentleman that spoke this evening spoke of a document which is actually a supporting document to the Fossil Creek Area Plan. It has to do with the preservation of Fossil Creek natural resources. Merritt used a slide that indicated a broken green line — a circular area that represents the Resource Management Area (RMA) described by the Fossil Creek Area Plan (FCAP). He said it is that management area that the preservation of critical natural wildlife area is intended. He said when they speak to view corridors and preservation of the Fossil Creek Resource Area (FCRA); it is the area south and east of that dashed line to which that document is referring. What you'll notice from their property (which lies at the intersection of Timberline and Trilby) is that they are in excess of Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 8 study which was reviewed and accepted by the city's traffic engineers) has created a hazardous situation for our children. This is deeply concerning when you consider a report entitled, Dangerous by Design 2011, which was recently presented to Congress at the introduction of The Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2011. The report documents the more than 47,700 pedestrians killed and 688,000 pedestrians injured in the U.S. between 2000 and 2009 -- equivalent to a vehicle striking a pedestrian every seven minutes. Children are disproportionally represented in these statistics. During an eight year period, children who were walking or biking to destinations including schools and parks accounted for 25 — 30% of all traffic deaths. Any development will exacerbate existing traffic issues within the area. Pedestrian safety necessitates that infrastructure corrections must precede proposed developments, 1) in order to make sure they are implemented and, 2) in order to save children's lives. Westchase residents have already experienced the city's lack ability and/or resolve with regard to correcting traffic issues that resulted from inadequately reviewed traffic studies. The city proposed the installation of speed bumps to resolve the issue that exists on Fossil Creek Pkwy but they will not proceed until a majority of residents respond to a survey, in favor of the proposed installation. The last report from our HOA indicated a total of 183 responses out of the 415 households in the Westchase neighborhood. Seventy percent of respondents support the installation based on a response rate of 40 percent. These are significant numbers. But the city determined this data is insufficient to justify proceeding with the traffic correction. Personally, I think the city should reevaluate their definition of "affected population" since many in cul-de-sacs and side streets are not exposed to speeding traffic in front of their homes. Regardless, residents are forced to contend with traffic issues that resulted from poor traffic planning. The proposed development for the Leistikow Annexation contains a parking lot, roughly the size of Lowe's Home Center. It will be open from early morning until late at night, five days a week. It is foolish to assume that the traffic generated by this development, a development that exits directly into the Westchase neighborhood, will not deleteriously impact traffic issues that already exist. The infrastructure must addressed early in this process and it must be properly designed and in place before the development proceeds. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said the materials regarding the annexation that went to City Council did not place a cost to the taxpayers. He said all the materials have been mute as to what costs would be for paved right-of-way, its maintenance, and perhaps other improvements. Another issue is transportation. He said the Board has seen displaced intersections along Trilby Road. Staff represents that this does not create a situation with interlocking left hand turns. It appears two cars making a left hand turn will need to negotiate with each other and that is not a good safety practice. Sutherland said as the applicant stated the entire boundary of the annexation is predicated on a streetscape. He doesn't think that it's properly evaluated. Sutherland asked whether it might not have been a good idea for the annexation to receive the same notification procedure that was required under the LUC for the zoning component. He doesn't believe the residents of this area got a fair "shake" relative to adequate notice. Wouldn't it also be a good practice to go a little bit above what's required? He believes it would be an improvement of public process. Nancy Korb, 2215 Andrews Street, said she lives very close to Timberline —a block and a half from the fire station at the corner of Westchase and Timberline. She would like to address the issue of traffic. She is very concerned about traffic coming down Timberline to go to the temple if that is what's to be built there. The intersection at Harmony and Timberline is already a "failed" intersection and the number of people who will be taking that route to go to the temple will be significant. As she Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 7 Mandatory criteria are it must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or warranted by change conditions within the area. Mr. Hirning read the following comments into the record: was disheartened to learn of the October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning board meeting. understand the Leistikow Annexation decision was invalided, since residents were not properly notified of the meeting. However, the video record shows the applicant made his case, the issue was discussed and the board issued a decision in support of the applicant during that meeting. These events serve to propagate the impression that land use decisions are made before resident concerns are given due consideration. In this case, residents who oppose this issue are burdened with the task of undoing a decision that has already made. A resolution came before the Fort Collins City Council on November 1, 2011, concerning this Leistikow Annexation (Agenda Item #21). The Planning and Zoning Board rightfully declined to include their decision in this resolution and I thank them for this action. But despite a lack of input from residents, city staff recommended the adoption of this resolution on first reading. Though the resolution was eventually pulled from the city council agenda, a similar resolution will appear at a future city council meeting and should reflect decisions made tonight. The resolution contains a section on Environmental Impacts which contains the following statement, "The site [the Leistikow property] is not within 500 feet of a known natural habitat or feature." I would like to know why this section was included and who did the research to back up their conclusion. It is a well-known fact that the Fossil Creek Reservoir is a nesting ground for bald eagles. Bald eagle nesting sites are protected by federal law. The Fort Collins Audubon Society is currently investigating reports of an eagle's nest located near the intersection of Trilby and Timberline. Since the Leistikow property abuts this intersection, it is very possible that it contains this and other nesting sites. Regardless of the Audubon's findings, based on the known existence of bald eagle nesting grounds in this area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency must be consulted in order to assess whether a development on this site violates federal regulations. The'statement that appeared in Tuesday's resolution is at the very least premature and indicates poor research, poor judgment or both. The video of this board's meeting on October 20, 2011 included a discussion related to traffic impacts of the proposed development on the Leistikow property. I disagree with statements that were made and I disagree with the apparent conclusions. There are known and existing traffic issues involving the Westchase neighborhood. First, the only way to exit Westchase is by using the high -traffic Timberline Road. Second, the East/West routes for pedestrian traffic consist of Trilby and Kechter roads — two roads that have shoulders less than two feet wide in places, falling significantly short of the current requirement of six feet shoulders according to Larimer County Urban Street Standards. It should be emphasized that these three roads are the only routes available to children who must bike to schools and the nearest parks. There is another issue. Steve Gilcrest and members of the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering department have met with the Westchase HOA in response to a number of complaints that span several years. These complaints relate to the amount and speed of traffic within the Westchase neighborhood, the bulk of which come from Fossil Creek Pkwy. At a Westchase HOA Board Meeting, members of the city staff explained that the narrow and winding, Fossil Creek Pkwy, was never designed to be a primary entry/exit point for the neighborhood. However, this street is THE primary entry/exit point for residents-- experiencing twice the traffic of the next busiest entry/exit point. This demonstrates that developers' traffic studies are not crystal balls. In this case, the failure of the developer's traffic study to adequately predict traffic patterns (a traffic Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 6 its Transfer Density Units (TDU) Program. That timeframe assumes that the setting and the receiving area for the Fossil Creek Plan will have been satisfied by that point. The ten year timeframe has been agreed to by the Larimer County Planning Department. This is a receiving area for density. Although non-residential uses are allowed and exempt from the TDU, residential subdivisions must comply with the TDU Program. Member Lingle said when we get down the road in terms of deliberation he'd like to verify the Findings of Fact listed in the Staff Report include # 1 and 2 related to annexation (he's assuming we'll exclude those tonight) and # 6 (condition related to approval of the annexation) so that would also be excluded . City Deputy Attorney Eckman indicated yes. Member Schmidt wanted to verify that all the areas that are now FA-1 in the County would be zoned UE — Urban Estate and will provide buffer with the rural lands. Shepard said correct but as the applicant indicated, the Fossil Creek Area Plan Qointly adopted by the City and the County) requires that a County subdivision be approved in the County for the purpose of the TDU Program. The county subdivision will be approved to urban standards. After approval and recording, the subdivision will be annexed into the City once the TDU Program has been completed. The actual development of the subdivision will be under the City as will building permits and building permit fees. Member Schmidt wanted confirmation that density would remain the same under UE — Urban Estate. Shepard said correct. He said the County TDU Program is calibrated such that there will be no greater than UE density in a County approved subdivision. Public Input Jonathan Anderson, 1230 Paragon Place, is confused by Merritt's description of how this all fits into Fort Collins Plan because he read the Fort Collins Land Conservation/Stewardship Master Plan. This area is specifically designated on Page 19 as the Fossil Creek Corridor 3—our guide for Fossil Creek corridor resource, habitat, view shed separator-- says our principal goal is to protect the wild life at the Fossil Creek Nature Reserve (FSNR). This land is next door to the FSNR. Anderson said Fort Collins intention is to preserve this area, to expand the City's control and to not develop. Its intention is to protect the view shed of the foothills. You can look from the nature area and see Horsetooth. This temple or any building that's over 1 story high is going to interfere with that view. He's opposed to the annexation because he thinks the County should have controlled it to preserve the County park and the habitat that's there. He's opposed to changing the designation from FA-1 because means we'll have buildings and such on this property and it opens it up to limited use buildings which can be up to three stories high. It's going to interfere with the view shed. It seems crazy, inappropriate and inconsistent with the City's Master Plan to allow it to develop in such a manner. It should remain FA-1 for the wildlife. This is not the right development here. Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, asked if the traffic issues could be discussed. Vice -chair Smith asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman what areas were appropriate for deliberation. Eckman said the question of annexation now can be open. On the question of zoning, he referred to the LUC Sections 2.9.4(H) where guidance could be found. He said optional criteria in considering zoning is: • whether the proposed zoning is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zoned district for the land • whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment • whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 5 N: L-M-N; N: U-E; E: FA-1; S: FA-1; W: FA-1; Westchase P.U.D. Westchase P.U.D. (Larimer County) Leflar M.R.D. (Larimer County) Leistikow Amended M.R.D. (Larimer County) Paragon Estates P.U.D. He said the city limits are delineated by a pink line. The parcel meets contiguity requirements and the guiding documents used in formulating this proposal were the City's Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The Fossil Creek Area Plan identifies this area to be zoned as Urban Estate (UE) with residential and some non-residential uses. Their intent is to buffer and to transition to the more urban development to the north from the less dense uses on the east and south. Merritt said directly north is the LDS (Latter Day Saints) church, a day care center and a fire station. Merritt said as noted at the October 20th Hearing they are annexing to the far west right-of-way of Timberline Road. The property is annexing two parcels —one is approximately 2.3 acres for the public right-of-way of Timberline Road and the other is a 15.7 acre development parcel. It's being annexed and zoned UE with the intention of non-residential uses; in particular a place of worship, a parsonage, open space, and public right-of-way for the future extension of Majestic Drive (which is located west of their property). The little "panhandle" south of Majestic Drive (and shown in orange) is the temple parsonage. It's accessory use to the place of worship. Merritt said that due west is an area in which they will provide open space thereby allowing them to control the view corridors as you head north on Timberline to the future place of worship. He said UE is the most appropriate zoning district given the guidance of the Fossil Creek Area Plan and the City's Structure Plan. Those documents view UE uses as other than residential. The use of place of worship is allowed. He said in the months to come they plan to bring a site -specific development plan for the temple site itself. Member Lingle noted for the record that questions he asked on October 20 were all relevant to the annexation and not to zoning. It is his impression they do not need to revisit issues related to annexation. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said in the interest of fairness, he'd like to err on the side of allowing the public, the applicant and staff to speak on both annexation and zoning. He said it's not appropriate to speak to a site specific development plan which will come later with the submittal of a Project Development Plan (PDP). Member Schmidt said her question and impression from the last hearing is that the amount of land they are annexing is sufficient to address their obligations as far as road widening, and infrastructure improvements. Merritt said the site -specific development plan they will be doing will help them to identify and vet the issues related to the impacts of the specific use. They have tried to consider what right-of-way would be necessary for both Timberline Road and Majestic Drive with the parcel submitted. Member Lingle said the question he had related to that was -- even though the street design will be coming later, he wanted to verify with staff whether Engineering had reviewed the proposed off -set intersection on Trilby to the extent that the shape and the amount of land in the annexation was appropriate. The answer was yes. Shepard said correct, the alignment is specifically designed so that Majestic would intersect Trilby at a 90 degree and that the off -set is in the right direction so there won't be interlocking, conflicting left turns. Shepard said he'd like to remind the Board and citizens present there is a condition of approval for the annexation. The condition, which is recommended for 10 years, states should the subject parcel develop in a residential fashion, the owner will then be required to request disconnection from the City and the property would revert back to the County for the purpose of the County being able to implement Planning & Zoning Board November 3, 2011 Page 4 of Public Input Director Dus d the only thing he'd like to add is this zone change is in the Growth and it does comply the City Structure Plan. Board Discussion Member Lingle said their charge tonig to establish the a annexation was found to be compliant with a requireme that property in the UE — Urban Estate District. ms City Structure Plan. He said the potential purch r of deliberations. Area oprqpeCe zoning for the property. The Tonight, the recommendation is to place appropriate to him because it follows the ropertv is irrelevant to the Board's Member Schmidt said she agre She thinks the UE is appropriate la�n it is a voluntary annexation request. She has no iss ith it. Member Lin moved to recommend to City Council that the Courtney Zoning, NX110004 be approv ith UE, Urban Estate zoning, as recommended by staff. Member Schmi conded th otion. 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 properties are 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 corner 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 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 Courtney Zoning, #ANX110004 on: This is a request to zone 3.13 acres, being the property kno as the Courtney Annexation, located east of Ziegler Road and south ast Horsetooth Road. property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is ressed as 3256 Nite Court, which ' t the east end of Charlie Lane. P ons of street right-of-way for Nite Court and a Lane are included i annexation boundary. The property is developed and is in FA1 - F ing District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for the annexation i — Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 arming ' he Larimer County to the north, east and south; and, UE — an Estate in the Ci the west. Recommendation: St ecommends approval of the request for the property a placed in the UE — rban Estate Zoning District. 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.