Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/22/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 22, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present were Tim Dow, David Gilfillan, Gary Ross, Sharon Brown, and Laurie O'Dell. Alternate Linda Lang had contacted Chairman Dow stating she would be late for the meeting. Staff present included Linda Hopkins, Elaine Kleckner, Joe Frank, Steve Ryder, Bonnie Tripoli, and Jan Shepard. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting and asked Ms. Hopkins to review the consent agenda which consisted of: #35-85, J. T. Rose's Automobile Bath - Preliminary and Final; #203-79E, Wagonwheel Third - Casa Grande PUD - Phase 1 and 2 - Final; #76-81D, Pineview Tracts B and C - One Year Extension; #10-85A, Boardwalk Crossing PUD, Phase 1 - Final; #43-85, City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Special Review - County Referral; #45-85, Blank/Kubota Exemption - County Referral; #48-85, Hahn Acres Preliminary Subdivision - County Referral; #41-85, Miller Special Review - County Referral. Item 10, #42-85, Dr. Edward Kotin Special Review - County Referral was continued to August. Member Brown requested that Item #2, J. T. Rose's Automobile Bath, be pulled for discussion. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the Consent Agenda which consist of Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Member Ross seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Chairman Dow abstaining from voting on Item #6, #43-85 - City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Special Review - County Referral. #35-85 - J. T. ROSE'S AUTOMOBILE BATH PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Member Gilfillan excused himself from discussion and voting of this item due to a potential conflict. Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Ted Rose, applicant, stated that the car wash proposed is to be built on 11,966 square feet site with two bays and another one designed to be built in the future. The building is to be of brick material and have maroon awnings on the front of the building. The concept is an automatic brushless car wash that takes only two minutes from drive in until exiting the car wash itself. The traffic impact study has been completed by Mr. Delich. The site is landscaped on all four sides with a 13 foot utility easement on the south side. Entrance will be signed to allow both left turn and a right turn in from Swallow Road with an "exit only" sign to be placed on Remington Street. . •. ..:... - :...:. n 1 ..L.'Y. $a .4i{yfi. ..�..� .,..'Jb' La �..n.Tyv. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 22, 1985 Page 2 Chairman Dow asked Mr. Rose to show where the access points will be, the traffic flow through the site and where the cars will exit. Mr. Rose stated that the entrance to the site will be from Swallow Road and each bay will have its own lined entrance to the bay. He also showed where the proposed third bay will be, the location of the automated tellers, the location of the equipment room and office. The cars may exit from either the vacuum area or directly from the wash area onto Remington and may turn either right or left. Chairman Dow questioned the stacking space. Mr. Rose replied that there is a total of 13 in the three bays and a total of 9 in two bays. Member Ross asked how one would exit from the vacuum area. Mr. Rose stated that one would exit by backing the car around and exiting onto Remington. Member Ross asked that if a car could turn left into the site when going west on Swallow Road. Mr. Rose stated that yes, there is a turn lane into the site based upon the recommendations of Rick Ensdorff. Member Ross asked what the road configuration is on Swallow. Mr. Rose stated that there are three lanes going west and one lane and a bicycle path going east. Member Ross asked if one of the three lanes going west is a right turn that goes down the frontage road. Mr. Rose stated that yes, it is or you can turn right onto College Avenue. Member Ross asked if staff had a problem with cars turning across Swallow Road. Ms. Kleckner replied that the traffic information that was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the city traffic engineer indicates that that intersection and streets adjacent to the site would still operate at acceptable levels with the proposed development. Member O'Dell questioned the footage from College Avenue to the site. Mr. Rose replied that it is 170 feet from College Avenue to the entrance of the proposed site. Member Brown asked if there is a curb cut from the Royal station that goes out onto Swallow Road. r Planning and Zonlo Board Minutes July 22, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Rose stated that there are several but basically one big curb cut. Member Brown asked what the distance is from the car wash curb cut on Swallow to the intersection of Remington and Swallow. Mr. Rose stated that the lot is about 105 feet and and the curb cuts are about 10 feet. So there is about 70-75 feet from the corner of Remington. Chairman Dow asked that if the third bay was built on the right side of the site, how far would that be from the property line and how far would that be from the property line to lot 1 on Thunderbird Subdivision. Mr. Rose replied that there is a 13 foot utility easement to the south and there is two feet from the utility easement to the car wash building. Member Ross asked if the legal lot included the utility easement. Mr. Rose stated that it does not. He stated that it belongs to the Foothills Convenience Center. Ms. Kleckner stated that in evaluating the plan, an important consideration is neighborhood compatibility. Some of the things that were evaluated on the proposal to determine neighborhood compatibility were how site design issues were dealt with, exterior materials, the overall appearance of the project as well as circulation. Some of the things that the applicant chose to do that contributed to the neighborhood compatibility were the choice of exterior materials. A brick exterior is used which is in keeping with the neighborhood residences. It is a commercial use next to some residential uses. It was felt that a balance was needed between what he could do with his property and what the neighbors expectations were of that site. A well landscaped project contributes to the overall neighborhood compatibility. The site has a lot of existing vegetation. The applicant has enhanced that with shrub plantings and major tree plantings along the perimeter area on Remington and Swallow. Noise reduction was considered for the vacuums. The applicant will be equipping them with a noise reduction device so the sound to those residences directly adjacent will not be that great, at about 40 decibels. Lighting is directed downward so the surrounding residences will not have to deal with glare. In working with the applicant to develop a circulation system which would not adversely impact the neighborhood, limiting it to two curb cuts was proposed. With the curb cut on Remington being located toward the south, staff felt it was a good way to do that and probably the best circulation system for a self-contained type of site such as this proposal. The traffic was given a close scrutiny in staff's review. There are two technical memorandums attached to the Board's packets. How the site works internally as well as how it impacts the adjacent street system were reviewed. In the year 2005 the intersection will still operate at an acceptable level. If you were heading northbound on Remington making any kind of turning movement onto Swallow, that service would deteriorate slightly. This is a result of the future traffic in the area as well as a proposed use but is at a level which is still considered acceptable by the City Traffic Engineer. Staff feels the site works internally based on city PldnnIng and /_onIny Bo..rd Minutes July 22, 1985 Page 4 standards which required a 22 foot aisle going through the car wash. Staff requested landscaping be added adjacent to the office building on the north portion of the site. The Royal gas station adjacent to the site was not willing to share access with the car wash but, should the gas station expand, the opportunity may arise to funnel people onto the car wash site from the gas station. If the gas station were to expand in H-B Zone, it would have to come before the Board. A question regarding the parking was brought up at the Planning and Zoning Board worksession. Initially, in 1972 when Everitts had two office buildings approved, there was an agreement that said this particular parcel would serve as parking. However, when Everitts came in and built the 2900 building later, they accommodated their parking needs on that particular lot. The previous agreement no longer constrains what can happen on this particular site. The project does achieve the required number of points on the auto -related and roadside commercial point chart. Therefore, staff recommends approval of both the preliminary and final PUD. Jim Kaiser, owner of Royal gas station, stated he has two curb cuts which was changed a couple years ago. At one time it was all lay down curb through his property. When the city changed the drainage, he went along with the city's plans and went to the two curb cuts. He stated they have no problems with the facility as is. Mr. Rose wrote to him about a shared access and he responded but heard nothing back from Mr. Rose. His concern was strictly regarding the traffic going into the car wash off of his property and backing up and causing general problems for their own interlot distribution. He added they have no real problems with the access. Member Ross felt there is an awful lot of activity on this lot but is not sure it won't work and not sure it will. He suggested that the Board approve two bays and allow it to be built as such and then after operating awhile, if Mr. Rose desires to build a third bay. Some time will have passed to see if it is fitting into the lot. Member Brown stated that one of her major problems with the plan is the circulation that revolves around the vacuums and how the cars get either back into the main stream to go through the wash if they vacuum before or back, turn around and out and exit onto Remington. She is concerned that if there is a large number of people trying to use the vacuum it could be a problem. The other concern was the setback from the south property line if the third bay is installed. Member Ross stated that the drawing makes the site look extremely tight on the left side of the building where the vacuums are located. Mr. Rose stated that it does appear close on the drawing but from the corner of the building it is 40 feet to the vacuum pad. The vacuum pad would be at the passenger and driver's car door which allows (if taken into consideration a 20 foot car) it to be half of its distance from the pad so there is plenty of room to make a turn and exit. to Planning and Zon* Board Minutes • July 22, 1985 Page 5 Member Ross asked Mr. Rose to assume that there is someone with a real dirty car at the furthest west vacuum and is taking a reasonable length of time. You swing through to the second vacuum and then I come through and want to use a vacuum. What problems will arise? Mr. Rose stated that there are four vacuums. The idea behind this is that the vacuums are out of the way of the entrance and exit to the car wash and it does not tie up cars the way most self-service car washes do because they usually put their vacuums at the entrance to the car wash. Member Brown asked what percentage of people vacuum their car when they go and wash their car. Mr. Rose replied that it runs around 38-43 percent which is less than half of the people who go to wash their car. He stated that the automated tellers do not work until the car being washed has exited the bay. Chairman Dow felt this proposal should not be approved because there is too much activity on this site especially regarding the vacuum areas. He felt these areas are not adequate and not up to standards of the number of similar operations that have been reviewed and approved by the Board in the last couple of years. Also, the Board is being asked to grant a variance on an already extremely tight situation. He does not feel this is good planning policy to do this with the traffic impact the way it is. Member Brown moved to deny J. T. Rose's Automobile Bath based on the activity and the tightness of the site and the traffic flow. Member Ross seconded. Motion to deny carried 4-0. #13-85A - SHERWOOD STREET COMMONS PUD - PRELIMINARY Member Gilfillan joined the Board at this time. Alternate Lang arrived at this time. , Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Randy Larsen, applicant, spoke regarding the history of the proposed site. He stated that in March of 1985, a proposal for this site was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board by a vote of 7-0. There was neighborhood opposition for that proposal and staff opposition. This proposal was for twelve apartment units with garages for each unit. It was denied due to non -compatibility of scale with the neighborhood and overall tightness of the site. Since that meeting, a lot of time has been spent on this project. There has been neighborhood meetings, meetings with individual neighbors, and meetings with staff, trying to arise at a compatible project that would work for the neighborhood, applicant and city. The feedback from the neighborhood was the concern of the neighborhood scale and units that were not owner -occupied. The new proposal is for 6 single family units, some attached at garages, private patio on the southern side of the unit, fenced yardspace for each unit and some commons area. As you enter from Sherwood Street, you pass under an arbor handled with plantings and landscaping, Planning and Zoning Boa,d Minutes July 22, 1965 Page 6 through a common walkway into the commons area. From a vehicular basis, three of the units are accessed off of Sherwood Street on driveways which are concrete strips. There is direct access from the garages into the units. Three units are accessed vehicularly off of the alley. The exterior appearance will emulate the surrounding residences. This proposal was originally for preliminary and final. Part of the final involves some easement requests on adjacent properties for maintenance purposes. These discussions are not complete as yet so the applicant has requested to continue the final until August. If the easement discussions present a problem, there is an alternate proposal which has only one change. This change is pulling the two northern units off the property line 3 1/2 feet which would preclude the need for any easements along that property line. Member Ross asked what the square footage of the units would be. Mr. Larsen stated that they are ranging from 600-900 square feet with the smallest being 570 square feet and the largest being 900-950 square feet. There will also be unfinished basements for expandability. Member Brown questioned the covenants restricting storage in the garages. Mr. Larsen stated that there will be a covenant stating that if you own a car, it will be parked in the garage and not used for storage. This was a neighborhood concern. Member Brown asked how the commons area would be maintained. Mr. Larsen stated it would be maintained just as any other PUD. There will be a homeowners association that will contract out the maintenance. Chairman Dow asked what would happen if someone rented the larger unit and finished the basement with two bedrooms. Could they rent these out to four single unrelated people that each have a car? Mr. Larsen replied that the intent is to sell these to owner -occupants. The intent of the basement is to provide space for storage and the ability to finish off for another bedroom or a family room. The covenants will have a restriction stating that the basement is not for rental purposes. Parking for extra vehicles would be like any other resident in the area and that would be in the street. Chairman Dow asked that if an occupant owns two vehicles and one is parked in the garage, could they park the other one in front of that garage? Mr. Larsen replied yes, that is the idea. Member Gilfillan asked what the setbacks are for the north and the south. Mr. Larsen replied that on the south the closest is 4 feet and on the north, if having the easement, would be zero lot line. If no easement, there would be a 3 foot setback. Planning and Zoni*Board Minutes • July 22, 1985 Page 7 Member GilfiI]an stated he could support the minimum of the 3 foot setback. Ms. Kleckner gave the staff report recommending approval. The neighborhood impact, alley paving and storm drainage were the basic concerns for denial of the previous proposal in March of 1985. In reviewing these concerns and how they were addressed since the previous plan, the neighborhood impacts are balanced and the density is higher than some of the adjacent lots but the detail in terms of design is what helps to make it compatible. The landscape plan is a good plan. The types of materials for the structures is also compatible with the neighborhood. Tandem parking is allowed and the parking meets city requirements. Staff felt the developer should participate in the responsibility of paving of the alley. Chairman Dow asked if any city policy has been established regarding new developments taking access from alley ways. Ms. Kleckner replied that this same question was asked of the traffic department when reviewing the plan - where do you determine the impact as such that it should be that developer's responsibility and where is the line. The answer is there is no definite line. Each one should be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Chairman Dow asked if there were any mid -level alley improvements such as additional grading or regraveling which would mitigate impacts of dust and drainage, Ms. Kleckner replied that to her knowledge, a phased improvement approach has not been used. Chairman Dow asked if there was any indication that surrounding property owners may want to do an S.I.D. Mr. Larsen stated there has been discussion by the neighbors but nothing is firm at this point. Mr. Busch is willing to participate in an S.I.D. and is willing to make this a condition of approval. Dennis Sumner, 602 West Mountain, presented and read a letter with 19 signatures dated July 22, 1985 (attached to minutes) of surrounding residents that stated the neighbors concerns with this proposal. These concerns included compatibility with upgraded neighborhood, maintaining residential character, landscaping maintained, alley access elimination and use as a buffer, upkeep of sidewalks, and existing zoning not consistent with current land use. The neighborhood suggested the following recommendations: 1) restrict the pending changes requested for the neighborhood, do not allow both the Sherwood Street Commons multi -family and the pending use request on the corner of Sherwood and Mountain to take place; 2) do not approve the Sherwood Street Commons project unless the alley access safety concerns can be eliminated, of which the preferred alternative would be to eliminate the alley access feature; 3) if the Sherwood Street Commons project is approved, insure that architectural features such as roof pitch, width of siding boards, trim, styling, etc., Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 22, 1985 Page 8 are compatible with the existing historical styling of the neighborhood homes; and,4) direct the Planning staff to hold meetings in the neighborhood to facilitate the downzoning of this neighborhood to a more appropriate zoning consistent with the existing land use and objectives of the neighborhood. Bill Cain, 520 West Mountain, moved to this area because of the nature of the area and the older homes in the neighborhood. He is concerned about taking two lots and putting six families on them. He does not feel it is characteristic of the neighborhood. Member Gilfillan commented that the project has been improved from the previous one. The neighborhood change would not be an adverse change to the neighborhood. He felt it would help the neighborhood keep its residential atmosphere in tact. The safety issues on the alley need to be addressed. Chairman Dow commented that the owners have the right under the existing zoning to build duplexes on these lots. Member Brown complimented the developer and the architect for coming back before the Board with a plan that addressed the Board's concerns and the neighborhood concerns. Member Brown moved to approve the Sherwood Street Commons PUD Preliminary with any staff recommendations that were included. Member Lang seconded. Chairman Dow asked Ms. Kleckner if any conditions needed to be mode regarding the covenants as part of the final and willing participation on the S.I.D. improvements of the alley and the alley safety impacts. Ms. Kleckner stated that these do not need to be conditions of approval. When the applicant subrtlits the final, a signed development agreement will be required. Improvements to the alley will be included in this agreement. There is currently a note on the site plan which addresses the parking, garages to be used as parking and not storage and other matters covered in the covenants. Member Ross commented that rental of the basements is a type of use that is permitted in the current zoning. Mr. Larsen stated that for this to be legal in the city, it would have to be a totally separate dwelling unit with kitchen facilities. Member Gilfillan commented that a minimum of a 3 foot setback on both north and south sides and more research of potential safety problems that apply to the alley should be submitted at time of final. Motion to approve passed 6-0. I Planning and Zoni*Board Minutes • July 22, 1985 Page 9 N4-83D - FIVE OAKS VILLAGE AT CUNNINGHAM CORNERS - PRELIMINARY Joe Frank gave a description of the proposed project. Frank Vaught, ZVFK Architects/Planners, spoke regarding the clustering of the units into 14-16 units, the non -garage elevation to the perimeter of the projects on all four sides, the parking court, accents of brick walls and the lighting. This project is relative to Woodwest with a variety of setbacks at 40'-60' minimum. The drainage area will not be a straight line ditch. The shape will be varied and undulated as it goes into the detention pond to the east. It is planned to incorporate berming and landscaping as buffering. He then gave a description from each direction stating 50% of the units that abut the north property line will be one story units. A neighborhood concern was the detention pond in Tract H. Member Gilfillan asked if the buffer will push the water from the drain to the families to the north. Mr. Vaught replied that the 18 foot channel slopes to a 3 to 1 slope and down into a trickle channel. The banks will be designed not to allow the water to escape over the north or south buffers. Member Gilfillan asked who will maintain the vacated street to the north and would the developer consider maintaining this as a green area of this subdivision. Mr. Vaught replied that this could be accommodated and this could be dealt with on the final plan. Mr. Frank gave the staff report recommending approval. The higher density uses are consistent with the Master Plan of the Cunningham Corners project and with the city's Land Use policies. Minor issues identified and that need to be addressed at final are: landscaping, more adequate building elevations and provision of pedestrian/bikeway between Gunnison Drive and Richmond Drive. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Frank if this is the area where City Council had decided that Windmill Drive did not need to go through. Mr. Frank replied that City Council did approve the deletion of the Windmill connection between Richmond Drive and Gunnison Drive. This plan is in conformance with the approved master plan. Eric Fellers, 3284 Gunnison Drive, felt the developer should make the retention are into a detention area. Member Brown asked about the parking and the access to the garages on the corner units. Mr. Vaught replied that each corner unit has a minimum of 20 feet behind the garage wall to the curb of the neighboring driveway which allows Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 22, 1985 Page 10 adequate room for two cars to back out at the same time without running into each other. Member Brown asked what the distance is from the recreation are on the eastern side of the site to the western side of the site. Mr. Vaught stated he did not have the dimensions but the clubhouse is complete and is centrally located to the entire development. Member Ross moved to approve Five Oaks Village at Cunningham Corners PUD Preliminary subject to the staff recommendations 1, 2, and 3 and the conditions. Member Lang seconded. Motion was approved 4-2 with Member Gilfillan and Member Brown voting no. Member Gilfillan and Member Brown voted no because they felt the Windmill extension is a major part of this project and should be included. #112-79G - FOUR SEASONS 5TH PUD - PHASE 1 - FINAL Steve Ryder gave a description of the proposed project. Ted Boerstad, M & I/Donohue, introduced himself and stated he would be available for any questions. Mr. Ryder gave staff report recommending approval. The reason for this item being on the discussion agenda was due to neighborhood concerns and questions brought to the Board at the preliminary. Chairman Dow asked if the streets will be built when this subdivision is ready to be developed. Mr. Ryder replied that when the final plan is approve the streets will be a requirement of that construction. Chairman Dow asked about the school site issues and the resolutions of this. Steve Roy responded that the state statute that allows review of certain aspects of school site selections affords this Board a right of review. In regards to streets, the City may not be able to require the School District itself to construct streets. Member Ross asked that if an agreement with the School District can be worked out before actual construction of the next school that, can the Board review it. Mr. Roy replied that, while this review may be a bit belated, a revision to the statute that was enacted in 1984 requires that the Board review it before land acquisition. Planning and ZonI1 Board Minutes • July 22, 1985 Page 11 Chairman Dow asked what happens if this applicant does not develop this subdivision in the next year or two and concerns are brought up about accesses to the school and completion of the roads. Mr. Roy replied legally, the city or the applicant does not have to put them in. Practically speaking, it probably will not get to that point. The Fire Code requires access by means of a roadway of sufficient road base material and standards to support the fire equipment. This is already being done. Chairman Dow asked what the points of access would be into the school. Mr. Ryder replied that he access would be off of Moss Creek Drive. Jay Holeman, Director of Facilities Services for Poudre R-1 School District, stated the agreement the school has with Wheeler is that they will pay 50% of the cost of the streets that surround the property. The construction road is currently being built to give fire and construction access to the school. Their contract calls for that street to be put in by April 1986. The school is projected to open August 1986. Linda Hopkins stated the agreement calls for construction of a road access into the construction site sufficient for fire trucks and should be done in the early phase of construction. Ted Boerstad stated the permanent road is underway. Plans are to proceed, immediately after the city approves it, with utilities and final construction of the total street. Chairman Dow asked what the anticipated time frame for beginning construction of the final improved paved road with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Boerstad stated they are forthcoming in the next 60 days. Member Ross moved to approve Four Seasons PUD Phase 1 Final. Member Brown seconded. Member Gilfillan asked if there would be the possibility of having a development agreement amended to allow no extensions no later than May 1986 and/or a letter of credit to backup completion of streets no later than May 1986. Member Ross stated it is not the City's position to have restraints to protect the School District if the City is not liable for the streets. This would be the School District's problem not the City's. Mr. Roy stated that additions could be put into the agreement if the both parties agree. The School District and the City would still be at risk because the agreement is between Wheeler and the City. Planning and Zoning Boa.j Minutes July 22, 1985 Page 12 Motion to approve passed 5-1 with Member Gilfillan voting no. A131-79F - THE PIER - FOURTH AMENDMENT - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL The applicant requested this item be continued to the August Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Gilfillan moved to continue The Pier - Fourth Amendment Preliminary and Final to the August Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Brown seconded. Motion to continue this item passed 6-0. #40-85 - ESTATES WEST PUD - COUNTY REFERRAL Member Gilfillan abstained from discussion and voting on this item due to a potential conflict. Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the county referral. Jim Martell, representing the applicant, introduced Ms. Fitzgerald, the architect and planner of,this project, and Mr. VonEisler, a representative of Consolidated Industries. He gave a description of the property and what is proposed. Member Ross asked if there is a sewer system or septic tanks proposed for this site. Mr. Martell stated it will be Fort Collins/Loveland Water and South Fort Collins Sanitation. If the lots are less than 100,000 square feet, Municipal Water and Sewer would have to be used. Ms. Kleckner gave staff report. This is in line with density guidelines of the UGA and in line with the intent of rural farm designation which allows for large lot residential development. This is within the corridor. A denial can not legally be based on future action. Staff has recommended approval to the County provided additional right-of-way be dedicated on U.S. 287 for 120 feet. Chairman Dow asked from what major road would the access occur. Ms. Kleckner stated primarily from U.S. 287 to the west. Chairman Dow asked if the road would be finished as opposed to gravel and what controls would there be at the intersection of U.S. 287. Mr. Martell replied there would be a stop sign but the state highway department has no requirements. Ms. Kleckner stated there is no need to require any additional controls such as stop lights. Planning and Zoni#Board Minutes • July 22, 1985 Page 13 Paula Fitzgerald, McCarty Engineering, stated the state highway department has opposed this road connection onto U.S. 287 until it was indicated to them that the development was at a halfway point on the county road situation and that access would be provided to a proposed development immediately to the north of the Estates West property. They then changed their recommendation from denial to approval. There will be a continuous median of U.S. 287 for ease of turning onto the highway and will have a wide shoulder as part of the criteria. Any straightening of the road alignment is opposed due to drainage swale. Strict covenants would be put on the lots. Mr. Roy stated that action can not be tabled by Planning and zoning board pending some other action that affects the corridor area. The owner is entitled to review of the proposed use of the property under existing criteria. The city also can not unilaterally change the criteria since they are acting in an advisory capacity in this are which is outside the UGA and subject to county zoning. Chairman Dow asked if, as part of the conclusion of the Task Force, some definite action would be made by the governing entities within a 6-9 month peri od. Mr. Roy replied that the Task Force recommendation does not have the binding effect that would subsequent action by the governmental entities that would be based on that recommendation. Member Brown asked if this is outside the UGA and if so, why are we using the UGA guidelines. Ms. Kleckner replied that it is outside the UGA. The UGA gives standards for the area between Fort Collins and Loveland UGA too. There are a separate set of standards for the non -farm designation. Chairman Dow asked if the applicant is agreeable to the R-04 dedication upon approval and how much is it. My. Kleckner stated he is agreeable and it would be 120 feet. Member Ross moved to recommend approval to the County subject to the dedication of 120 foot R-O-W. Member Lang seconded. Motion to recommend approval passed 3-1 with Member Brown voting no and Member O'Dell abstaining due to lack of understanding. #47-85 - HENINGTON EXEMPTION - COUNTY REFERRAL Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Janette Henington, applicant, gave a brief summary of the request and described the surrounding area. She stated she does not want to be part of the adjacent subdivision. Planning and Zoning b and Minutes July 22, 1985 Page 14 Ms. Kleckner gave a staff report recommending denial based on this application not meeting subdivision regulations. She stated that the County subdivision resolution does not allow an exemption or a tract which has been part of a previous land division after May 5, 1972. The land is in "the corridor" but this is not the basis for the denial, rather it is the previous division of the land. Member Lang asked that if part of this project were not deeded previously, would staff recommend approval. Ms. Kleckner replied that one issue looked at in review was what the intent of the exemption is. It should be for single family dwelling, one on each tract. Yes, recommendation would probably have been for approval had the division not occurred. Member Ross moved to recommend denial of the Henington Exemption based on the non-compliance with the subdivision regulations. He commented that if the applicant desires, they should bring it back as a 75 acre project and subdivide it. Member Brown seconded. Motion to recommend denial passed 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.