Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/30/1984PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES May 30, 1984 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chariman David Gilfillan at 6:34 p.m., May 30, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Dennis Georg, Tim Dow, David Gilfillan, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, Alternate Randy Larsen, and Gary Ross. Staff members present included: Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Ken Waido, Bonnie Tripoli, Mauri Rupel, Jan Shepard, and Renee Oldham. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Mauri Rupel reviewed the Consent Agenda. Chairman Gilfillan noted that Member Ross was not in attendance and Member Larsen would be voting in his place. Member Ross arrived at 6:36 p.m. Rupel stated there were two items to be pulled from the Consent Agenda which were: #5 - FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHASE 2, PUD - Final; and #10 - FAIRVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, PHASE 3A, PUD - Preliminary & Final. Chairman Gilfillan asked that Consent Agenda item #9 - FAIRBROOKE TRACT E SUBDIVISION PUD - AMENDMENT be pulled also. Member Dow asked two questions regarding Stuart Street Medical Park PUD - whether- the shared parking commitment tied to the land and pedestrian crossings marked on Stuart Street had been included on the final site plan as discussed at the previous meeting. Rupel stated both the shared parking and the pedestrian crossings have been addressed. Member Ross made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of #5, #9, and #10. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 7-0. The items approved on the Consent Agenda were: STUART STREET MEDICAL PARK PUD - Final (#16-84A); GREENRIDGE AT SOUTHRIDGE GREENS PUD - Final (#9-82L); AMENDED INDIAN HILLS WEST PUD AND REPLAT OF LOTS 14, 15 & 16 (#43-79B); PARKWOOD EAST TOWNHOMES REVISED - Preliminary & Final (#22-81B); HUNTINGTON HILLS PUD - Final (#11-81E); and FAIRBROOKE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT (#65-82D). FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHASE 2, PUD - Final (#193-79C) Joe Frank gave a summary of the First Christian Church project. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the dust problem with a project this size. Rupel stated that when a complaint is received, the developer is called and something is done about it. I P & Z Meeting • • May 30, 1984 Page Two Phillip Taylor, representing the applicant, apologized for Dorado Court not being notified. He stated the basement excavation will be removed completely from the site. Member Georg stated the drawing seems inconsistent with the landscape approved with the last amendment. Frank stated the landscape shown is only for this phase of the project. Member Crews asked if the landscaping for the approved amendment must still be in by August 1, 1984. Frank stated the landscape was approved until September 25, 1984, and must be installed by that time. Member Larsen stated that in this large parking area there seemed to be very few pedestrian ways. Taylor responded they are adding to and extending exist- ing walkways. Member Larsen stated this project is sparsely landscaped, the addition is clumsy, and additional landscaping might enhance the building. Chairman Gilfillan stated there can be problems with retroactive landscape plans. Member Larsen stated there is not much landscaping for the size of the building. Frank responded that they are only indicating trees and evergreens, no shrubs as shown on the first phase, but will be some additional landscaping. Member Georg asked if this was a separate landscape for this particular phase. Frank stated as there is more development, the landscaping will become more intense. Member Georg asked what the building materials would be on the addition. Taylor responded it would be acrylic stucco finish, similar to the existing building. The "box" (addition) is 70'x116' and is 1212' tall. Member Rossstatedit does not look as expected after comparing it to the Master Plan submitted. Member Georg stated this is a good example of how each phase must stand on its own. The Board has insisted on better landscaping and should not let the church get by with less than expected for other projects. Member Ross stated more substantial landscaping or the building should be more as shown on the Master Plan. He cannot support the proposal. Member Georg moved to deny the project on two grounds: 1) the addition is out of character with the Master Plan; and 2) the building, this phase, has little landscaping for the area. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Member Larsen voted in place of Member Brown who did not vote as she owns property within 500 feet of the project. FAIRBROOKE TRACT E SUBDIVISION PUD - AMENDMENT (#65-82E) Cathy Chianese gave a summary of the project. Chairman Gilfillan asked the City's feeling regarding the use of an "eyebrow" instead of a cul-de-sac. Chianese stated that since the City does not have a Policy prohibiting use of "eyebrows," staff is recommending approval now and will come up with a policy on eyebrows in the future. P & Z Meeting . May 30, 1984 Page Three Tom Hays, City engineer, stated eyebrows have an impact on traffic safety and maintenance. There is a wide entrance with no lanes defined and also increases the cost of maintenance. Chairman Gilfillan asked if there were problems with types of eyebrows in the City. Chianese stated it is a common design feature in single family subdivisions. Hays stated he only wanted to express concerns. Member Ross asked if a larger radius and landscaped island would alleviate the problem. Hays stated the advantage to that is there is a more defined traffic path. Member Ross asked if there was a history of difficulties with approved eyebrows creating problems. Hays said there is no significant statistical information on the difference between eyebrows and a regular intersection. Chairman Gilfillan asked if there were 2 eyebrows in the project. Chianese stated there are 3 eyebrows in this project. DoB Parsons, representing the applicant, said they considered two options: a 90 turn; or 2 cul-de-sacs with no connecting street. The alternatives would not solve the problem and may create other problems. They could find no statistics on the number of accidents because of the design. Chairman Gilfillan stated there are deep lots, could the road loop or make a private drive? Parsons stated all alternatives seemed less desirable. Deanne Vink, a resident of the neighborhood, asked about the dust abatement. There are no streets or grass planted and the area has been torn up for about five months. Bill Neal, the applicant, stated curb, gutter and sidewalk would be in within 30 days. Member Georg asked if there is a City policy on dust abatement. Hays stated the developers are not to strip a large area and to control dust in the inter- im by seeding or furrowing. Dust is a difficult problem during construction. Member Dow moved to approve the project stating it is a good design with low intensity use and it is unfair to penalize the developer when there is no policy on eyebrows. Member Simpson seconded, stating she is pleased to see a single family project. The motion carried 5-2 with Member Georg voting no because he does not feel eyebrows are the only option and the applicant has not presented other options to the Board. Chairman Gilfillan voted no also stating the design can definitely use improvement. Member Brown stated the City should develop a policy on eyebrows. FAIRVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, PHASE 3A, PUD - Preliminary & Final (#72-79C) Cathy Chianese summarized the plan for a Taco Bell restaurant to be located on the south side of West Elizabeth close to C, B & P. Staff from Public Works is requesting a 50 foot right-of-way rather than the 40 feet proposed by the developer. Tom Hays, City engineer, stated the additional 10 feet is necessary to conform to the Master Street Plan adopted in 1981. Existing development on the south side of West Elizabeth between Shields Street and Taft Hill Road has 40 foot ROW. P & Z Meeting . May 30, 1984 Page Four Member Brown asked how many curb cuts are on the south side of Elizabeth between Shields and this project. Chianese stated the curb cuts have decreased from the Master Plan submittal because a number of curb cuts have been combined. The Taco Bell drive-thru does not conflict with pedestrian movement. Member Dow asked if the City decides to make a larger street, can the appli- cant dedicate an additional 10 feet at that time. Hays stated they are looking at the long term use of Elizabeth. Elizabeth will eventually have to be widen- ed to meet arterial requirements. The developer should show why we should not save money now and have the additional 10 feet dedicated. Member Ross asked if Elizabeth will be arterial standard west from Taft. Hays stated Elizabeth will be an arterial to Overland. Member Larsen asked if the Nautilus they looked at a couple months ago had trouble with the 50' dedication. Chianese stated they were part of an already approved plan so did not have to worry about the additional 10 foot dedication. Member Georg asked when the City standard policy was changed to 50 feet. Hays stated it was September, 1981, and they have paid close attention to projects for the dedication. Member Dow asked if Wendy's was approved after 1981. Chianese believed it was. The Taco Bell site is tight and shifting the project to the south to allow for an additional 10 foot ROW would eliminate parking and move drive-thru access too close to Elizabeth Street curb cut. Bill Bartran, the applicant, stated that he was willing to dedicate the addi- tional 10 feet of ROW, but as a taxpayer would rather see the City negotiate to get the right-of-way from the property on the north side of Elizabeth as there is 1/2 mile of undeveloped land. Why condemn 10 feet on each side which will cost more than negotiating one side to do it. Member Crews moved to approve the project. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 7-0. MAPLE STREET APARTMENTS - R-M CONVERSION - Preliminary (#19-84) Cathy Chianese gave a summary of the project. Chianese stated there was a neighborhood meeting and there was no opposition at that time. We have received three letters in opposition to the project since then. Tom Dougherty, the applicant, stated he was aware of the sensitivity in the neighborhood, so went the preliminary route. They changed the streetscape in accordance with staff's comments and saved about 10 mature trees. John Arnold, a resident of the neighborhood, asked if there would be a street light in the block. Rupel stated the R-M review does not require street lights as do subdivisions and PUD's. Arnold asked if there would be a crossing for school children put on Maple. Chianese stated the traffic study did not P & Z Meeting • May 30, 1984 Page Five indicate it was needed. Arnold asked if there would be rent subsidized apart- ments. Dougherty stated there would be no rent subsidy on any unit. i it Member Ross asked if there is a problem with water pressure. Arnold stated at high use times there is, but that is probably true throughout the City. Dougherty stated, in response to Arnold's question of a street light, that if there is room one would be installed. Phil Linhardt, a resident of the neighborhood, stated it looks strange to have a single family stuck between two multi -family units. Chianese stated the surrounding neighborhood is R-M and development used to go through zoning, now it must come through Planning and Zoning Board for review which will increase the quality of projects. Terry Sherrod, a resident of the neighborhood, stated the traffic should be looked at a little more closely because for a short street there is an incredible amount of traffic. Chairman Gilfillan asked if the traffic is due to the school or resident traffic. Sherrod responded it is resident traffic. It is very loud. Chairman Gilfillan asked Chianese if she got any feedback from traffic. Chianese stated they did not do a full-blown traffic study. Will ask for more information for final hearing. Member Ross asked what would be done with more results. Chianese stated the traffic study will not recommend less units, they will probably come back with traffic slow down measures. Member Dow asked if the western edge would be fenced or landscaped. Dougherty stated it would be fenced and planted with grass. There will be little additional planting because of the shadowing. Member Brown asked for comparable density. Chianese stated that visually this will be higher density. The placement on the lot, parking and site design make better use than through zoning. Member Ross moved to approve the project. Member Crews seconded. Member Larsen stated he is worried about the west side of the building. Dougherty said deciduous tress would be put on the west side. Member Dow stated it is hard to put a project in a transitional neighborhood. He is concerned about the density at 26 units per acre, although much has been done in the design on the lot. Member Brown stated she agrees with Member Dow and will have to vote no. The single family neighborhood will be destroyed. The motion carried 5-2 with Member Brown and Member Simpson voting no. P & Z Meeting • • May 30, 1984 Page Six WARREN FARM MASTER PLAN Cathy Chianese gave a summary on the project. A neighborhood meeting was held and the most significant concern was the extension of Meadowlark to tie in with Manhattan. The neighborhood did not want Meadowlark to become a through street with a lot of traffic. Chairman Gilfillan asked if the design of the street was based on the commer- cial zone. Chianese stated no design requirements were compromised by the street size. Member Ross asked where stop signs would be located. Chianese pointed out intersection controls. Member Dow asked what the Master Street Plan showed for Meadowlark. Chianese stated Meadowlark was always planned to be put through. It is a unique street because it has single family residences and an elementary school fronting on it so the design had to be changed from a straight street. Linda Ripley, representing the applicant, stated the project achieves in -fill requirements with patio homes, condos, and apartments. The commercial area gives a transitional change to the South College/Horsetooth commercial area. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the percentage of developable commercial land. Ripley responded the net developable area was 13 acres. Member Brown stated the detention areas are shown as blue, will they have water in them? Ripley stated they are planning wet ponds. Member Ross asked how the detention west of the New Mercer ditch would be handled. Ripley re- sponded it would be piped under the ditch. Member Brown asked if there would be detention in the parking areas. Ripley stated not at this time. Chairman Gilfillan asked why not continue the single family homes adjacent to the single family homes. Ripley stated there would be an 80 foot buffer zone between the single family homes and the patio homes. Member Georg asked how the detention ponds would work with such a flat area. Rupel stated a problem was not picked up by Storm Drainage. Member Crews asked if the ditch company needs to give approval for the pipe under the ditch. Chianese stated the ditch company and railroad need to give permission for the pipe and for landscaping. Member Crews moved to approve the project. Member Dow seconded the motion. Member Ross stated he is voting yes, but sees major hurdles to be cleared before the final and will not feel compelled to vote yes on the plans. Member Georg feels the Board must follow up on each phase and examine plans more closely in the future. Chairman Gilfillan voted no stating he feels 26% development in the commercial site is too much. The motion carried 6-1 with Chairman Gilfillan voting no. P & Z Meeting . • May 30, 1984 Page Seven WARREN FARM, PHASE 1, PUD - Preliminary (#17-84A) Cathy Chianese gave a summary of the proposed phase. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the 150 foot access for fire to the restaurant and building 8. Chianese stated the applicants are aware of the problem and will address this on the final. Member Larsen asked about encroaching on the ditch. Chianese stated the appli- cant is working with the ditch company. The fence and landscaping is not proposed on railroad property. Member Brown asked about the 700+ employees and the parking problem. Chianese stated the guidelines for number of parking spaces take into account the employees and the customers. Member Crews asked about guidelines for parking for the theater. Chianese stated it is 1 space for 4 seats. The majority of other buildings would not be in service during theater hours so sharing of spaces would occur. Member Dow asked about a drive -up facility at the bank. Ripley stated they are hoping to get by without it. If necessary, some of the parking can be cut out. Member Dow asked about a breakdown of 8-5 jobs compared to evening jobs. Ripley stated the figures are generated by ULI. All uses on site will not be peaking at the same time. There is a discrepancy with shared parking with the theater. Chairman Gilfillan asked if the project would be phased or built out. Ripley stated it will probably be phased, but there is no planned order. Member Ross asked if a particular bank and/or restaurant have been planned. Ripley stated none is under consideration. Member Ross stated he cannot see retrofitting the bank with a drive -up. What is it like to work with a circular parking lot and what about pedestrian ways. Ripley stated they wanted to blend the project with the neighborhood. The circular parking allows for straight line pedestrian ways. Member Ross asked about snow removal in the circular parking lot. Ripley stated it should not be a problem. The design allows for a strong landscape design. Member Brown asked about the shadow pattern for the bank. There would probably be no melting, what about ice removal. Ripley stated should not be a problem. Member Brown stated this is one of the most creative and innovative designs and commends the applicant. Member Dow stated he is not comfortable with the parking. Chianese stated they rely on guidelines per square footage to determine parking guidelines rather than speculated use. P & Z Meeting • May 30, 1984 Page Eight Member Georg asked if they should consider if the guidelines should be accept- ed. Maybe staff should reassess relevance of the parking guidelines for Fort Collins. Chianese stated that several years ago an analysis on parking was done by survey, this relates specifically to Fort Collins and follows guidelines outlined. Member Georg stated he still has a concern with the detention but will move to approve with the height variance requested for the bank. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 6-1 with Chairman Gilfillan voting no. WILLOW GROVE AT CUNNINGHAM CORNERS PUD - Preliminary & Final (#4-83D) Joe Frank gave a summary. Frank Vaught, representing the applicant, elaborated on the plan. Lucia Liley, attorney, stated they are The applicant feels the Master Plan rather than a particular phase. requesting a variance for contiguity. should be used to measure contiguity Member Ross asked if they chose to develop another phase, how much would have to be done. Frank stated all utilities, streets, water and sewer lines would have to be put in. Member Brown asked what things would give contiguity to the site. Frank stated a skeleton of all improvements, streets, water, sewer, etc. would have to be put in. Liley stated all collectors, streets, water and sewer will be put in for the entire site. Member Ross stated he sees no problem. Member Crews stated that each phase should be able to stand on its own. This will put everything in and will allow for flow from one area to another. Member Brown asked how bonus points are awarded for approved projects. Frank stated that any approved Master Plan, preliminary plan or final, will allow bonus points. Member Brown stated the only thing that needs to be constructed for bonus points is contiguity. Frank stated yes. Chairman Gilfillan asked when the recreation complex will be constructed. Vaught stated a maximum of 76 units could be constructed. Frank stated eleven building permits rather than units could be issued. Chairman Gilfillan asked the number of building permits issued. Vaught stated five have been issued. Chairman Gilfillan asked how this will affect building of Chestnut Village. Vaught stated the condition could be tied to all building permits, not just Chestnut Village. P & Z Meeting • • May 30, 1964 Page Nine Member Brown stated she is concerned about the setback from the street. Vaught stated the setback will be 25 feet from the corner with added landscaping and berming in problem areas. Member Brown asked if the trash areas will be enclosed. Vaught responded yes. Member Dow moved to approve the project with the variance request for contigu- ity with the condition that not more than 11 building permits be issued for Chestnut Village and/or Willow Grove prior to construction of the recreation facility. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Member Georg stated it was a poor precedent to approve contiguity from a Master Plan unless a major part of the construction will be done. APPLERIDGE PUD, PHASE 1 & 2 - Preliminary & Final Cathy Chianese gave a summary of the request. Member Ross stated he can finish building, the Board is being asked to approve selling the land with the approved units. Chianese stated the request in no way affects what has been approved to date; the site plan, the unit number, etc. Member Larsen asked if the request will create any problem with utilities. Ramsey Myatt, attorney representing the applicant, stated the plan was origin- ally presented as condominiums. FHA was the best financing, but needed to deed the land. Thirty-two units, or about 1/3 of the project, have been com- pletely built and sold. Member Ross asked how homeowners association for townhomes and condominiums would differ. Myatt stated there would be no difference. The funds are to maintain common areas for each type of unit, either townhouse or condominium. Member Crews asked if the 32 units have been sold as townhomes and the land is included. Myatt responded they are on an illegal subdivision, the City must recognize the plan as a subdivision to allow the developer to continue to sell the land under the units. Member Brown asked if the Board denies the request, if the project would lose anything. Myatt stated those units under construction and not started will lose FHA financing. Chianese stated the existing units are on illegal lots. A plat must be approved by the City. Chairman Gilfillan stated a variance of this magnitude (65 points to the development chart) could create problems. Myatt stated the reason for a vari- ance is that each project requesting a variance is looked at individually, not as one having been done before. P & Z Meeting • May 30, 1984 Page Ten Member Dow asked what are the specific criteria for a hardship waiver. Ken Frazier stated there are two basic criteria. The project must be equal to or better than approved or a hardship that would not affect the community. Member Dow asked if it matters that the hardship is self-imposed. Frazier stated not specifically. Member Georg stated the hardship is self-inflicted because he has illegal lots, he is usually outspoken on the topic of setting precedent. It does not matter to the project if it is townhome or condominium. He has no problem with the variance and moves to approve Appleridge I and II variance to the point chart. Member Dow seconded the motion stating he thinks this meets the criteria equal to or better than before and does not affect the public at large. The motion carried 5-2 with Member Ross not participating and Chairman Gil- fillan and Member Larsen voting no. U.G.A. WAIVER FEE Ken Waido gave a summary. Member Brown asked if phasing criteria will affect the waiver criteria. Waido stated phasing will not change the waiver fee. The fee should be assessed to all development within the growth area. Chairman Gilfillan asked how the fee will be assessed. Waido stated it will be assessed at time building permit is issued. Chairman Gilfillan asked if a letter of credit allowing options for payment could be submitted. Waido stated this is a County fee not a City fee. Member Dow stated all costs should be paid by developer and should make people who have the biggest impact on the streets pay more. Waido stated the fees attempt to address this discrepancy. Member Brown asked if the waiver process stays in place. Member Ross asked if the developer could participate partially. Waido stated the waiver and the partial participation may be considered during negotiation with developer. Mauri Rupel stated the street oversizing fee, upon which this fee is based, is conditioned on phasing. Member Ross asked if a developer could do partial improvement and make partial payment for future improvement. Rupel stated they should be able to do so. Member Georg asked what is the distribution of a typical square mile in the City. Waido stated that given all acres of the city, there is never a typical square mile. Member Georg stated there seems to be a shortfall of revenues generated by about a factor of 2. P & Z Meeting • • May 30, 1984 Page Eleven Waido stated the oversizing fee is adjusted annually. Member Georg asked when it was last updated. Rupel stated in September, 1983. There will be a gradual increase in the fee over five years. Member Crews asked how often this fee would be reviewed. Waido stated annually. Member Brown asked if there has been a shortfall of oversizing fees. Rupel stated yes because a portion of oversizing costs have previously been intended to come from the general fund. Council feels development should pay its own way. Member Ross moved to approve the U.G.A. waiver fee. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 6-1 with Member Georg voting no since he could not vote maybe and did not feel the fee was adequate. Member Brown is not satisfied development will pay its own way. Chairman Gilfillan stated they should negotiate with the developer on fees. WILLOX HEIGHTS REZONING (#64-75A) PARK SOUTH REZONING (#166-79C) BUCKINGHAM WEST REZONING (#27-84) Ken Waido gave a review of why the rezonings are on the agenda. Waido gave a summary of Willox Heights Rezoning. Lucia Liley, representing the property owner for Willox Heights Rezoning, stated the methods were procedurally incorrect. The owners were not adequately notified. Member Dow stated these are not really rezonings of the properties. Liley stated there are certain uses by right in the C-Commercial zone which the owners were convinced to pursue in 1975 when they first requested a subdivision in the County and subsequently were annexed into the City. Chairman Gilfillan stated the rezonings should be tabled to next month to give adequate notice to the owners and allow them time for preparation. Member Dow stated he felt adequate notice had been given because the owner had contacted counsel. Member Ross stated there are four critiera for rezoning and the City has not met any of the criteria. Staff should meet with the owners. These were earmarked because a previous project caused problems. He feels staff moved faster than anticipated in this regard. Member Georg agreed with Member Dow about procedure. The problem encountered with Riverside and Lemay showed the need to provide flexibility for problem zones. The concept is right because of anticipated problem areas. Member Ross stated the idea is that a PUD is not a zone and always had the underlying zone as use by right. Ultimately the PUD is a rezoning. Member Simpson stated that whether the land developed as a PUD or subdivision will cause ramifications. Need to clarify process to landowner. Member Larsen stated the rezonings need more thought. The owners would like to have some input. P & Z Meeting • • May 30, 1984 Page Twelve Ron Strahle, owner of Park South Rezoning, stated he felt it appropriate to table the rezonings to allow the owners time to sit down and talk with staff. The owners need straight answers to questions and would like to know potential problems. Blair Kiefer, owner of Buckingham West Rezoning, does not know whether he is for or against the rezoning. He would like to sit down and talk about the problems. Member Ross moved to table items 17, 18, and 19 (WILLOX HEIGHTS REZONING; PARK SOUTH REZONING; and BUCKINGHAM WEST REZONING). Member Crews seconded. Member Brown asked if there should be a limit as to when these will be heard. Member Ross clarified the motion to table these items to the July, 1984, Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Dow stated he would like to take a look at all potential areas of concerns. The motion carried 7-0. SPRINGFIELD RECREATIONAL CENTER WAIVER - County Referral (#2-84B) Mauri Rupel gave summary of requested waiver. Ted Davis, the applicant, stated they are willing to pay off -site improvements if the fee can be tied down. They are willing to pay the fee and signalize the corner, Horsetooth and Taft Hill Road. Chairman Gilfillan asked about future annexation. Davis answered they will annex, however, t-hey are not eligible at this time for annexation. Chairman Gilfillan asked about traffic. Matt Delich, traffic engineer, stated Rick Ensdorff, City traffic engineer, agreed his traffic projections were high after Delich-submitted his report. They concur a signal is needed and Taft Hill needs to be widened. Left turn lanes into the site are not necessary at this time, but will be needed in the future. Member Larsen asked if without a waiver, the applicant needs to meet the four recommendations made by Rick Ensdorff. Rupel answered in the affirmative. Member Ross moved for approval with note that applicant will pay fee if established within a reasonable time. Chairman Gilfillan seconded and asked if Member Ross wanted to add anything about annexation. Member Ross stated annexation was okay. If the fee is established within six months the applicant will be obligated to pay. Member Larsen stated he thought the waiver was more for small development rather than large development. P & Z Meeting May 30, 1984 Page Thirteen Member Georg felt the condition of annexation and Special Improvement District participation should be added to the motion. Member Ross stated the Board cannot expect the developer to sign a blank check. We need to have good faith in the developer. Member Georg stated the project will have an impact. The motion was defeated 3-4 with Members Crews, Dow, Georg and Brown voting no. Member Dow made a motion to deny the waiver. Member Crews seconded. The motion was defeated 3-4 with Members Georg, Ross, and Simpson and Chairman Gilfillan voting no. Davis stated this is a phased plan. The applicant agrees to pay the recom- mended fee with the understanding if the fee is adjusted, they would adjust. Vern Sunset, applicant, stated they cannot strip zone and this is a frustra- ting process. They are willing to pay their fair share. Ken Waido stated the County cannot collect an unestablished fee. Member Georg made a motion to approve the waiver if the applicant agrees to pay for the completion of items outlined by Rick Ensdorff. The Board should not be shortsighted. This seems like a fair solution. Could the improvements be phased? Rupel said he does not have a problem as long as the applicant does not get charged double. Member Crews seconded. Member Brown was concerned about establishing a precedent of an in lieu of f ee. Member Crews stated it is not fair to make the applicants wait for a fee to be established. Member Larsen stated he sees this as off -site improvements. The motion carried 5-2 with Members Dow and Brown voting no. Davis stated they will install all improvements at time of first phase. Sunset stated this is something they will have to live with because they need to get started on the project. GALLEGOS EXEMPTION - County Referral (#26-84) Mauri Rupel gave summary. Member Ross asked if they can build or would they have to wait for the City to issue out -of -City service. Rupel stated they will be able to use sewer and water will be installed at a later time. P & Z Meeting May 30, 1984 Page Fourteen Art Gallegos, applicant, stated a water line is within 200 feet. The City will allow use. Member Crews moved to approve the request and the out -of -City water request. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 7-0. CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER STORAGE TANK - County Referral (#24-84A) Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the request. Member Brown moved to approve the request. Member Simpson seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Member Crews moved to adjourn. Chairman Gilfillan seconded. The meeting adjourned at 12:28 a.m.