Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/23/1984PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 23, 1984 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chairman David Gilfillan at 6:33 p.m., April 23, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Tim Dow, David Gilfillan, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson and Alternate Randy Larsen. Staff members present included: Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Ken Waido, Bonnie Tripoli, Curt Smith, Jan Shepard, Mauri Rupel, and Renee Oldham. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Mauri Rupel reviewed the continued items listed on the Agenda. He also explained the Consent Agenda to the public. Member Larsen stated he had excused himself from Gables End discussion during the March meeting and did not vote; the minutes should be amended to reflect this note. The Consent Agenda consisted of the following items: PRPA, PHASE 4 - Preliminary and Final (11-80D); HUNTINGTON HILLS REPLAT, FILING I, PUB - Preliminary (#11-81D); GREENRIDGE AT SOUTHRIDGE GREENS PUB - Preliminary (#9-82J); MINI -MART PUB - Preliminary (#18-84); MINI-U-STORAGE PUB - Final (#7-84A); 1209 NORTH COLLEGE PUB - Preliminary (#14-84); SPRING COURT STORAGE PUB AMENDED - Preliminary & Final (#124-80B); and CITY OF FORT COLLINS SPECIAL REVIEW FOR WATER STORAGE TANK - COUNTY REFERRAL (#24-84). Three items were pulled from the Consent Agenda: #8 - MINI-U-STORAGE; #9 - 1209 NORTH COLLEGE PUD; and #11 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS SPECIAL REVIEW FOR WATER STORAGE TANK. Item #7 - PROSPECT/OVERLAND PUB was continued at the applicant's request to the May 30, 1984, meeting. Member George made a motion to approve items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10 on the Consent Agenda; seconded by Member Ross. The motion carried 7-0. MINI-U-STORAGE PUB - FINAL (#7-84A) Member Ross asked to be excused from this item as there is a potential con- flict. Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the proposal. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Two Member Brown stated she asked this item to be pulled because she had voted no on it at the preliminary and was going to vote no again because she does not like the design. Member Georg made a motion to approve the project; seconded by Member Crews. The motion carried 6-1 with Member Brown voting no and Member Larsen voting in place of Member Ross. 1209 NORTH COLLEGE PUD - Preliminary (#14-84) Joe Frank gave a summary of the item stating that Conifer is a 4-way lighted intersection. The by-pass will be on the north edge of the property. At the time the by-pass is constructed an off -ramp will eliminate access to College Avenue from the site and an alternate access to the south has been planned. Eldon Ward, representing the applicant, stated the traffic light will be triggered, but there will be a long wait from Conifer and the project. Member Georg asked if there would be a potential for shared parking. Ward stated the drive allowed for future access and no potential shared parking because the Salvation Army and the veterinary hospital do not have large areas where a parking area could be placed. Member Georg stated he did not feel the proposed parking would be enough for the use of an indoor theater or membership club. Ward stated those uses were in the unlikely spectrum, the owner was desireous of showing prospective buyers what could be placed on the property. Member George asked if there would be any problem removing the theater and membership club from proposed use since there is no opportunity for shared parking. Ward stated the 25,000 square foot area was the maximum and would probably be changed for final review. Member Georg moved to approve the proposal with the condition it not be on the Consent Agenda and that it is in conformance with review for use. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 7-0. CITY OF FORT COLLINS SPECIAL REVIEW FOR WATER STORAGE TANK (#24-84) Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the project. Jim Gefroh, representing interested land owner adjacent to property, stated 'the tank is under construction now and asked if any geologic testing of the area had been done. Curt Miller, City Water and Sewer, stated there had been a geologic review of the property. Gefroh asked if there are any geologic hazards. Miller stated not to his knowledge. Gefroh asked if a fence would be constructed. Miller responded that standard barbed wire as used for cattle would be put up with security measures. Gefroh asked if a more substantial fence might be put up. Miller stated if there was a problem, a chainlink fence would be put up. Chainlink invites vandals. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Three Gefroh asked if the Foothills policy had been used in review of this project Rupel stated it had been looked at and the 5200 foot policy was no problem. Member Ross stated he felt it was inappropriate the City has something under construction when it came before the Board, they would not tolerate this from other developers. He is embarassed for the City. Member Dow asked why there was no more detail of the site design criteria not just the 5200 foot requirement. Rupel stated this was a County referral and this was all the information submitted. Chairman Gilfillan stated with the City as applicant, we should have more information. Miller conveyed his apologies and was under the impression that since it was subsurface, only a permit was needed. He was not advised until late that the City needed to go through the process. This is not really a building. In answer to a question by Ross as to the height, Miller stated the tank needed to be above 5200 feet to serve the people below 5200 feet. Member Dow asked when construction began and how much of the project is com- plete? Miller stated it was begun 3-4 months ago; 100% of the pipeline is in and 40% of the tank is completed. Member Ross stated the trolley had not been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and now there was a problem. The City needs to be informed they must proceed as a developer. Chairman Gilfillan requested a notation be made to Council on this problem. Member Georg stated the procedure is the problem, not the construction. This should not happen again. City management should alert the City there are not exempt from following procedures. Member Dow moved for recommendation of denial to the County; seconded by Member Ross. The motion carried 4-3 with Members Brown, Crews and Georg voting no. EMERSON ACRES ANNEXATION (#15-84) Ken Waido gave a summary of the proposed annexation. Robert Dickinson, the applicant, said it was always his intent to build, by annexation and zoning it would make the land more saleable since he could not afford to build. Chairman Gilfillan asked if this was a voluntary petition. Waido answer yes. Member Brown asked about the corridor area boundary. Waido said there is approximately one mile between the UGA boundary and the property. Member Brown asked if it had been established what we want to do with the property adjacent to the corridor. Waido said there were no plans to phase the corridor. The idea of the corridor is the abrupt change from urban population to open space and then back into urban population for the corridor. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Four Member Larsen asked if the property must be annexed. Waido stated the County cannot do a PUD in an area available for annexation. Member Crews made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation to City Council; seconded by Member Ross. The motion carried 7-0. EMERSON ACRES ANNEXATION ZONING (#15-84A) Ken Waido gave summary of proposed zoning for the annexation. Chairman Gilfillan asked the density of adjacent project. Waido stated he was unsure of the Provincetown PUD density. Chairman Gilfillan stated that whoever buys the property will have to come before the Board with a plan for development. Member Ross stated a contract purchaser for ground and cannot guarantee what can be done with the property. If properly done, there are a number of alternatives for land use with the PUD system. Member Dow moved to approve the R-L-P zoning with PUD condition; Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 7-0. FOSSIL CREEK 1ST ANNEXATION (#20-84) Ken Waido gave a summary of the proposed annexation. Member Ross asked if by changing the annexation from 4 to 6 acres the notifi- cation was given to enough people. Waido stated that the letters, newspaper articles and posting of the property should be enough notification. Joe Byers, president of Fossil Creek Homeowners Assn., asked when the back property was going to be annexed. Dennis Donovan, representing applicant, stated the back property would probab- ly be annexed, but the zoning would be compatible with the surrounding area. Chairman Gilfillan asked why the entire parcel could not be annexed. Waido stated there was not enough contiguity. Member Crews asked if the frontage road stopped at the property line. Waido stated it did. Member Dow asked when the right-of-way on the west would be dedicated. Waido stated at the time of development. Member Ross moved to recommend approval of the Fossil Creek 1st Annexation; seconded by Member Crews. The motion carried 7-0. FOSSIL CREEK 1ST ZONING (#20-84A) Ken Waido gave a summary of the proposed zoning. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Five Chairman Gilfillan asked if stated the access would be Creek. access would be off 287 or Fossil Creek. Waido at development and not off College, but off Fossil Chairman Gilfillan asked the intent of the developers. Donovan stated he is representing the owners not the developer. They are trying to get away from a frontage road situation off College, can develop to the east and tie into Fossil Creek. Member Ross stated the elevation change is severe. Donovan stated it is and they can bring the road to the east along the north side of the property and then down to the south. Waido stated Fossil Creek Drive is a major arterial on the Master Street Plan. George Ongly, a resident of the neighborhood, stated he resents having his street become a commercial strip. Chuck Mayhugh, a resident of the neighborhood, asked what the zoning due north of the property is, the zoning to the west is B-Business. Waido stated to the north is B-L, Limited Business, and to the east is residential. Mayhugh stated the H-B zone is wide open; he would support zoning compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Gilfillan stated he is comfortable with a PUD since any development has to come through the Board for approval. Byers stated there are definite concerns from the neighborhood. 1) Would rather see B-L than H-B zoning; 2) Concern for traffic; 3) Concern for drain- age in the area; 4) future disposition of the property should be residential; 5) The attachment to Fossil Creek Parkway; 6) Concern for pavement and busi- ness; and 7) Concern for future development. Chairman Gilfillan stated the Board is sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood. Mike Harvey, a resident of the neighborhood, stated they are impacted by the runoff down Mail Creek. They have spent a lot on greenbelts and the runoff is eroding the area. John Gregory, representative of Cameron Park, stated the County does not support strip commercial. How does a PUD limit in the H-B zone? Gilfillan stated the project must be presented to staff, the Board and the neighborhood. Gregory stated there is some limitation through a PUD, but a downzoning might be better. Chairman Gilfillan stated this is unique because of the topography, the neigh- borhood, etc. Gregory stated there is need for a signal at College and Fossil Creek. Donovan stated the owners appreciate the concern of the neighbors and would accept the B-L with PUD condition. Whoever the developers are need to be sensitive to the neighborhood. Waido stated staff would accept the B-L zoning. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Six Member Ross stated the zoning is no guarantee as to what will be put in the area. Waido stated staff agrees with Member Ross, that north of Harmony there is controlled strip, but just south of Drake it is poorly planned strip. Byers asked the Board humor the residents and change the zoning to B-L. Member Dow stated he is aware of the concerns of the neighborhood and there- fore made motion to approve the B-L zoning with PUD condition. Member Georg seconded. The motion carried 7-0. RIVERSIDE SHOPPING CENTER, FILING II - Preliminary (#92-83A) Mauri Rupel gave summary of project. Bill Albrecht, representing applicant, stated it is the applicant's intent to coordinate with Riverside I in development. Chairman Gilfillan asked if there was a problem having a condition of a shop- ping center placed upon the project. Albrecht stated there was no problem for the east lots, but was unsure of west lot. Member Ross asked the net size of the project lots. Rupel responded lot 1 - 1 acre; lot 2 - 1.4 acres; and lot 3 - .4 to .5 acre. Member Ross asked if there was a provision for overall size of a PUD. Rupel was unable to answer. Member Ross stated they did not want to do something that would open them up for problem. Member Dow made a motion to approve this project with a condition like River- side I, with the intent of the development being a neighborhood shopping center, limited to lots 1 and 2. Member Crews seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2 with Crews and Georg voting no. Member Georg stated he voted no because it is an extremely small lot and should be tied into the shopping center and the developer did not act in good faith for circulation. Chairman Gilfillan stated lot 3 should be carefully checked when final pro- posal is submitted. STUART STREET MEDICAL PARK PUD - Preliminary (#16-84) Cathy Chianese gave a summary of the project pointing out there will be shared parking with the church to the south for 70 spaces for employee parking. The curb cut to the church will be moved to the east. No opposition from the neighborhood has been presented. Chairman Gilfillan asked the maximum height of the buildings and setback from Lemay. Bill Brenner, representing the applicant, stated they plan to use the site features in development, the trees; stone wall; 2-story with eave lines to 1-story height; brick, wood, glass; no more than 30-32 feet in height. The setback is 30 feet from Lemay and Stuart. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Seven Member Crews asked if this will be phased construction. Brenner stated they will be built upon demand, so probably will be phased. Crews asked if they would be built in order of numbers on plan. Brenner said no. They will be built to physician's specifications. Member Dow asked what is the contingent plan if not all buildings are built. What will happen to parking? Brenner stated the parking will be done, the footprints will be there and the condo owners will be responsible for keeping the grounds groomed. Member Crews asked if the footprints will remain the same. Brenner stated the buildings show the character and each building will be built to the individual doctor's specifications, the footprint should not change too much. Chianese stated the variation in the footprints are not a square box, they have tried to tie down the character of the buildings. Brenner stated all entrances will be in the protected area, no entrances will be on the west. Member Georg stated he is concerned about the shared parking, what will happen to pedestrians. Brenner stated crosswalks will be striped and signed on Stuart. They will use textured crossings in the parking lot. Most congestion will be after 8:00 a.m. On Sunday, there should be no conflict. There should be minimal problems having employees parking in the church lot so they will be used to making the cross over. Member Brown asked what the distance is from the curb cut to the corner. Brenner replied 220 feet. Member Georg asked if the agreement for shared parking went with the land. Bill Bartran, applicant, stated the contract that had been signed was based upon the land. If the property was sold or changed hands, the agreement would remain in effect. Member Georg asked the setback of the church. Chianese stated it was about 25 feet from Lemay. Member Brown stated with building to doctor's specifications, there will probably be lots of administrative changes. Chianese replied the building envelopes have been designed for latitude of 5 feet or so and hopes the changes that might occur can be handled administratively. Member Larsen stated he felt it is a well done proposal. Member Dow agreed with Member Larsen in the fact it is a well done design. Member Dow moved to approve the project subject to adequate documentation for shared parking is necessary and must make certain it runs with the land. Member Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Member Simpson wished to commend Mr. Bartran on the development. THE VINEYARDS PUD - Final (#26-80C) Cathy Chianese gave a summary of the project. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Eight Chairman Gilfillan asked if at a future date the tennis courts were to be lighted, would it need to come through the Board. Chianese stated it would be an administrative change. Member Crews asked how far it was to the south property line. Chianese replied 10 feet. Frank Vaught, representing the applicant, stated there would be a 10-30 foot setback from the south property line. Chairman Gilfillan asked if there had been any contact with the property owners. Vaught said there had been some. Chianese stated she had a request for copies of the plan from people to the south, but had heard nothing further from them. Member Ross asked if this contained the same square footage as what has been built. Vaught replied it is in conformance with existing development. Jim Loftus, a resident of the neighborhood, stated he likes the changes as it appears to be more open. He asked the distance between Vineyards and Stone- henge lots. Vaught replied a minimum of 40 feet. Trisha Rosenthal, a resident of the neighborhood, asked if the dimensions had changed to the north and the greenbelt and what the time frame is for completion. Vaught responded by saying there were six unsold lots and the green space is the same. Timing for completion of the project is difficult to determine. Optimistically, the greenbelts will be put in in spring -summer, 1985. The road could be put in this summer. The developer has no intention to light the tennis courts. If the homeowners association wants to do that at a future time, they will be responsible. Mel Spencer, resident of Stonehenge, stated the homes in Stonehenge were built with solar in mind and is concerned about maintaining his solar accessibility. Vaught responded there should be no problem. Denise McKeag, a resident of the neighborhood, stated the greenbelt/retention area has not been completed and water collects in her yard. Chairman Gilfillan asked if completion of this phase of the project would eliminate this problem. Vaught replied this is part of the plan for overall development and should be taken care of when completed this summer. Rupel stated McKeag had been in before asking for relief and the developer promised to do something about it. Bill Albrecht, representing the applicant, stated Stoneyhill Drive will go through in about one month and should alleviate this problem. Member Georg stated this is a good instance of one phase not being able to stand on its own. Member Ross moved to approved the proposal; seconded by Chairman Gilfillan. The motion carried 7-0. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Nine CIMARRON WEST AMENDED PUB - Preliminary (#210-79D) Joe Frank gave a summary of the project. Member Larsen inquired as to how Raintree qualifies as a shopping center. Frank stated that master plan or preliminary approval for a shopping center qualifies as eligible to take credit on the point chart. Member Dow asked the density. Frank responded 4.5 DU/acre. John Dengler, representing the applicant, reviewed the changes made in the proposal. They have changed the intensity of the project. There are two new building types to decrease the number of buildings. Member Simpson asked where the 6 foot wood fence would be located. Dengler stated it would be on the west property line. Member Simpson asked how many trees would be planted. Dengler replied 8-12 coniferous trees on top of the berms where the cars are parked with deciduous trees in the lowlying area. Tom Murphy, applicant, stated they have been working for 9 months on this project, this is the third full set of plans to meet the needs. Setbacks will be 55-75 feet from the street. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the schedule for development. Murphy stated the phasing has not been worked out, however, it will probably be in three phases. Member Georg stated he appreciates that the applicant has addressed the City's need and moved to approve the project. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 7-0. MEADOW LANE SUBDIVISION - COUNTY REFERRAL (#21-84) Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the proposal. Member Dow asked if approval would mean that only residential development would be allowed. Rupel replied that the County zoning is residential. Member Dow asked what would happen if the County rezoned the property. Rupel replied it would come back to the Board. Phil Williams, the applicant, stated the access is off Magnolia to Overland. Chairman Gilfillan asked if he plans to develop or to sell. Williams replied he was not sure, he would probably sell one lot and develop another. Member Ross asked if the creek runs through the property. Williams replied it runs on his lot. Member Ross recommended approval of the proposed subdivision. Member Brown seconded. The motion carried 7-0. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Ten MEADOW LANE SUBDIVISION WAIVER - COUNTY REFERRAL (#21-84A) Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the requested waiver. Chairman Gilfillan asked if he was not required to bring the street up to standard. Rupel responded he will enter into a future improvement district for the improvements. Member Georg stated they should not grant waivers any more because it is unfair to the applicant. He recommended the Board take a stance for a fee to be established before approving any future waivers. Williams said if this were adhered to for two lots, it would be hundreds of dollars for two lots and would not be feasible. Member Ross stated it has got to be resolved, asked staff to work something out with the County because it could create a bind for the City. Curt Smith stated the fee will be developed within thirty days. It must be simplistic for use in the U.G.A. and then go to the Board, to Council and to the Commissioners for approval. It will probably be July before it is adopted. Member'Georg moved to table the waiver until such time as a fee is established and approved by the County Commissioners. Member Brown seconded. The motion was defeated 5-2 with Georg and Brown voting for the motion. Member Larsen was concerned that Williams was getting caught in the middle. Member Georg stated we have made a mistake and cannot let it go on. Member Ross moved to approve the waivers; seconded by Chairman Gilfillan. Member Georg stated this is irrational. We set objectives and measure success. He feels it is a mistake and irresponsible. Member Brown agrees with Member Georg, the fee should have been established. Member Dow asked if the motion was meant to include the recommendation from staff. He also agrees with Gilfillan and Georg and that the fee will be estab- lished. Member Crews stated he will vote for this waiver and the other waiver request on the agenda, but requested staff not put waivers on the agenda in the future until the fee is established. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Georg and Brown voting no. COUNTRY RIDGE REZONING AND PUB - COUNTY REFERRAL (#98-81A) CHERRY HEIGHTS PUB - COUNTY REFERRAL (#23-84) Mauri Rupel stated that after discussing these matters with staff and with the County planning staff, they should be tabled until the December, 1984, meeting. f • • P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Eleven Member Larsen excused himself as there is a potential conflict. Larry Trampe, representing Country Ridge Rezoning, and Lucia Liley, represent- ing Cherry Heights, PUD, were introduced. Liley stated the applicants have spent a good deal of time and money to comply with the County. They would not oppose tabling this matter if it will help determine how development should proceed. She feels there should be some County commitment or tabling to a time certain. The County plan should not be done in a vacuum, the City, County and owners should participate in the study. Sewage treatment should be addressed. She would like to reserve the right to be heard by the City and County. Trampe stated he agrees with Liley on all points. Chairman Gilfillan asked if there is some magic in the December date. Smith replied the County does not feel they can have the study ready before Septem- ber. The study should be ready for Council and Commissioners approval in October. The City will be involved as should the owners. Chairman Gilfillan stated that at the September worksession the Board should be brought up to date on the status of the study. Smith agreed. The Board needs to be aware of the County plans. Member Georg asked how the study will compromise the U.G.A. Smith hoped not at all. there may be areas to be kept in ag land on the fringe and should protect the growth area. Member Georg stated the Foothills Policy took 6 months and moved to table Country Ridge Rezoning until the County study is completed, preferably by October, and the Board to have an update at the September worksession. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Member Ross moved the Cherry Heights PUD be tabled to October with an update to be given the Board at the September worksession. Chairman Gilfillan second- ed. The motion carried 7-0. OVERLAND ACRES REZONING AND PUD - COUNTY REFERRAL (#22-84) Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the proposal. Jim Gefroh, representing the applicant, stated that 50% of the project is above 5200 foot level and no structure would be above that point. Chairman Gilfillan asked if the balance of the property is to be developed. Gefroh stated the applicant does not have an idea of what he wants to do with the additional property. Member Brown asked if this is not in the fringe area. Rupel stated they use the same point system. Gefroh stated this project is 3 miles from the center of town and a 2 acre horse set-up would not be easy to maintain. Member Ross stated with this area P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Twelve backing up to Lory State Park it would be an ideal place for acreage and horses. Curt Smith stated the applicant is not restricted to 2.29 acres per unit, that under a PUD there can be 5 units per acre if developed as a PUD. Member Georg stated he is not hearing an argument for a 2.29 acre site that can be well -designed. Member Brown stated with the denial of the City's water storage tank, what effect will that have on the development. Gefroh did not know effect. Rupel stated they are supplying water through a pump and will either need the tank or more pumps to service the development. Member Ross stated he has seen no reason to ignore the Foothills Plan. Chair- man Gilfillan stated the higher density might entice other developers to submit for commercial. Member Georg stated that although the concept is right, it is inconsistent and therefore moved to deny. Member Brown seconded. The motion carried 7-0. COMMERCIAL DESIGN, INC., WAIVER - COUNTY REFERRAL (#12-84A) Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the requested waiver. Member Georg asked Rod Arndt if he was willing to pay $100,000 or $10,000. Member Georg stated that he was testing because we don't know what the fee will be. Arndt stated he is willing to work with an improvement district. Member Larsen asked how many employees they have. Arndt replied 3 but could have 6 depending on layout. Member Dow stated there were two waivers, street and sewer. Arndt said they checked the hook-up to the existing sewer line and it would be too far an up -hill incline to connect. The septic tank has been inspected and approved by the County Health Department. Member Ross asked if by agreeing to the improvement district, can that be waived by a small parcel of property. Smith said they would probably take it as having agreed to participate. Member Ross asked if this will deal with the fee. Smith stated they will get a commitment to pay a fair share. Member Ross asked if this will be recorded for future sale of land. Smith replied yes. Member Dow stated the same comments apply to this waiver as to the previous waiver and moved to recommend approval of the waiver with the condition the applicant participate in a future improvement district. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 5-2 with Members Georg and Brown voting no. BARSTOW-TRUJILLO REZONING - COUNTY REFERRAL (#94-80A) Mauri Rupel gave a summary of the requested rezoning. P & Z Minutes April 23, 1984 Page Thirteen Jim Martel, representing the owners, stated the sewer is the biggest problem in the 0-Open zoning and would allow two lots to be developed as residential dwellings only. Chairman Gilfillan asked the definition of rezoning. Martel responded by asking if it was rezoning or reversion? Can you use property zoned with conditions that won't allow development? This is not a request for new zoning, just reversion to original zoning. Chairman Gilfillan stated with no specific plan it is hard to justify rezon- ing. Martel responded they plan to put two residential houses on the lots. Nothing can prevent development. Member Georg stated there is no known reversion. He does know waivers can be used to develop the property. Curt Smith stated a building permit cannot be issued without coming back to the Board for review. There are no reversions in the County. Any development can meet the criteria through the waiver process. Martel stated there are no specific regulations for reversions. He used an analogy that if a PUD was not developed within two years it reverts to the former zoning. Smith stated that by not allowing it does not exist. Member Brown moved to recommend rezoning to 0-Open with condition to meet all Intergovernmental Agreements. Chairman Gilfillan seconded. The motion passed 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS The May meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 1984, at 6:30 p.m. The worksession will be held on Thursday, May 24, 1984, at 11:00 a.m. Discussion was held on how to expedite the meetings. One suggestion was to limit the number of submittals to 15-16 applications. Member Georg recommended the Board give staff more guidance on the Consent Agenda. At worksession staff should go through the Consent Agenda and answer questions at that time rather than at the meeting. Discussion items are gone over at the regular meeting so worksession should be more for Consent items. Worksessions should be limited to agenda items rather than outside reports such as the HUD affordable housing and the traffic circulation. Another suggestion was to have two meetings per month, most likely on the fourth Monday and Wednesday of the month. The meeting was adjourned at 11:33 p.m.