Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/28/1980Or r -� PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 28, 1980 Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Paul Eckman, Carolyn Haase, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Phyllis Wells Staff Present: Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Explained the function of the Planning and Zoning Board. Introduced the Planning staff and described how the meeting would proceed. Described the limited discussion agenda. Welcomed the three new members of the board. Announced that items 6, 7 and 8 had been continued to August 25, and that item 12 had been withdrawn. 1. Approval of minutes of June 23, 1980, and June 26, 1980 Wells: Asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes. Haase: Stated that Susan Epstein would check the June 23 minutes, page 7, to complete the remarks following Eckman's statement. Ross: Moved to approve the minutes subject to the corrections. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0. 2. #80-80 Cameron Park, Second Filing (County Referral) Description: A preliminary proposal for an 18 lot subdivision on 11.9 acres, zoned B, Business, located south of Fort Collins on the west side of College Avenue north of Trilby Road. Applicant: Foothills Office Park, Ltd., 201 North Link Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Frank: Described the proposal; stated staff recommending approval. Wells: Asked if anyone wished to have discussion on the item. Eckman: Stated the proposal appears to be in harmony with the goals for development in the county. Moved recommendation of approval. Ross: Second. P & Z Board Minutes 7/28/80 Page 2 Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0, Wells noting that it meets the requirement for development in the UGA and has been zoned for some time, so should be approved. 3. #81-80 High Country Estates (County Referral) A preliminary proposal for a 4-lot residential subdivision on 41.5 acres, zoned 0, Open, located about 31-, miles north of Fort Collins on the west side of County Road 11. Applicant: Keith and Randi Dixon, 3416 Loch Lomond Court, LaPorte, CO 80535 Frank: Described the proposal; stated staff recommends approval. Wells: Asked if further discussion was desired. Stated that although rural development is recommended for this site, there is no accepted definition of the term, "rural". Stated the area is currently in agricultural use and although the proposed development is in very large lots, it still changes the character of the area, perhaps making it less likely to continue in agricultural use. Said she is bothered by staff's assumption that the development is rural in character, noting that it could just as well be assumed that agricultural use is rural. Stated there is ample room in the Urban Growth Area for residential use. Haase: Asked the planner to elaborate the exemption procedure as it applies to this parcel. Albertson -Clark: Stated that this parcel is not being created by the exemption procedure, but is going through the regular subdivision procedure. Noted that the parcel was previously created by exemption, but that further subdivision required the subdivision procedure. Haase: Stated that clarification of the definition of rural development was included in their packets as far as staff's assumptions were concerned, but that further clarification was needed for the minutes. Eckman: Stated he shared others' concerns that a definition for rural development had not been established, but said he thought staff's logic was viable. Stated also that rural development could imply agricultural use, but noted that the property is considerably north of town and not in the path of immediate development, so it would probably not present any problems in the foreseeable future. Said that if the development were proposed at 3, 4, or 5 acre lots it would be more of a problem as the city grows than with 10 acre lots which could be worked with more easily later on. Stoner: Asked applicants what the existing use of the property is. Keith Dixon: Replied it is presently agricultural, 20 acres in alfalfa, and 20 in new alfalfa, presently covered with oats. Stated there are four shares of Poudre irrigation water with the property. Haase: Asked what the development directly to the south and west of this parcel is at the present. Dixon: Stated the parcel to the south is owned by Dennis Davies and is about P'& Z Board Minutes • • 7/28/80 Page 3 80 acres in size; the parcel to the west is owned by Bud Stiles and is about 20 acres. Clarke: Asked if development of this property would interfere with its continued agricultural use. Dixon: Replied it would not. Stated they were using the subdivision process to protect the property in terms of covenant development and agricultural use. Said that 40 acres does not produce enough crops to pay for itself, but that large lots would allow mini -farms for horses or small crops. Said that 2.92 acres would not permit that. S ted they would like the irrigation water to stay with the property and rotected so that it cannot be sold. Ross: Moved recommendation of approval. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 1, Wells voting no. 4. #82-80 Lamb Exemption (County Referral) A two -lot exemption request on 20 acres zoned FA-1, Farming, located west of Taft Hill Road on the north side of Horsetooth Road. Applicant: J. Rod Lamb, 537 Crestmore Place, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Described the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval with the condition that 60' of R.O.W. be shown on the plat to be dedicated at city request. Albertson -Clark: Stated the sixty feet of R.O.W. would be on the south edge of the property, being one-half of the 120' R.O.W. required for the Horsetooth Road arterial. Eckman: Asked if the property were in or out of the Urban Growth Area. Albertson -Clark: Replied it is about 400' west of the Urban Growth Area boundary. Wells: Asked if anyone wished discussion. Expressed concerns about this type of exemption outside the Urban Growth Area, noting it could create problems in the future as far as planning for this size of parcel with its depth on an arterial, especially with respect to transportation adequacy. Eckman: Stated this seemed to be another case of conflict between the landowner's rights and a community's rights to oversee development within the community. Noted that in this case, the property is near the foothills, outside the Urban Growth Area, that it had been a aoal to encourage rural development outside the UGA and that these ten -acre lots would be rural -type development, that growth to the west would be limited by the mountains. Moved recommendation of approval, subject to staff's recommendation with respect to the 60' R.O.W. Clarke: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 1, Wells voting no. P & Z Board Minutes 7/28/80 Page 4 5. #67-80 Speece Subdivision A proposal for a preliminary one -lot subdivision on .29 acres, located at 2719 W. Mulberry, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. Applicant: Glenn Speece, 2624C Davidson Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Frank: Gave description of the proposal, stating staff recommends approval. Wells: Asked if anyone wished further discussion on the item. Eckman: Asked if Mr. Agens, the next -door neighbor, had been contacted as he would be the individual most affected by this proposal. Albertson -Clark: Replied everyone within 500' had been notified, but there had been no responses, either for or against. Eckman: Stated that this would essentially create two lots, each allowed about 6400 sq. ft. Asked what the minimum lot size would be. Albertson -Clark: Replied it is 6000 sq. ft. Ross: Stated that the present configuration would be difficult to approve if it were being presently reviewed as it is a double -fronting lot, and stated that the proposed subdivision tends to correct that, giving the back yards of the two houses backing onto one another, a better utiliza- tion of the land. Moved recommendation of approval. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0. (Items 6, 7, and 8 continued.) Wells: Stated it is important to come to an understanding with the county about the definition of rural development and suggesting recommending to the county that this be done, perhaps through a joint meeting. Ross: Stated he agreed, in order to prevent precedent establishment of lots smaller than intended by the term. 9. #65-80 Huntington Mews Annexation A proposal to annex 296.34 acres, located west of County Road 13 and 2 mile north of Trilby Road. Applicant: First Western Financial, Lakewood, CO, c/o Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Chianese: Presented staff report, recommending approval. Ross: Asked if the lake were included in, and part of, the 296 acres. Chianese: Replied it is, and on the preliminary site plan with the county, it is incorporated in the plan in terms of open space with provisions for public access. P• & Z Board Minutes • • 7/28/80 Page 5 Clarke: Asked if it is appropriate to consider this item before approval of the annexations upon which it is contingent. Ruggiero: Replied that the contingency is no problem for this board as it is presently only advisory on the matter. Wells: Asked the applicant to speak. Les Kaplan: Representing First Western Financial, the contract purchaser of the property and petitioner for the annexation. Reminded the board that at the last meeting he had stated, during the discussion on the Keenland and Fox Ridge annexations, that this annexation and others would be submitted. Stated that all these annexations are in direct response to the recently adopted Urban Growth Area Plan. Stated Chianese had cited two of the stipulations of that plan which justify this annexation, but pointed out that there was another which deals with development within the Urban Growth Area. Quoted the plan, "The county agrees not to approve any rezoning or development of any undeveloped land which is eligible for voluntary annexation to the city." Noted that this property is presently not eligible for development in the county, so must annex to the city in order to maintain its eligibility for development, despite the fact that there is an approved master plan for it. Stated that at its July meeting the county commissioners had refused to review the 45-acre first phase of Huntington Mews, recommending that that item be submitted to the city. Pointed out that the property would have to be annexed prior to that submittal. Noted that the plan had previously been processed by the county for several months. Stated that the county had chosen to make the interpretation that the master plan on this property is not an existing development proposal. Stated that a secondary reason for making this submittal is that it gives the petitioner the opportunity to reconsider the entire master plan on the property, separate from the first phase, consistent with city development standards and the P.U.D. ordinance. Noted this would also give the city the opportunity to review the plan in detail. Summarized by saying that the annexation of this property is consistent with the UGA plan, and that the petitioner is not only submitting the annexation voluntarily, but feels compelled to do so in light of the county's action with respect to his first phase submission. Haase: Asked if there were in fact a master plan for Huntington Mews, or just Phase I. Kaplan: Replied there is a master plan fixed to the property which is part of the master plan for Fossil Creek, but the applicant intends to re -do it separate from the first phase. Stated he first wanted to submit Phase I and then go on to a new master plan for the remainder. Haase: Asked whether Phase I would be submitted soon if the annexation were approved. Kaplan: Replied it would. Eckman: Asked if the applicant wanted the annexation to come in with the master plan as presented or if it would be free and clear of any obligation by the city. P & Z Board Meeting 7/28/80 Page 6 Kaplan: Replied that the first ase is consistent with that master plan, but revisions would be made�Vhe plan. Stated the acceptance of the annexation would not make it incumbent on the board to accept the existing master plan, but noted that the first phase is based on that plan. Eckman: Stated he wanted to make it clear that if the city annexed the property it would not be subject to any existing master plan. Kaplan: Stated the master plan would be reviewed with the filing of the first phase, and that the later review of a new master plan could determine its consistency with the first phase. Eckman: Stated, then, that the annexation would be free of any obligation by the city to accept an existing master plan. Chianese: Stated that in the past there had been a number of instances where a property had been annexed which had a previously existing approved preliminary or final and that it had been the city's policy to accept that plan and work with the applicant to get city standards and to make it more acceptable to city development standards. Stated most plans had been revised as city zoning has allowed an increase in density or commercial allotments. Stated there is also some question whether the existing master plan and preliminary plan on this property have in fact expired. Kaplan: Stated that negating the previously existing master plan entirely for the applicant would be an unnecessary hardship. Said that generally the most important issues for the city are generally whether a development meets city standards, and assured the board that the first phase would indeed meet those standards. Said the density would probably be below what is allowed in the requested zoning and could work as a transition between Fossil Creek and higher densities in subsequent phases of Huntington Mews. Eckman: Said his concern is that an exing these large properties means they have the opportunity to plan foP%gether, and would not want to be bound by any pre-existing plan. Kaplan: Reiterated the petitioner's secondary reason for the submittal, but noted he would like to proceed with the first phase, only 1/10 of the total area, about 40 acres. Clarke: Stated he shared Eckman's concern that the city not annex something over which it has no control. Pointed out that the requested zoning would require a P.U.D. and the city should have the opportunity to review it. Asked counsel for an opinion. Ruggiero: Stated he could not give a yes or no answer, stating it depended on the status of the project with the county. Asked Kaplan if he knew for sure. Kaplan: Asked William Dunn, the contract purchaser, to speak to the issue. William Dunn: With First Western Financial. Stated that with the submittal to the city they had a density master plan showing areas of development, but no lot layouts or street layouts, so there is ample time to work with P & Z Board Meeting • 7128180 Page 7 the city. Stated it would be at least next year before they went any further with it. Wells: Stated the question is whether the master plan has expired with the county. Kaplan: Stated he thought master plans have no expiration dates in the county. Said also that for all intents and purposes the master plan has expired, in terms of what is appropriate for that property. Dunn: Stated that if the question were whether the city is bound by the master plan, it is not. Said the city was being asked to accept the first 106 lots which the county had been working with. - Wells: Pointed out that that plan is not before them and they did not wish to approve it without seeing it. Dunn: Stated it had been submitted with the annexation request. Chianese: Said she had not seen it, but pointed out that it brings up a point which would be considered under the zoning, which is that the requested zoning be approved with the condition it be developed under a unified plan. Stated it is staff's intent that approval for a plan for the whole area be approved prior to approval for the first phase. Wells: Said that kind of condition is appropriate with the zoning question. Asked if there were further comments. Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval contingent upon approval of the annexa- tion of Keenland and that development be to city standards. Clarke: Second. Wells: Asked if staff's comment that this property would not be eligible for development in the county referred to Kaplan's statement about the commissioners refusing to review the item, or if there were other development criteria which were not met. Chianese: Replied that the first reason is the primary one. Stated that other criteria would make it difficult to develop, specifically the 1/6 contiguity with existing development and the paving of streets, especially those to the nearest paved arterial or the city limits. Wells: Stated this item brings up the same problem discussed last month with respect to the Urban Growth Area where a property would be ineligible for development in the county, but once annexed the same criteria do not apply. Said that this puts the city in the position of promoting development at this time, while the UGA Plan was designed to stage or phase development outwardly and not promote urban sprawl. Stated this is a gap in existing policies which should be addressed before annexation takes place all the way to the UGA boundary. Said her stand is that since the area is ineligible in the county it should not be eligible in the city because of the same criteria, thereby accomplishing the goals of the UGA Plan. P & Z Board Minutes 7/28/80 Page 8 Eckman: Stated it seemed that the county was saying that because of the inter- governmental agreement it does not want to approve any urban -type develop- ment within the UGA. This is because the cities have expressed their desire to have a hand in the planning of development inside the UGA. Stated therefore he is not troubled by annexing within the UGA, because no development is being approved by annexing, and any development would have to receive city review and approval. Stated that when plans for development were brought in, the question of appropriateness for development could be addressed. Wells: Stated that once a property is annexed it becomes eligible for development. Said she feels this property is not eligible for urban development. Pointed out that the county would not review it because it is eligible for annexa- tion, so there is a problem and something is missing from the plan. Stated there is nothing in the Land Use Plan or the UGA agreement to give the board the basis to recommend denial of the right to develop. Kaplan: Pointed out that the UGA Plan does not say that property will be annexed when it is eligible for development in the county, only when it is eligible for annexation. Wells: Replied she understood, but that the approach is wrong and needs clarification. Kaplan: Stated that relative to the property's suitability for development, it had had a master plan on it for over four years, and the county's refusal to review it was saying that it is eligible for development and the city should review it. Stoner: Said he understood Wells' position, but that it would be a real hardship for someone to have to wait until the issue is resolved. Ross: Asked what it would take to make the area eligible for development -- improving the roads to city standards, running out water and sewer lines to city standards --and stated those obligations would probably fall back on the developer anyway. Said they would be unable to develop until these things were done in any case. Clarke: Stated that what determines suitability for development is when somebody is willing to go there and buy a house. Haase: Said they had a responsibility to live up to their agreement with the county and that failure to do so would defeat many of the goals of the UGA Plan. Wells: Restated the motion: to approve the annexation subject to the approval of the Keenland Annexation and that it be built out to city standards. Stoner: Stated the motion he made was that the city would not accept any previous plan, but that a new master plan would be required. Ruggiero: Pointed out again that the status of the master plan with the county was still in question and could conflict with the motion. Stoner: Stated the applicant had stated he would throw out the old master plan anyway. P & Z Board Meeting • . ' 7/28/80 Page 9 Kaplan: Suggested this issue could be discussed along with the zoning. Eckman: Pointed out that with approval of the annexation the city loses some of its leverage in dealing with the existing plans. Asked, if the old master plan was going to be thrown out, why it was being held to so dearly. Suggested research might have to be done. Ross: Suggested amending the motion to exclude the condition regarding the master plan, making it subject only to the annexation of the other two properties. Stated the master plan issue could be handled with the zoning. Eckman: Seconded the amendment. Stoner: Objected to the amendment, noting that only one annexation was necessary to establish the eligibility of the subject annexation. Ruggiero: Suggested stating the condition read,"Providing the necessary contiguity is achieved." Stoner: Further objected to the amendment's deletion of the second condition. Kaplan: Stated the question of the annexation is a jurisdictional one and the zoning question is a land use one. Chuck Mabry: Director of Planning and Development for the City of Fort Collins. Stated it is important to deal with this issue at the point of annexation because the leverage is lost after the issue of annexation is decided. Said it is clearly the responsibility of the city to receive any approved plan in the county when that plan is such that it is recorded with the land, for example, a subdivision plat approved, recorded, and made of record regardless of the jurisdiction, flows with the land. Stated the question of whether or not the master plan is still in force and whether or not, if it is still in force, the city is bound by it, depends on whether it goes with the land. Said this is a legal question which will have to be researched, so suggested that if the board wished to approve the annexation, but without any approved master plan which might be going with the land, that it so indicate clearly in the motion. As further insurance that the city not be bound by any prior plans, the petitioner could be required, prior to hearing by City Council, to enter voluntarily into an agreement with the city to void that master plan if it is going with the land. Wells: Pointed out the board is only making a recommendation so their intent should be clear in the motion and Council could deal with the legalities. Eckman: Again emphasized the importance of excluding any previous master plan prior to approving annexation. Suggesting the motion should indicate a recommendation for approval subject to approval of the Keenland Annexation, which provides the 1/6 contiguity, and subject to an agreement, a waiver, of any rights to the existing master plan on the part of the applicant. Wells: Restated the motion: recommendation of approval of the Huntington Mews Annexation subject to the approval of the Keenland Annexation, and also P & Z Board Minutes 7/28/80 Page 10 with the recommendation to City Council that the city not be tied to acceptance of any existing master plan on the property in question. Stoner: Moved to amend the motion to state only that 1/6 contiguity be attained without reference to any specific annexation. Haase: Asked for a legal opinion of how forceful the board's motion would be. Ruggiero: Stated it would be a recommendation to Council and they could gather the board's concerns from the minutes, but that there was no legal significance in terms of the strength of the term. Vote: Georg: yes; Eckman: yes; Stoner: yes; Wells: no, for the reasons previously mentioned with respect to annexation criteria and phased development in the Urban Growth Area; Ross: yes, expressing agreement with Wells that the criteria for development need to be addressed; Haase: yes; Clarke: yes. The motion carried, 6 - 1. 10'. #65-80 Huntington Mews Zoning A proposal to zone 296.34 acres from (Larimer County) R, Residential, to F-L-P, Low Density Planned residential. Applicant: First Western Financial, Lakewood, CO, c/o Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 W. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval, subject to the condition that the site be developed as a unified P.U.D. Kaplan: Stated that the requested zoning is, in its own right, a basis for annexing into the city because it affords the owner more flexibility. Stated the master plan will be redone and will incorporate the existing plats and plans for the 45-acre first phase. Wells: Asked about the timing of the master plan and first phase submittals. Kaplan: Replied they would be submitted simultaneously. Haase: Noted that with next month's review of KBFH Annexation and Zoning, the subject item, and Keenland and Fox Ridge Annexations, the board is seeing a huge amount of land being prepared for development. Asked if Kaplan would consider commenting on the requested zoning for the KBFH Annexation in order to determine what bearing it might have on the Huntington Mews Annexation Zoning. Kaplan: Replied that the request had already been submitted to the city and was for R-L-P for the entire area except for an 18-acre Planned Business area. Pointed out that the petitioners were completely different for each of the annexations, noting that the KBFH owners are not developers, nor development -minded, but wish to establish the jurisdiction of their property in order to determine what the ground rules for planning will be. Stated it seemed likely that when the area south of Huntington Mews is readied for development there would be rezoning requestswhen there is more detailed thinking. Noted, however, that R-L-P is a flexible zone allowing for some density shifting, convenience uses, and so on. P & Z Board Minutes • 7/28/80 Page 11 Wells: Asked if there were any comments or questions. Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of the zoning, subject to the condition suggested by staff. Eckman: Second. Ross: Moved to amend the motion to include Kaplan's statement that the first phase would be included in the master plan. Haase: Agreed. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0. 11. #39.-80 Cunningham Corner Preliminary P.U.D. Amendment (Reconsideration Item) A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for a residential and commercial P.U.D. on 39 acres, located on the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street, Zoned R-P, Planned Residential, and Conditional H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Randall E. Larsen & Associates, P.C., Main Floor, Savings Building, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to the condition that the applicant relocate one of the apartment/condominium buildings in the central area of the phase as suggested by staff. Kaplan: Stated that City Council had voted to deny this item due to concerns about the amount of density, but that in order to go before Council again with the changes made to address these concerns, it was necessary to appear again before the P & Z Board. Briefly discussed the history of the project and the series of changes which had been made, with specific reference to density, open space, street location, configuration of the buildings, number of units and location of the tennis courts. Stated he had done an analysis showing that the existing multi -family zoning in this four -mile square area of Fort Collins is less probably than in any other four -square -mile area in the city. Said the proposed 9.5 DU/acre density is more moderate than high, well below the maximum of 12 DU/acre which would be allowed. Pointed out the other multi- family zoning, noting that one with which he is involved would not come in at more than 7 DU/acre and that since Wagonwheel had been denied it also would probably come in low. Stated that all this indicates that Cunningham Corners is not introducing an inordinately high density in this area. Pointed out that when the zoning was approved for this area, it was on the southern edge of the city, but that that had changed with the creation of the Urban Growth Area. Stated that the Land Use Policies Plan would probably support an even higher density for this area, especially Policies 3a and d, 20, 26, 49, 75, 78, 80, which he quoted and discussed. Ross: Asked if they had any problems with moving the unit as suggested by staff. Randy Larsen: Project architect. Stated they had not discussed the issue with staff but that they were willing to sit down with them and work out a solution. Said he would like to address briefly some of the architectural ideas for P & Z Board Minutes 7/28/80 Page 12 the project and showed slides of the proposed buildings of each type. Ross: Asked whether it was necessary to address the architectural issues at this hearing. Larsen: Replied they had been submitted with the proposal. Frank: Pointed out that the developer is bound by them if they are submitted with the P.U.D. plans, but noted that it is possible to gain approval without them, providing they are approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Larsen: Said he understood that, but that they had done a lot of work on them and would like for the board to see them. Eckman: Stated he felt they should always see the elevations. Ross: Noted that the actual buildings often turn out quite different from the drawings. Larsen: Agreed that details could be changed and that these are conceptual sketches to "set the tone". Continued with and concluded his presen- tation. Stoner: Asked what the access would be for the western -most of the four buildings in the center area. Larsen: Replied it would be from the south, and that they would work on that area further with staff. Noted there would be a major pedestrian access to the recreation center from the open space. Kaplan: Pointed out that this level of change could be addressed prior to final submittal. Wells: Asked if there were any further comments or questions. Haase: Stated it appeared there would be a heavy traffic pattern on Windmill Drive which future residents would have to live with. Wells: Stated Windmill is classified as a collector. Frank: Replied it is not, that it is classified as a local street. Haase: Stated it should be classified as a collector, and asked if there would be a signalized intersection at Windmill and Horsetooth. Albertson -Clark: Replied there were presently no plans for a signal, but that it might well be required. Kaplan: Stated the street could be kept local if the intersection were designed for ease of turning movements. Wells: Pointed out there had been opposition to this proposal at a previous meeting due to the traffic pattern, and expressed doubt that those residents would want a collector street there. r .P'& Z Board Minutes . . 7/28/80 Page 13 Ross: Stated most of the traffic would be on the south end of the street. Eckman: Agreed that most of the traffic would be southbound rather than going into Woodwest to the north. Ross: Moved to recommend approval subject to the staff condition and that the cost of signalization be shared with Park West. Georg: Second. Frank: Pointed out that signalization comes out of the over -sizing fund. Ross: Deleted reference to signalization from the motion. Georg: Agreed. Clarke: Asked if the Traffic Engineering Department would then make the decision on signalization. Frank: Replied they would. Ross: Asked for clarification regarding the over -sizing fee in order to ascertain that there would be funding for signalization when it became necessary. Frank: Stated the fees were paid into a general over -sizing fund from which moneys were drawn when necessary for such improvements. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0. Wells: Stated that Haase had submitted a memo to the board regarding possible amendments to the by-laws and suggested discussing these at the next work session. Asked that the staff distribute copies of the by-laws to the board members. Haase: Stated it would be helpful, on the annexation issue, to have infor- mation from the Colorado Municipal League relative to the annexation title on the November ballot which will impact the board's discussions on annexations. Also asked for a new copy of the Fort Collins zoning map. Asked whether the Lincoln Junior High Annexation had been deter- mined to be legal. Ruggiero: Stated that in that instance, using a spur of the street for contiguity raises some questions. Said that case law seems to say that it could be annexed, but not used for contiguity. Stated that the petitioners, he understood, would re -submit the proposal. Albertson -Clark: Stated the Poudre R-1 School District had been notified and that staff expected to hear from them. Wells: Stated that if there were two meetings in August that the board be notified well in advance. Asked if a meeting had been set up with Council on the annexation and development criteria. Frank: Replied not as yet. P & T Board Minutes 7/28/80 Page 14 Ross: Stated letters of appreciation should be sent to the three board members who had been replaced this month. So moved. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried by voice vote. Wells: Adjourned meeting at 8:45 p.m.