Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/25/1993• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 25, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairperson Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier and Renee Clements -Cooney. Board member Lloyd Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item 1 - Election of Officers - pulled off the Consent Agenda for consideration and placed at the end of the Discussion Agenda; Item 2 - Minutes of the December 17, 1992 meeting; Item 3 - Pinecone Apartments PUD - Final, Case #60-91E, was pulled for Discussion by Staff; Item 4 - • Gilsdorf Garage Expansion - Non -Conforming Use, Case #60-92; Item 5 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 15th Filing - Preliminary (New Mercer Commons PUD), Case #53-85AB; Item 6 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 8th Filing - Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #53-85AC; Item 7 - Siegmund Medical Office PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #62-92A; Item 8 - Paragon Point PUD, Phase. III - Preliminary, Case #48-91E, was pulled by the Board for discussion; Item 9 - Oakridge Village PUD, 9th Filing - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-82BA, was pulled by an audience member; Item 10 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - Shadowbrook PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #61-92; Item and 12 - Overland Hills West - RF Site Plan Review, Case #38-90D. Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. Member Clements - Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. PINECONE APARTMENTS PUD - FINAL - CASE #60-91E Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner, gave a brief Staff Report of the proposed project. She stated that this project was pulled for discussion because the illuminated stripe on the gasoline canopy at the convenience store would not be considered a sign element subject to the Sign Code but • rather an element of the PUD which would be required to be reviewed by the Planning and Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 2 of 14 Zoning Board. She stated that staff reviewed this element against Criteria #2 and #24 of the LDGS and the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Design Guidelines Policies and Criteri and found that the illumination of this stripe was not supported by these documents. She cited Criteria #24 as: "Is the exterior lighting, except for overhead street lighting and warning emergency or traffic signals, installed in such a manner that the light source will be sufficiently obscured to prevent excessive glare on public streets and walkways or into any residential area? The installation or erection of any lighting which may be confused with warning signals, emergency signals or traffic signals shall not be permitted." Ms. Whetstone cited Criteria N2 as: "Is the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural scale, bulk and building height, identity and historical character, disposition and orientation of buildings on the lot, and visual integrity?" Ms. Whetstone stated that Section 4.9 of the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Design Guidelines have not been addressed by the present plan. She stated that staff recommended approval of Pinecone Apartments PUD with a condition that, the red stripe on the gasoline canopy not be illuminated, by back lighting, or any means. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc., represented the developer of the site and Schraeder Oil Company. He believed that, before this condition was imposed, the Board should be informed about today's staff review. He stated that this convenience center was designed with more sensitivity to its neighborhood context than any other in Fort Collins. He briefly discussed pedestrian circulation, vehicular circulation, architectural form and materials matching the apartments, limitation of signage, setbacks, landscaping, and the integration of the convenience store with the apartment complex. He urged the Board to keep in mind that it was in everyone's interest that this convenience store tie in with the neighborhood, is located in a planned business zone and is not an isolated convenience store in a residential area. He stated that an important element in meeting the needs of planning goals is that new stores that meet Phillips 66 criteria will receive incentives to make the new store possible. In this case, retaining the ability to light the access drive is important after having accomplished so many other things to tie in with the neighborhood. Schraeder Oil has been very flexible with this particular building. He stated that the lighting would be soft and would be integrated into the canopy and would be fairly muted. He believed that this lighting would not constitute excessive glare and would not spill into residential areas and that it does meet Section 4.9 guidelines of the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Guidelines. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 3 of 14 Member Carroll asked what would be the illumination of the building. Mr. Ward replied that the building would have the interior lighting and perhaps some downlighting in the eaves. He stated that there would be no neon lighting. He presented slides of various Phillips 66 stores showing the canopies and their illumination and slides of drawings of the proposed project. Member Cottier asked if there would be any red stripe on the building. Mr. Ward replied that there would only be accent color from the sign but no bright accent colors on the building itself. There was no public input. Member Cottier stated that she did not find the lighting objectionable. She stated that the building was attractive and that she had no problem with the illuminated stripe. • Member O'Dell concurred with Member Cottier and appreciated that a softer lighting is proposed, that there is only one canopy but she could also see staff's point of view. Member Carroll commented that he does not have a problem with the lighting. Member Klataske commented that he was not opposed to the lighting on the stripe and believed that the back lighting on the band would not be obtrusive. Member Klataske moved to approve Pinecone Apartments PUD Final with the deletion of the final recommendation of Staff regarding the back lighting on the gasoline canopy. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney commented that she understood that the oil company has worked to meet the needs of the LDGS and that their intent is to be a good neighbor to the community and directly adjacent to the site. However, it was not her position to be concerned with Phillips 66 criteria. She believed that Staff has done their job in interpreting the LDGS and she concurred with Staff's position. The motion to approve passed 5-1 with Member Clements -Cooney in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 4 of 14 PARAGON POINT PUD. PHASE III - PRELIMINARY - CASE #48-91E Chairperson Strom stated that he pulled this item because he had concerns about the variance for the solar ordinance. Ted Shepard, City Planner, gave the Staff Report on the proposed project recommending approval subject to the condition that the request for the 28 foot wide cul-de-sacs be submitted by a professional engineer considered at the time of final. Chairperson Strom asked how the justification of the variance relates to the site plan. Member Carroll asked how many lots in the first filing meet the solar orientation. Jim Sell, representative for the developer, stated that the First Filing did not fall within the solar ordinance which created some difficulty with Filing Three. He reviewed slides of the proposed area. He stated that Paragon Place in the First Filing was designed because it was a secondary access to complete the loop for fire protection and Pheasant Court was stubbed out. He stated that with the orientation, it would allow the developer to install walk -out basements on the homes, there is virtually no grading on Pheasant Court, and the drainage is easily handled on the properties that are on a steep hillside. He stated that the layout allowed them to place a greenbelt along most of the backs of the homes and into the main park. He described for the Board the drainage system and stated that it would be an 8% slope. Member Cottier asked how many lots in the First Filing were solar -oriented. Mr. Shepard stated that he does not have that information. Member O'Dell stated that it appeared that, for the entire lots, there was perhaps 42-46 lots that were solar -oriented in the First Filing which would place this filing in the 60 percentile range and would meet the criteria. Member Klataske asked how many lots would be oriented to meet the solar requirements. Mr. Sell replied 31 lots out of 49 lots. Member O'Dell had a concern how the City would deal with the rationale of changing from patio homes to single family homes and changing the density. . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 5 of 14 Mr. Shepard stated that the intention is to have Filing Four carry the burden of meeting the overall development plan with the number of units per acre that meets or exceeds 3 DU/acre. This is based on the performance of Phase IV. Mr. Sell stated that there will be enough density available in Filing Four that would still make the 3 DU/acre. Member O'Dell asked what the rationale was for having greenbelts, walkways, etc., as well as large lots. Mr. Sell stated that people who buy large lots like to have those amenities. He stated that there is a large demand for large lots. Member O'Dell commented that this was true but also there needs to be a balance of the bigger policy of the City to efficiently use the services that are in place by having at least 3 DU/acre against the amenities of open space, etc, • Mr. Sell stated that he did not disagree with this. Byron Collins, applicant, stated that one of the issues they faced was getting as many units dealing with slopes and there was a lot of area that they chose not to develop. There were larger lots that could be developed on if one wished to develop on steep slopes. This made it difficult to work with these constraints. He stated that in this particular phase, 16.89 acres, would require 51 units where they are falling at 50 units. He stated that from a developer's standpoint, he tends to stay to a lower density. There was no public input. Mr. Eckman stated that there were three options given with the granting of the variance. He stated that there was a sentence in the City Code that was missing in the summary of Code 2 which reads: "Such variance shall not be granted if the same would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intended purposes of this article." Mr. Eckman stated that there would be a two-part finding that would need to be met if this variance was granted. The first part would be the hardship part and the second would be the no detriment part. is Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 6 of 14 Chairperson Strom commented that this was a reasonable variance request and that there were particular exceptional conditions of difficulty that create a hardship because of a combination of factors. He did not believe that there would be a detriment to the public. Member O'Dell moved to approve Paragon Point PUD, Phase III Preliminary with the variance to solar orientation for the reasons that Chairperson Strom described and the variance to the minimum density. She believed that the plan includes significant benefits which make this plan equal to or better than a plan that would have strictly met the requirement but not include these benefits. She added that the condition that the request for the four cul-de-sacs to be 28 feet from curb to curb on a 46 foot right-of-way is not part of Paragon Point PUD Phase III Preliminary PUD. The determination of this variance request will be made as part of the Final PUD. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. OAKRIDGE VILLAGE PUD, 9TH FILING, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. CASE #13- 82BA Ms. Whetstone gave the Staff Report for the proposed project. She stated that staff recommended approval with a variance being granted to the density which is 2.81 DU/acre. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc., representing the Everitt Companies, stated that this was a continuation of the 8th filing. PUBLIC INPUT Mike Moog, 1228 Red Oak Court and a member of the Oakridge 8th Filing Architectural Review Committee, stated he had concerns about the 9th filing greenbelt abutting with the 8th filing greenbelt, proposed landscaping in those greenbelt areas, and pedestrian sidewalks. He stated that currently there are no sidewalks in the greenbelt areas and would like these to be considered. Other concerns were how blending would be handled with the Comlinear site to the north, traffic circulations within the 9th filing and how it would tie into the 8th filing, drainage problems in the 8th filing and the assurance that these drainage problems do not continue or compound with the existing drainage problems, the covenants and the proposed building materials, and fence design and criteria in the 8th filing. He urged the Board to consider this project only as a preliminary so the committee can work with Staff to resolve these concerns. John Lerner, area resident, had concerns about the drainage situation and standing water on this site. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 7 of 14 The public input was closed at this time. Mr. Ward responded that, in terms of the greenbelts and their locations, there are other greenbelts in the area that do not incorporate walkways. He stated that the drainage channel was installed according to the criteria that the City Storm Drainage Department follows. He stated that the drainage problem is a pre-existing condition. He stated that the greenbelt between the 8th and 9th filings is not very large and is there primarily to provide a break between the backyards of the two filings. He stated that a preliminary and final plan is being done because the perimeter infrastructure is in place, the storm drainage improvements on the main channel are in and are a result of the grading that has been done. They are working on resolving the issue of the drainage along some of the greenbelts. He added that the connection to Redberry was stubbed out with the 8th filing with the intention to provide a connection through for emergency access. He stated that the covenants require the wood shake shingles. Asphalt shingles have been allowed in Oakridge Village between Wheaton and Lemay. The fencing guidelines are the same as they have been in the other filings of Oakridge. . Member Carroll asked if the drainage problem needs to be resolved to the neighborhoods' satisfaction before construction of this project can begin. Ms. Whetstone replied that this was correct. The drainage plan is being reviewed by the Stormwater Utility and would have to be approved by them and the City Engineering Department. She added that all of the storm water facilities, unless they are regional, are to be maintained by the homeowners association. Chairperson Strom asked the applicant if there would be a problem if this were to be a preliminary this month and the final be brought back next month. Mr. Ward replied that this would not be a problem. Member O'Dell suggested that Mr. Moog and Mr. Lenner walk the area of drainage concern with the Stormwater people. Member O'Dell moved to approve Oakridge Village PUD 9th Filing Preliminary and Final. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney commented that she would support the motion but asked that Mr. Ward meet with Mr. Moog and Mr. Lenner to discuss the situation. 0 Chairperson Strom asked what was required at this stage in terms of drainage. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 8 of 14 Ms. Albertson -Clark indicated that a final drainage report and plans have been submitted and have been reviewed. However, there are no signatures on these documents. Chairperson Strom commented that he would feel more comfortable if this were just a preliminary at this time. Member Cottier commented that she concurred with Chairperson Strom. Ms. Whetstone stated that the appropriate people have reviewed the drainage plan which includes a grading plan, and what is being proposed as far as grading and placing of drainage facilities does take care of the problem. She stated that the plans are not signed so a condition should be added, if the final is approved, that the plans and the development agreement need to be signed prior to Planning and Zoning Board approval. Chairperson Strom suggested an amendment to the motion that the Storm Drainage people will work with the applicant and involve the neighbors in the discussion so that the parties will understand what is happening on the drainage plan before it gets signed. Member O'Dell accepted the amendment to the motion. Member Klataske accepted as second to the motion. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the standard condition regarding development agreement, utility plans and final PUD plans be executed and the date of the March P&Z Board meeting to have all these plans completed needs to be added to the motion. Member O'Dell accepted this condition to the motion. Member Klataske accepted this condition as second to the motion. Member Carroll commented that this Board was primarily a land use organization. He stated that the covenants and the building materials to be used under these covenants are beyond this Board's purview. He believed that the traffic concern, the concern with the buffering with Comlinear and the 8th filing, and the concern for the lack of greenbelt walkways, have all been met. Member O'Dell amended the motion to include the variance to the minimum density requirement which stated that the applicant has demonstrated the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. Member Klataske accented the amendment as second to the motion. 10 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 9 of 14 Chairperson Strom commented that, with the modifications that have been made to the motion, he feels comfortable in supporting this motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. SHADOWBROOK PUD AMENDED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL CASE #61-92 Steve Olt, City Planner, gave the Staff Report for the proposed project recommending approval with the standard development agreement condition. He presented site slides to the Board. Chairperson Strom asked for clarification of the possible loss of existing landscaping. Mr. Olt replied that there would be a few trees removed on the western portion of the site to accommodate the two building envelopes in the area. Tim Buchannan, City Arborist, reviewed . one large willow tree and has indicated that this tree would not be considered a significant loss. He added that a significant part of the trees along the ridge above Spring Creek would be retained. Chairperson Strom asked if the street that runs to the west would connect with the next property. Mr. Olt replied that Brookhaven Court exists within about 2 feet of an existing garage. He stated that this street is not intended to continue to the west. He stated that this plan suggests that bollards be installed to protect that garage from vehicles turning in and out of that area. Chris Allison, the applicant, stated that this development had been idle since the early 1980s. He discussed building exterior, roofing material and the possible replacing of the existing roofing material. He stated that it has been his intent that these units belong to the homeowners' association and he has been in contact with the association's attorney regarding joining the association. He stated that he was proposing to downsize the approved PUD, which was 4 two- story six-plexes, with a one story unit that was compatible with the existing condominiums. Member Cottier asked if Buildings D and E were only 20 feet from the trail. Mr. Allison replied that the closest point was approximately 25 - 28 feet. Member Collier asked what kind of landscape buffering would be in the 25 foot corridor. Is Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Allison replied that the existing landscaping would remain and landscaping that was on the landscape plan would be planted as well. He added that the back of Building E was approximately 5 - 7 feet away from the floodplain line which would have landscape timbers to cover part of the concrete wall, as well as shrubs planted above that to hide any remaining concrete wall. Member Cottier asked if there were plans for fencing for privacy for the people in those units. Mr. Olt stated that there were no fences proposed because the City does not encourage fencing for two reasons: 1) the impedance of the floodplain and 2) the addition of significant shrubs and trees would create a dense mass along this area and would create a good screen for these units. Member Clements -Cooney asked if this project were approved, could a fence be built along this area. Mr. Allison replied that a fence would probably not do much good because the floor line of those buildings is probably six to seven feet above grade at the back point. Mr. Olt commented that it would require an administrative change to allow fencing in this area in conjunction with this approved PUD. Member O'Dell asked if the City was concerned about the buildings shading the bike trail and causing ice and snow in the winter. Mr. Olt stated that there was a concern with the City and it was believed that these buildings were not tall enough to create an icing problem on the trail. He stated that it was believed that the proposal met the intent of the All Development criteria in the LDGS. Member Cottier asked if there would be a double car garage for each unit. Mr. Allison stated that there would be a double car garage for each unit with a 20 foot drive in front of each building. There was no public input. Member Collier asked if the street will be widened. Mr. Olt replied that it would not be widened with this request. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 11 of 14 Member Carroll moved to approve Shadowbrook PUD Amended Preliminary and Final with the condition recommended by staff. He commented that many uncompleted PUDs have been reviewed by the Board and then brought back to the Board in a different form than originally contemplated. He stated that this project does conform with the original development proposal and is an infill project that the Board encourages. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. OVERLAND HILLS WEST - RF SITE PLAN REVIEW Steve Olt gave the Staff Report recommending approval. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the status of the Transportation Plan. Mr. Peterson replied that the most recent occurrence with the Transportation Plan was the . adoption of a number of policies. Currently, the structure of the circulation system is being reviewed and Overland Trail was one of the items being evaluated. He stated that it is anticipated that this will be brought to City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board sometime in 1993. Jim Gefroh, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc. and applicant, pointed out, on slides, the location of open space, the location of the lots, etc., for the Board. He added that Horsetooth Road would be extended to the west, cross Spring Creek and then tie into Overland Trail. He stated that a major bridge would be constructed over Spring Creek. He stated that all of the lots were surrounded by private open space which tie into each other. The properties west of the major ridge that moves north/south along the properties will be dedicated to the City as a part of the Pineview open space which would include a dedicated easement for public access that would allow access to the open space. He stated that all of the natural features will be preserved as much as possible. Chairperson Strom asked if the 30 foot strip along the north edge of the property was intended to have a trail access. Mr. Olt replied that it was intended to provide a trail from the termination of West Horsetooth Road and Overland Trail up and across the ridge into the publicly -dedicated open space and into Pineridge. Mr. Peterson stated that essentially, there is an existing trail that people have carved over the years into the Pineridge open space. There has been an attempt to preserve that trail. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 12 of 14 Member Carroll asked if it were a possibility that Overland Trail did not continue north but rather Horsetooth Road came into Overland Trail and continued south. Mr. Olt responded that it would be possible that Overland Trail would continue south to County Road 38E. He added that Horsetooth Road would terminate at Overland Trail and take a 90 degree turn to the south to service this development. Mr. Peterson stated that the spur of Overland Trail and Horsetooth Road would connect down to County Road 38E. He stated that the current plans were to terminate this spur at County Road 38E. Member Carroll stated that approving a plan such as this one would place the Transportation Board and City Council in a position where they are forced to build Overland Trail to the north because previously approved subdivisions and city streets require it to be built. He asked if this was the case or does this issue remain open for determination. Mr. Peterson stated that this issue would remain open for determination. He added that all that was being planned for the future, in terms of right-of-way and acquisition, both on this plan and what was done with the Quail Hollow subdivision, was planned for eventual widening to four lanes. Mike Herzig, City Civil Engineer, clarified that this street was not a local street but rather a 36 foot wide street and would function as two lanes. He added that the City was attempting to take steps to leave the door open to whatever gets decided by City Council when that street is changed from a major arterial to whatever is decided. Member Collier asked that if, half of a four -lane arterial is being built, and it was decided that this will never be more than a 36 foot wide street, curb and gutter would have to be added to the east side and will the row of trees be moved closer. Mr. Peterson stated that the row of trees that will be put in will be outside the location of a potential four -lane road. He added that if it was decided that the street will stay a 36 foot wide street, curbing will have to be added on the east side. Mr. Herzig stated that the applicant for this development was obligated to pay for both sides of a local street along Overland Trail. The City's intent is that the applicant pay for the entire local street portion and whatever improvements are placed on Overland Trail. He stated that completing the remainder of the street width, putting in a curb and gutter, or finishing out the street will come from the City's street oversizing fund. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 13 of 14 PUBLIC INPUT Colin Garety, 545 Strachan, stated that the subdivision had fallen a little short of the density goals in City policy plans. He stated that this project also is being approved on the basis of how it fits on the site. What it doesn't take into account is the larger transportation issues. He stated that the lots and the houses that will be built here are for people who have "base" jobs. Their employment is on the eastern side. This means that every one of these houses where someone works will require driving to work every day, which would be about 10 trips per household. This subdivision would generate 600 trips per day in single -occupant vehicle travel. He added that the limit for bicycle traffic appears to be about three miles. This does not follow the policies for land use nor the transportation policies adopted by City Council. This plan does not support moving away from single -occupancy vehicles and finding alternate modes of transportation. He stated to support mass transit, density must be increased and developments clustered. He believed that the City should change the way in which the City is planned and built to support other means of transportation. There is a written commitment to a policy of reducing vehicle miles traveled by the growth of the City by single -occupancy vehicles. The • widening of Overland Trail was due to the increase of traffic which comes because of approvals of projects such as this one. Public input was closed. Member O'Dell commented that Mr. Garety's concerns were also concerns of the Board, however, this was not the place to address those issues. She stated that in this particular case, the overriding concern is the protection of the foothills environment. She believed that this Board should review whether this meets the criteria that was set up several years ago with the Foothills zoning district. She believed that this project does meet those criteria. Member Clements -Cooney commented that the decision on Overland Trail would affect this proposal. In the past, 'the LDGS has been criticized because it reviews sites in an exclusionary fashion without looking at the "big picture." She believed that this was the situation with the transportation plan not on line as of yet. She commented to Mr. Garety that he should continue to be concerned and continue to work for his beliefs. Mr. Peterson stated that Mr. Garety currently presides as the Chair for the City's Transportation Board and is very active in all issues such as the air quality strategy, regional transportation, densities, and issues that staff has been concerned with. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 14 of 14 Member Cottier believed that Mr. Garety had interesting and valid points, however, the Board was not charged with prioritizing transportation concerns above other City policies. She stated that within land use policies, this project does meet all the city policies and guidelines. Member Clements -Cooney clarified that until the Transportation Plan goes before City Council, the master street plan could not be changed. She stated that she felt uncomfortable with this process. She added that she was upset with the City for delaying the adoption of the Transportation Plan. Chairperson Strom commented that this goes beyond what is done in land use policy because it gets to the issue of markets and what people are looking for. He stated that today's society is dedicated to the automobile. Member O'Dell moved to approve Overland Hills West RF Site Plan Review. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member O'Dell noted that the RF zoning district did not fall under the solar orientation ordinance. The motion to approve passed 5-1 with Member Clements -Cooney in the negative. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Peterson stated that the by-laws of the Planning and Zoning Board states that when the Chairperson resigns, the Vice -Chair automatically assumes that term of office until September. He stated that, in this case, Mr. Walker would assume the role of Chairperson. However, a Vice -Chair needed to be selected. Member Collier nominated Member Carroll for Vice -Chair. Member Klataske seconded the nomination. The nomination for Member Carroll for Vice -Chair passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. • s � .. .,J'. ... .. POUDRE RSCI L- r$:: NCE BS.. :.:::::::'.i. .....::::.......::..:.: MARINE SPORTS NEST PUD a ::::::: SENIOR CEN f ;^.::::.....;lT.L .......... C. BOARD A CARE 0-s 3 A q SH P. .PU ::.. .. ..... Y�. .......\.'� .... ` .. ..... ......... ... .... ... :::::....... .... .... ........ .... : M! ` i . .... Ctl AD ...... � Gty Limits: 1-31-83 .... • :�::::::: :: ::: G :::::: ::$: GREENSTONE PUD :�: