Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/27/1980PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES October 27, 1980 Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner Staff Present: Curt Smith, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Ross: Called meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Welcomed those in attendance to the meeting and briefly explained the advisory function of the board. Explained the limited discussion agenda and noted that any item could be removed from it by request of anyone in the audience or on the board. 1. Approval of minutes of September 22, 1980. Haase: Made two corrections to the minutes. Stoner: Moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Clarke: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. 2. #175-79 Greenwood Commons Request for a six- month extension of approval of their preliminary P.U.D. Greenwood Commons was approved as a preliminary proposal for a one unit commercial P.U.D. located at 1302 and 1304 S. Shields, zoned R-H, High Density Residential by P & Z on 10/8/79, and by City Council on 11/6/79. Applicant: United Construction Company, 2716 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Smith: Described the request, noting that this is a final action by the board, not requiring council action; recommended approval. Haase: Moved approval of the request for a six-month extension of the Greenwood Commons P.U.D., preliminary. Georg: Second, Ross: Explained that there is a time limit of one year on P.U.D. approval during which final plans may be filed. After one year, a six-month extension may be requested, as is being done on this item. Asked if anyone wished discussion on the request. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. P & Z Board Minutes 10/27/80 Page 2 3. 74105-80 Expansion of Non -Conforming Use - 120 Hemlock A preliminary proposal to expand an existing non -conforming sheet metal company (Simpson Service Company) by 2,530 square feet, located at 120 Hemlock Street, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Al Hockett Construction, 2801 Remington, Fort Collins, CO 80525. Albertson -Clark: Described the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval. Ross: Asked if the applicant wished to address the board. Steve Currier: Replied he did not need to address the board at that time. Ross: Asked if anyone in the audience wished discussion on the item. Georg: Moved to recommend approval of the proposal. Haase: Second. Clarke: Asked if it would be appropriate to have more than the planned 2% landscaping. Currier: With Al Hockett Construction, representing applicant. Stated the site presently has no landscaping, and to preserve the traffic flow and parking, the landscaping was put in as a buffer zone between Hemlock Street and the parking and the building. Said they had closed off one curb cut and extended the others to improve the traffic flow. Said that additional landscaping would interfere with the traffic flow and fire access. Clarke: Asked if that was a reason to eliminate any landscaping around the building, particularly in the front of the building. Currier: Replied they had decided that instead of planting in front of the building, it would be better to shield the street, especially as they were already planning changes along the street. Clarke: Asked if it is correct that at present there is no landscaping along the street. Currier: Replied in the affirmative. Ross: Asked if the neighbor to the east is the Volvo dealer, and if the other side is vacant. Currier: Replied that was correct and that Colorado Partitions is beyond the vacant lot. Ross: Ascertained the location of the railroad tracks and the road. Asked for further discussion. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. P & Z Board Minutes 10/27/80 • Page 3 4. #112-79C Four Seasons P.U.D., Fourth Phase A preliminary P.U.D. proposal for 248 residential units on 24 acres, located southeast of Horsetooth Road and South Shields, zoned RLP, Low Density Planned Residential, and part of the approved Four Seasons Master Plan area. Applicant: Chism Homes Inc., 4730 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525. Albertson -Clark: Described the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval. Ross: Noted there had been discussion on this item at the Friday work session; asked if there had been further dealings with the property owner across the street to the west and the petitioner. Smith: Replied not at this stage, but as expressed in the letter from Mr. McMillin, he has agreed to realign the street based on the concerns raised by the property owners and will do so prior to final submittal. Pointed out that this proposal will come back to the board as a final, but that they could request it come back as a discussion item to review the specific alignment of the street. Noted the applicant sees this change as a relatively minor issue, and is present to address any concerns. Steve McMillin: Representing Chism Homes. Asked for specific questions from the board. Ross: Stated that at Friday's work session there had been discussion about a possible 60' adjustment further south of the road on the southern boundary. Said that normally a developer cannot just move a road 60' and not replace it with dwelling units. If that is the case, the board is concerned about adding those units to a plan which looks very nice. McMillin: Replied they have no problem because their first phase is to the north, and once it is platted in final form, they assume there will be some modification of the south end. Stated they do not at this time see a change in density, but if there were, they would have to come back through the planning process and reappear before the board. Ross: Asked, with respect to density, if he were referring to percentages -- total number of dwelling units per total area --or that they would not find it necessary to put additional dwelling units in this 60' shift. McMillin: Replied that if there is any increase in density, he had told Smith they would come back before the board, but at this point no change is anti- cipated. Said their quarter section has a maximum number of dwelling units allowed, therefore they will stay within that maximum, working segment by segment. Stoner: Asked if the adjustment would be to the south and how it would be aligned. McMillin: Replied that the east end is tied to the east side of the P.U.D. which is finalized, so it will start there, go as far west as possible, then curve south 60', noting that is not much of a change, and it is not P & Z Board Minutes 10/27/80 Page 4 necessary for them to maximize this portion of the P.U.D. for five or six units. Stoner: Asked if this explanation satisfied staff. Smith: Nodded in the affirmative. Napheys: Asked why the road has to be moved. Mauri Ruple: City of Fort Collins Development Engineer. Pointed out on the site location map that if Michie Drive were extended to the west across the street as is, it would render the piece of land there undevelopable, as it has only about a 60' depth. Les Kaplan: Stated he is working with that piece of property as a planning consul- tant. Said that if Michie Drive were extended west as presently shown, it would leave only a 40' strip along the northern property line which would be unuseable. Said it would not have to run straight through, but the city would like it to run straight for at least 100'. Stated they planned to curve it after that point and to connect it to Troutman Drive, extended, Said that moving the street to give them between 100' and 125' would make it possible to have a nice open space area and, as this would be their only curb cut, they could have a better entranceway treatment. Napheys: Stated he now understood the purpose for moving the street, but that he also felt that Mr. McMillin had not adequately addressed the question of density. Pointed out that moving the road would permit some extra units, so if they did not put in more dwelling units, asked if that meant there would be more square footage in the recreational building. Ross: Said that he understood McMillin to mean that they had a total number of units allowed for the whole parcel, of which 248 are planned for this area. Therefore, if more units were added to this section, they would come out of other areas in the total parcel. McMillin: Agreed that is correct, but that at this point they do not plan on adding any units, but if they should, they would come back to the P & Z board with their proposal for the additional units. Clarke: Referred to the letter from Mr. Stover in which he expressed concern about the convenience center's location near the intersection and asked Smith whether Stover's suggestion of 600' to 1200' would be satisfied by the fact that access to the center comes 543' away on Horsetooth Road and 1395' away on Shields. Smith: Replied that in reality access to the center does not come from either Horsetooth or Shields, but from the internal drive, so the city streets are that far from the intersection and therefore Mr. Stover's concerns are adequately addressed. Clarke: Asked if staff had heard anything more from Stover as he feels this plan should satisfy his concerns. Smith: Indicated they had not. P & Z Board Minutes • 10/27/80 Page 5 Ross: Asked if anyone else wished to speak on this item. Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval of the proposal with the provision that the road be adjusted to the south. Clarke: Second. Smith; Said that since the developer had agreed to move the road in writing, they had not felt it necessary to recommend a condition to that effect. Ross: Asked if Stoner wished that to be a condition of approval so that the P & Z Board would see the alignment in its final form. Stoner: Said it is not necessary if that is how it has been handled in the past. Clarke: Second. Napheys: Moved the motion be amended to include that the number of units for this parcel be the number shown on the existing plan and that there be no additional units with the 60' adjustment. Stoner: Stated that is how it would be anyway as the petitioners would have to come back through the planning process if there were any change. Napheys: Said it needs to be stated because density may be clear in tonight's discussion, but it might not be at another time. Stoner: Said he accepted the amendment. Clarke: Second. Ross: Asked for further discussion. Haase: Asked if there would be a signalized intersection at Sentry and Horse - tooth to relieve the heavy traffic which would eventually accumulate. Ruple: Stated that the Traffic Engineer's reply would be that as traffic demands it, the intersection will be signalized, but at this point, he would not be willing to commit himself on it. Said it is in his future plans, but it is not really necessary to make a commitment on it at present. Haase: Said she disagreed as the total density pattern within a square mile of the intersection of Horsetooth and Shields, when developed, will be so high that there should be serious consideration of a signalized intersection at Sentry and Horsetooth. Ross: Asked Ruggiero , according to Roberts' Rules of Order, whether the amendment to the motion had to be handled prior to considering the motion. Ruggiero: Replied that since the person who made the motion had accepted the amendment, it would not have to be considered separately. Vote: Haase: yes, with strong approval for the control on expansion of density, noting the maximum here is near 15.9 DU/net acre; Clarke: yes; Stoner: yes; Ross: yes; Georg: yes; Napheys: yes. Motion carried, 6 - 0. P & Z.Board Minutes 10/27/80 Page 6 5. #104-80 Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use - 900 North College A preliminary proposal to expand an existing non -conforming commercial use, Excell-Art Advertising Corp., by 4,500 square feet, located at 900 North College, zoned HB, Highway Business. Applicant: Excell-Art Advertising Corp., c/o Don Wedum, 430 Link Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Smith: Gave staff report, recommending denial due to the parking spaces which back out onto College Avenue. Clarke: Asked if staff would support this request if the parking problem were solved. Smith: Said they would, noting that fire arcess also needs to be addressed, but that no building permit would be issued until that was done. Haase: Concurred with the staff about its concern for fire access after having viewed the site. Stated the issue should be addressed tonight and discussed very thoroughly. Ross: Asked if there were anyone representing the applicant who wished to speak. Jackson Brooks: Owner of Excell-Art Advertising Company. Pointed out they had owned the property for 25 years and that it was not a non -conforming use until 1978 when it was rezoned. Stated they had assumed they had the rights pertaining to a business zone. Said that they were uncertain that the required notices of the change in zoning were ever given. Stated his attorney has also said that the requirement to give up the six parking spaces, which they have always had, is an arbitrary and capri- cious request to require conformity of a non-conforming.use. Said that whether or not the warehouse goes in, it will not change the use of the property, but will only cover storage which is presently outside. Agreed that fire access is a problem, requiring negotiation with their neighbor, and pointed out that there are no other streets giving access to any of the buildings fronting on College. Napheys: Asked if the construction of the warehouse would take away any existing parking spaces. Brooks: Replied it would not, but that for truck parking and fire access they plan to lease space to the north and blacktop it. Napheys: Asked if the warehouse would increase the necessity for parking spaces. Brooks: Replied not as far as additional employees are concerned; there would be none. Said they have no customers who come to the building as most of their business is done nationally, so no additional parking would be necessitated. Stoner: Asked if their architect had looked into restructuring the six parking spaces into four horizontal spaces. Brooks: Replied he had not, noting that the north 10-15' of the 98' of parking is a driveway. Agreed there is a serious traffic problem on north P & Z Board Minutes • 10127180 Page 7 College, but said that until the city builds some streets in.north Fort Collins, there would continue to be traffic problems on College. Haase: Asked if any accidents had occurred since the zoning change because of the parking situation on the Excell-Art property. Brooks: Replied there had been none to his knowledge. Haase: Stated she concurred with Brooks that the parking problem can be resolved as it stands. Contended that fire access is critical, however. Brooks: Pointed out that they will not be given a building permit until they have guaranteed fire access, and it would be foolish to negotiate such access until they know whether or not the warehouse will be approved. Ross: Asked Smith if he were comfortable with the fire access issue being resolved by the building permit regulations. Smith: Assented. Stoner: Asked how many employees Excell-Art has, and where they park. Brooks: Replied there are 22, and that they park, according to an agreement with the bowling alley, in the bowling alley lot during the daytime when it is not busy. Said they do have an occasional customer as well as sales people who come to their place who need the parking spaces close to the building. Haase: Asked if they had had a problem with the auto brokers to the north as it seemed possible that their parking could spill over in that direction. Brooks: Replied not to his knowledge. Clarke: Asked Ruggiero whether or not it is proper for the board to consider the parking spaces as part of the increase in a non -conforming use. Ruggiero: Replied that case law in Colorado provides that cities can take reasonable steps to try to remove non -conforming uses, so in this case the non- conforming use could not be removed, but since Brooks is seeking to expand the use --expand the length of time it may be in existence --the city could deny the expansion because of the existence of the parking. Said, therefore, that the board can consider parking in respect to the request for expansion of a non -conforming use. Clarke: Responded that since this addition will not increase the use in terms of employees, etc., this is really a moot point. Ruggiero: Replied that is a policy decision, not necessarily a legal one. Georg: Stated that the primary consideration is whether the proposed expansion will adversely affect the area, and this proposed expansion will not affect this area any moreso than it does at present. Napheys: Said he did not understand the policy linkage between the parking spaces and the warehouse, other than putting pressure on the applicant. Asked what the logic is. P & Z Board Minutes 10/27/80 Page 8 Ross: Stated there is, in effect, a 98' curbcut, not something which would be approved on a raw piece of ground, so this is a good opportunity to change the curbcut to a more acceptable configuration. Pointed out that the traffic problem will not get any better, and that backing out into traffic there is a problem. Stated this is a chance to improve the situation. Said North College is practically a three-mile curbcut, a situation which has got to be changed. Brooks: Stated he had to have the six parking spaces, but that he would be willing to give them up if the city would give him a street behind his property. Said he had lived in north Fort Collins for 25 years and had been a good corporate citizen and paid a lot of taxes, but had gotten little for it as the whole north end of Fort Collins has been totally ignored by City Council and the planning people for all those years. Ross: Pointed out that developers, not the city, build streets, and until that part of town develops, there will not be streets there any more than there are now. Stated the P & Z Board does what it can to make the backs of the North College properties available. Said that unless Brooks had more to add, the meeting should proceed. Brooks: Said his choice is either to stay on this property or vacate it, and that his business cannot afford to build a new business on a new site, so his only other alternative is to go out of business, which he has considered. Said he had stated his case and that his application is rational. Ross: Asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak on the item. Haase: Moved to recommend approval of the expansion. Stoner: Second. Vote: Napheys: yes; Georg: no, stating the curbcut is a major problem; Ross: no; Stoner: yes; Clarke: yes; Haase: yes. 6. #191-79C Greenfield Village #2, Prel. P.U.D. CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 24, 1980 7. #114-80 McCrery/Moody Exemption ( County Referral) A six -lot exemption request on 80 acres zoned FA-1, Farming, located one-half mile east of Interstate 25 on the south side of Highway 14. Applicant: Larry McCrery and Jay Moody, 1719 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending denial. Ross: Asked if there were someone present representing the applicant. Larry McCrery: Stated he would answer any questions. Stoner: Asked how they planned access to the southern part of the property. McCrery: Replied there would be a 60' road in through the middle. Stoner: Asked for McCrery's reaction to the staff recommendation. P & Z Board Minutes • 10/27/80 Page 9 McCrery: Replied they had asked for the exemption as they had some people who wanted ten -acre sites there and one twenty -acre site. Said he is not adverse to a change and would like to hear staff's comments. Asked if staff recommends 2 DU/acre. . Albertson -Clark: Replied they had recommended denial because in the Urban Growth Area, urban densities are appropriate, a minimum of 2 DU/acre. Stoner: Asked for McCrery's reaction to the 2 DU/acre density. McCrery: Said he is willing to consider it, although he has some people interested in the house and 12 acres, and others interested in a ten -acre and a twenty -acre site. Ross: Asked if anyone else wished to speak on the item. Haase: Moved recommendation of denial of this exemption because the non -urban development proposed is not consistent with the intent of the Urban Growth Area. Napheys: Second. Vote: Napheys: yes; Georg: yes; Ross: yes; Stoner: no; Clarke: yes; Haase: yes. Motion carried, 5 - 1. Ross: Asked that staff write the customary letters to the county with the board's recommendation. 8. #90-80 Tiahrt Rezoning This is a request to have the Planning and Zoning Board reconsider this item at their November 24 Planning and Zoning Hearing. The Tiahrt Rezoning was initially heard at the September 22, 1980 meeting and was a request to rezone .75 acres currently in the R-L, Low Density Resi- dential District, to BP, Planned Business District, located at 2204 West Elizabeth. P & Z Board recommended denial, 7 - 0. Applicant: Maurice Tiahrt, 920 S. Taft Hill, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Ross: Asked if it is correct, that once a rezoning has been acted upon, that piece of property cannot be reconsidered for a rezoning for a period of a year. Smith: Replied that Ruggiero would check on that point. Ross: Asked if the applicant were present. (No reply.) General discussion ensued with the audience, most of whom were students from three CSU classes, while waiting for a reply from Ruggiero. Ruggiero: Stated the provision in the ordinance states that a petition cannot be reheard within twelve months after final action, but since final action had not yet been taken, the board could reconsider the matter if they wished. P & Z Board Minutes 10/27/80 Page 10 Clarke: Moved, in the absence of the applicant and any new evidence to persuade the board to change its decision, that the board not rehear this item. Haase: Second. Napheys: Said he read Mr. Metcalf's letter and sympathizes with his and his client's predicament as a mistake had been made, informing them of the wrong date. Stated he had wished to ask them the extent of prejudice suffered by the applicant by being informed of the wrong date, but since there was no one here to answer, he felt awkward in turning it down, but also saw no reason to go with it. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0. 9. Resolution of Commendation for Phyllis J. Wells (postponed to end of meeting) 10. #109-80 Stute Rezoning (County Referral) Request to reconsider rezoning of 9.78 acres zoned FA-1 Farming to C-Commercial, located south of Harmony Road, west of County Road 7. The Stute Rezoning was originally heard at the September 22, 1980 meeting and the P & Z Board recommended denial to the county. The County Planning Commission also recommended denial to the County Commissioners. The applicant has requested the Planning Commission to reconsider the item,and it is being considered as a new submittal, and has submitted new information. Applicant: John Stute, 6025 S. Shields, Ft. Collins, CO 80526 Smith: Gave description of the request, noting that specific design details had been submitted which are generally not considered appropriate for consideration of a rezoning request, but which were in response to design concerns raised in the September meeting. Georg: Asked if it is legal for the board to consider this as it is not on a published agenda. Smith: Replied that in this case, the board is simply a recommending body to a county recommending body, and for this purpose the city does not publically notice county referrals. Stated the applicant is aware of the hearing, so there is no problem with the board hearing the item. Ruggiero: Agreed. Ross: Pointed out that he had abstained before on this item and would do so again. Stoner: Asked what staff's previous recommendation had been. Smith: Replied that the staff had recommended the item be approved, subject to extensive conditions, such as meeting the city's standards for a P.U.D. on the property. Said that their review indicates the proposal does not come close to meeting city P.U.D. standards, nor does it meet the application criteria for development in the Urban Growth Area. Stoner: Asked what suitable development for the site might be. Napheys: Asked what the board would be doing tonight --whether their approval of P & Z Board Minutes • • 10/27/80 Page 11 the request would mean they would consider it/9tlater meeting. Smith: Replied the board would have to take some action tonight if they wished to reconsider the item as it is scheduled for the November Planning Commission meeting, so they would need P & Z Board's recom- mendation if it is to change. Napheys: Suggested they first move to re -open the discussion, then make a recommendation motion. Stoner: Stated the site is not suitable for residential development, and it is unreasonable to expect another H-P or Woodward Governor plant to come in there. Said the visibility from both streets was the board's main concern before. Clarke: Said they had also had concerns about setting a precedent for development in the Urban Growth Area by by-passing the development criteria pertaining to sewer capacity and adjacent prior development and the new information does not solve that problem. Ross: Asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the item. Georg: Moved to deny reconsideration of the site as there was nothing new to indicate the previous problems had been solved. Haase: Second. Asked how the 300' south of Harmony Road would be used, especially as their concerns are about the visual effect from the road. Smith: Indicated nothing was planned. Napheys: Asked if the sense of the board is that they want to deny it on the merits, and if so, it might be more appropriate to reconsider and then recommend denial. Said if they do not open it up to discussion, he was not sure how strong ttidrvoice would be to the county commission. Georg: Said that at the previous meeting they did discuss the merits of the project, so there seems to be no use in reconvening that discussion, given there is no new information nor anyone to present any. Haase: Pointed out that the county commission would have the minutes of this and the previous discussion, and then asked Smith if that is correct or if the board has to specifically request that that be done. Smith: Replied that normally they do not send the minutes to the county, but that it could be done and a letter could be sent saying they re -confirm their recommendation. Stoner: Asked if this were zoned C-Commercial, if the P & Z Board would have the opportunity to review the design proposal later. Smith: Replied it depends upon the way the property is developed. Said that one of staff's conditions was that the item, if recommended for approval, should be developed as a P.U.D. which would require that it come back before the P & Z Board. P & Z Board 10/27/80 Page 12 Clarke: Said that these new proposals are still a far cry from a P.U.D., and the site may at some point be appropriate for a P.U.D., so it might be premature to approve anything for it now. Napheys: Stated it seemed the board is reconsidering and then denying this proposal, and said he thought he would vote against the motion on the floor. Ross: Asked that the motion be repeated. Epstein: Read that Georg had moved to deny reconsideration. Napheys: Asked Georg's approval to make a new motion to reconsider the matter, and if it loses, the matter would be settled; if not, then the issue can be considered on its merits. Said that the way the motion is worded, if they deny reconsideration then then he did not know where it would go. Georg: Withdrew his motion. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0 - 1, Ross abstaining. Napheys: Moved recommendation of denial. Clarke: Second. Ross: Asked for discussion. Stoner: Asked again what the property should be zoned, saying it seemed appropriate for commercial use, rather than using good farm land for commercial use. Clarke: Agreed, but noted that at this point the board does not have the design control to say what will be there with any assurance, so they would be remiss in allowing that to develop. Stoner: Asked if that would be true even if they recommended approval with the condition that a P.U.D. be required. Smith: Replied that the board could ask for that condition, and if the county agreed to it, it would have to come back before the board. Clarke: Asked if the county also handled P.U.D.'s as the city does. Smith: Replied that the way the staff had recommended for this item, the P.U.D. would be submitted based on city design criteria, rather than on the county's which are not as stringent or specific. Said this had not been done in the past, but was being suggested due to the property's proximity to the entrance to the city. Clarke: Stated that what they have before them is a site plan proposal which they wish to deny, and if so, asked what they can do to ask for something else. Smith: Replied they do not really have a site plan proposal, but some site plan P & 7 Board Minutes . 10/27/80 Page 13 information in support of a rezoning request, Said that like the city, the county cannot condition a rezoning to specifics as indicated on the proposal, but only to general requirements. Vote: Haase: yes, with suoport7251 comments made on September 22; Clarke: yes; Stoner: no; Ross: abstained; Georg: yes; Napheys: yes, requesting that the minutes from both the September and the present meeting be sent along with the recommendation to the county. Other Business Napheys: Asked staff for information on the Land Use Policies Plan, especially the status of the remaining plans. Smith: Replied that the City Council recently adopted an Interim Master Street Plan for the Urban Growth Area which is scheduled to go back to them prior to April, 1981 in final form. Said the Housing Plan was adopted as a draft some two years ago and no further work has been done on it. Stated that the Environmental Management Plan, according to staff's suggestion, would be addressed through the Land Development Guidance System which would then eliminate the need for a separate Environmental Management Plan. Said there is a variety of plans which could be discussed with the board further either tonight or at a work session. Napheys: Asked for copies of the Transportation Plan and the Housing Plan, and also the Extension Plan for Public Utilities to be made available at the next P & Z Board work session. Smith: Replied that the first step of the Extension Plan for Public Utilities was the five-year plans which were done by each of the city departments as part of the Cost of Development Study. Said one -of the goals for the city in the next year which the Planning Division is recommending is that each department refine its five-year plan and they will be the expansion plans for each department. Said they are in their present detail in the Cost of Development Study, Napheys: Asked if the board could see those. Smith: Replied they could be made available, noting that it is basically the appendix to the Cost of Development Study, quite a lengthy document. Said they are also making some adjustments to that report which should be finished by December 1, so it might be more appropriate to wait until those revisions are incorporated rather than to reproduce what is going to be changed. Napheys: Asked about the availability of the Transportation Plan and the Housing Plan. Smith: Replied he is unsure about the Housing Plan, but that he could get the Transportation Plan. Haase: Recommended to the CSU students that they review the Land Use Policies Plan, saying that copies are available at the Fort Collins Library and at Morgan Library, and perhaps on loan from the Planning Department. Asked Smith if the students would also be interested in the Guidance System. P & Z Board Minutes 10/27/80 Page 14 Smith: Replied they would be interested, but expressed caution at opening it up to 150 students as there are not that many copies and it is in the process of extensive review. Said he would be glad to discuss it with anyone who wished and make it available on loan. Haase: Suggested they attend the public hearing in December. Smith: Stated that the Guidance System is an entire new approach for reviewing new development which has been in the works for some time. Said there would be public hearing on it on December 1. 9. Resolution of Commendation for Phyllis J. Wells Stoner: Moved adoption of the resolution to be read by Epstein. Clarke: Second. Epstein: Read the resolution. Vote: Motion carried unanimously, Haase expressing a "big thank you". Ross: Adjourned meeting at 8:10 p.m. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION - October 24 , 1980 Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner Time: 12:00 Noon Place: Council Information Center, City Hall Agenda: October 27, 1980 P & Z Board meeting agenda Land Use Guidance System presentation 901 11. CORRECTIONS 1[ISWA SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Page 19: Michael O'Griffith should read Michael Griffith. Page 31: Second line from the bottom, following "the P & Z board" insert "chairman".