Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/24/1980d PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 24, 1980 Board Present: Paul Eckman, Robert Evans, Carolyn Haase, Gary Ross, Gary Spahr, Ed Van Driel, Phyllis Wells Staff Present: Curt Smith, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Explained function of the Planning and Zoning Board. Advised the audience to contact city staff to determine the date an item will go to Council. 1. - 5. 1. Approval of minutes of February 25, 1980. 2. #60-79A Woodlands P.U.D., Phase II Consent 3. #11-80 Platte River Power Authority P.U.D., Amendment, Preliminary Agenda 4. #230-79A The Landings Phase IV, Revision 5. #14-80 Coachlight Plaza P.U.D. Wells: Explained the purpose of the consent agenda, and asked whether anyone wished any items be removed from consent. (No such requests.) Introduced planning staff. Asked for additions and corrections to the minutes. Van Driel: Submitted correction. Spahr: Moved recommendation of approval of the consent agenda. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0. Wells: Described the criteria for consideration of rezoning requests, pointing out that the most important were those in the Land Use Plan. Stated that it is the applicant's responsibility to justify the need for change of zoning, and explained the procedure to be followed in hearing the rezoning petition. 6. #221-79 Prospect Lemay Rezoning A request to rezone 5.1 acres from R-P, Planned Residential, to B-P, Planned Business, and 6.7 acres from R-P to R-H, High Density Residential, located at the southeast corner of Prospect St. and Lemay Avenue. Applicant: Reid Rosenthal, 300 Spinnaker Ln., Fort Collins, CO 80525. Waido: Described the site and the requested zoning. Gene Mitchell: Stated he had opposed rezonings in the past, but that in this case there would be no bulk mass commercial which could be competitive with the Scotch Pines market area or deletrious to the neighborhood. Said they planned a campus -type mix of commercial with small offices. P & Z Board Minutes 3/24/80 Page 2 _ .Stated that Mitchell and Co. will maintain the property. Stated he had had meetings with residents of the area, and that many who had been opposed torezoningin the past were in support of the present _ proposal. Said he had heard nothing in the way of opposition. Reid Rosenthal: Speaking for Osprey, stated there were two reasons which predicate the rezoning: the improvement of Lemay Avenue and subsequent increase in traffic, and the approval of many new residential units in the area in the past several years. Stated he had several private and group meetings with affected property owners in the area. Said this project was intended to be oriented to the neighborhood, within the "live - where -you -work" concept, where necessities, convenience, and employment centers are located within walking or bicycling distances of residential neighborhoods, a concept which will be used increasingly in the '80's. Stated Osprey will be doing construction of both the residential and and the commercial units, while Mitchell will maintain the properties, a 50-50 joint venture. Van Driel: Asked for justification of the irregular zoning lines. Rosenthal: Stated the lines correspond to the site plan. The configuration of the parking and the relationship of the buildings, most of which are oriented to the rear and the park along Spring Creek, necessitate this type of zoning configuration. Haase: Stated that one of the conditions recommended by staff is that in the P.-H zone only office uses be permitted --no residential units will be allowed in the R-H tract. Asked Rosenthal to comment why -there was not any interest or preference for residential development extending to the business area. Rosenthal: Replied that market analysis indicates that the site plan corresponds to what the market wants for the site. Expressed the opinion that the R-H offers the most versatility in constructing offices, the main use on the site. Contended that the R-H would preserve the intent of the plan should something happen that it could not be followed through. Stated the R-P zone is on the east side is to buffer the residential units across the street from the commercial and office development and so that residential units on the site would be oriented toward both Spring Creek and Edora Park. Haase: Noted that staff comments state that the proposal does not include a proposal for a super market, and that a super market is not a required component of a neighborhood service center. Said there evidently had been discussion on the issue and asked Rosenthal if he cared to comment on the super market as related to the definition of a neighborhood service center. Rosenthal: Stated he and Mr. Mitchell had agreed a super market would not be built on the site. Haase: Asked if there had been full discussion of this recommendation by the staff for an anchor super market. Rosenthal: Stated a super market had been considered, but that the market appears to be asking for something else• Noted that a super market at this P & Z Board Minutes • t 3/24/80 Page 3 site might preclude a super market either north on Lemay or east on. Prospect. Also stated they wished to divorce themselves from the type of traffic congestion and general aesthetic appeal a super market brings to a neighborhood. Evans: Asked why B-P zoning was not requested for the R-H zone as the same uses would be allowed. Rosenthal: Replied B-P was not requested to ensure that the essence of their plan would survive should unforeseen circumstances arise. Stated also that economic factors enter in, in that their purchase contract price depends on the number of acres of B-P. B-P zoning which is unnecessary would increase the price of the property and make the project less feasible. Haase: Directed question to both Rosenthal and staff: asked for comment on the project on the northeast corner --what type and intensity of development are anticipated. Rosenthal: Replied he was not familiar with the development except that several different types of office centers are proposed, but development is still quite a ways away, and there is talk of transfer of ownership of the corner parcel. Smith: Said there has been preliminary approval by Council of a medical office complex on that site, excluding the gas station, of about 36,000 sq. ft. Had had communication from the owners indicating that they might be considering a redesign of the site. Haase: Asked if it were correct that several plans had been submitted for that site over the last three years. Smith: Replied it is, and that one now has approval. Spahr: Asked staff if there were any way to provide equivalent amounts of zoned space without drawing the lines as they are proposed. Expressed concern about future problems with the site if the proposed development does not take place. Rosenthal: Stated the buildings are clustered and oriented toward the Spring Creek green belt and arranged to to minimize the impact of the parking spaces which are necessitated by the zoning. Said it would be almost physically impossible for them to proceed on their site plan and to build along those zoning lines, leaving other portions of irregularly shaped, differently zoned ground, either viable or undeveloped in the future, because many of their complexes cluster across zoning lines. Stated it is really the use of the complex itself which is affected by the zoning, not so much the aesthetic integrity of each cluster or the structural integrity of a particular building. Spahr: Stated he did not want to jeopardize their plans, but wondered if there were some way of zonina, so that through a P.U.D. they could bring in the proposal they want, yet have the city adequately protected in the zoning. Smith: Replied he did not think so. Said the lines could be straightened, but P & Z Board Minutes 3/24/80 Page•4 that might create problems with the integrity of the plan. Stated that in a.P.U.D. uses and densities cannot be shifted across zoning lines. Noted that this configuration is less complex than as originally submitted. Haase: Stated the staff has of course seen the site plan, but that the board is at a disadvantage and she would like to see the plan for the P.U.D. at this point. Smith: Said they did not have anything but the working drawings at this time. Haase: Stated the fact is that the proposed zoning is directly related to the Planned Unit Development. Waido: Suggested the architect for the project, Frank Vaught, could give some idea of the proposed plan. Vaught: Stated they had tried to compartmentalize the parking and building. Pointed out the proposed curb cuts and traffic flow. Indicated the proposed buildings and uses and landscaped areas. Wells: Stated the board has to consider the rezoning separately from the site plan so that if ownership does change in the future the zoning will remain appropriate. Without the possibility of conditional rezoning depending on the completion of the site plan, the board must consider the zoning dependent not on a specific site plan, but on any future site plan. Asked for staff recommendation. Waido: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The entire site (the 5.1 acres of B-P, the 6.7 acres of R-H, and the 6.6 acres of R-P) be planned under a single Master Plan. 2. The R-H zoned area be limited to only office uses. 3. The Master Plan of the entire site show that the neighborhood service center will fall into the 80,000 to 120,000 square foot range as per definition in the Land Use Policies Plan. Eckman: Moved recommendation of approval of the Prospect-Lemay Rezoning, with the conditions suggested by staff. Van Driel: Second. Evans: Stated it had not been proven to him that the zoning lines had any particular significance and that the cart was before the horse in dictating the zoning lines by the site .plan, in effect putting site plan conditions on the zoning. Stated the economic reasons were valid, but not from a planning point of view. Stated he would favor making a recommendation making the R-H also B-P, with the remainder R-P. Ross: Stated he also had difficulty using the R-H for non-residential uses here, and said the lines had not been justified, when the uses are basically the same. Agreed with Evans' suggestion, with a non -retail P & Z Board Minutes • • • 3/24/80 Page -5 limitation on the eastern portion in place of the R-H. Van Driel: Stated he•.was relying on the integrity of the two petitioners to justify the lines as drawn. Agreed that they were being dictated to by a site plan they had not seen, but hoped they would be more comfortable with it after next month's meeting. Haase: Asked if the neighbors to the proposal had seen the site plan in detail. Rosenthal: Replied they had. Stated there had been a few minor changes, but that about fifteen residents had seen the changed plan. Wells: Stated that the last time a rezoning had been heard for this site, there had been a large outcry and said the lack of opposition apparent tonight was probably due to the small amount of commercial use. Mitchell: Stated the neighbors were concerned about a large.B-P area and were placated by the fact that the R-H was put in as tightly as possible. Stated the economic problem was significant, but not over-riding. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 2, Evans and Ross voting no. 7. #4-80 Scenic Views Inc. Rezoning A request to rezone 22 acres located east of Overland Trail and north of West Elizabeth from R-L, Low Density Residential, to Conditional R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Waido: Described the proposal. Les Kaplan: Applicant. Said this is a proposal to rezone property which already has an approved subdivision plat on it (approved in 1978). Stated they were requesting conditional Planned Business zoning with the following conditions: 1. The property be developed as a P.U.D.; 2. Maximum density of 8.5 DU/acre; 3. Area on other side of creek be kept as an active recreation space as part of the P.U.D.; 4. That there be no utilization of the P.U.D. commercial allotment. Smith: Stated the third condition cannot be imposed on a zoning as it is too design -specific. Kaplan: Indicated on a slide of a map of the area where the creekside area is located and how it would be used. Stated the area to the east was undeveloped at present and that there is potential for creating a shared open space for the two areas. Described the location and surrounding zoning of the property. Stated that most of Overland Trail is already zoned and platted for multi -family development. Listed the justifica- tions for the rezoning: locational characteristics of the site, the changed conditions in the vicinity, the changed market conditions, the consistency with the Land Use Plan and other public benefits anticipated. P & Z Board Minutes , 3/24/80 Page 6 Discussed the rezonings approved in the past few years and the unfeasi bility of R-P zoning. Pointed out that changing market conditions precluded all but exclusive single-family subdivision development, due to increase in labor and material costs, soaring construction loan rates, increasing municipal development fees. Discussed the costs which would be incurred if this area would be developed as a R-L subdivision, exclusive of construction costs, totalling $5,800 per unit, not including street improvements or water or sewer line extension costs. Explained how Elizabeth street might be improved, with the development.of the large tract south of Elizabeth and with the development of the subject proposal, and with an improvement district. Discussed the consistency of the proposal with the Land Use Policies Plan, Nos. 3a, 3b, 26, and 82. Also, 75•and 80. Note t Feproximity of the Transfort bus route. Pointed out this would be an effective use of in -fill property. Stated it would also prevent possible low -quality R-L development. Developed as a P.U.D., the area would include open space and landscaping amenities, greater potential for solar application, encouragement for development of Lory Ann Estates as a P.U.D. Stated there would be greater income from the city as well. Summarized, and stated he would answer questions. Spahr: Referred to staff condition with reference to a bridge across the canal and asked if the applicant had spoken with the ditch company and whether they were agreeable. Kaplan: Replied he had spoken to John Mickey, chairman of the ditch company, who had stated he would honor the agreement with the existing subdivider, and that they had no problems with a pedestrian bridge as long as it is done to their standards. Smith: Pointed out that this also is a condition which cannot be imposed at zoning. Waido: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum allowable density for the property will be 8.5 DU/acre. 2. The property will be developed as a Planned Unit Development as per the Planned Unit Development Ordinance of the City of Fort Collins. 4. The 40 square foot per dwelling unit P.U.D. commercial allotment will not be utilized. Stated there was one fetter of support for the rezoning from the Scavo- Dougherty Builders. Eckman: Asked if 8.5 DU/acre is a fairly moderate density in this zone. Waido: Replied it is. Stated staff had been discussing the fact that there seems to be a void in the zoning ordinance between the maximum of 6 DU/acre in the R-L and R-L-P zones and the maximum of 12 DU/acre in the R-P zone. Noted that during the past few years the board had seen several proposals for R-P zoning with limitations to density to 7, 8 or 9 DU/acre. Stated staff feels that the proposed density is appropriate, and much preferable as an urban density to the 3 DU/acre as presently • • P'& Z Board Minutes 3/24/80 Page 7 zoned, with the approved Overland West Subdivision. Eckman: Stated that the present zoning, R-L, would allow 6 DU/acre. Waido: Agreed, but noted that it is impossible to get the 6DU/acre with a standard straight subdivision, saying that most subdivisions come in at 4 to 42 DU/acre. Wells: Noting there were several out -parcels in this proposal, asked if the developers would be required to do all the street improvements, including adjacent to the out -parcels. Waido: Replied the developer would not be responsible for the streets along the out -parcels. Wells: Stated then, that the intersection at the corner of the parcel would not have the improvements. Asked if the board could include in its recommendation a requirement to improve the intersection and the street along the out -parcels. Smith: Responded that would be a tricky process as the right-of-way is probably not dedicated. Stated the improvement would be done through a special improvement district by the city in which the property owners would participate in their cost of a local street and the city, through their over -sizing fee and fund would pay for improving the street to arterial and collector standards. Stated that method would be preferable to setting up a special agreement with the developer, a procedure which had caused problems in the past. Wells: Said she understood, but that that corner should be improved. Kaplan: Stated the lady who owns the corner. property .had been contacted, and her property may be included in the P.U.D. Evans: Asked the width of the. Elizabeth Street right-of-way. Waido: Replied 50'. Evans: Stated that would make the corner lot unbuildable due to the 50' right- of-way being taken from that lot on both sides along the streets. Kaplan: Said the owner of the corner lot is coming to realize that, but that she had been hoping for a large commercial development. Haase: Asked if there had been any negotiations with the owners of the out -parcels in the center and on the north of the subject site. Kaplan: Replied that there were existing houses on both parcels and that the owner of the center parcel probably would not sell and that the owner of the north parcel had not been contacted. Van Driel: Contended that the improvement of the streets would more properly be considered with the hearing on the P.U.D., rather than as a condition of the rezoning. P & Z Board Minutes 3/24/80 Page 8 Wells: Asked for comments on the project. Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of Scenic Views Rezoning subject to the three conditions (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) proposed by staff. Ross: Second. Evans: Proposed amending the motion to include the three lots in the R-P zoning, but exempt them from Condition No. 2, that they be part of a P.U.D. Ross: Asked if there had been proper notification of affected property owners. Smith: Replied that official notification had been sent to affected property owners with respect to the rezoning, but that there had been no notifi- cation that their properties would be considered for inclusion in the rezoning and that should be done, even though the zoning would probably not be detrimental to them. Wells: Stated that the proper way to include those properties would be to deny or table the current request and expect a revised submission to be considered another time. Smith: Said the board could make that recommendation and staff could notify the affected property owners, and with their consent, amend the legal description of the rezoning prior to council hearing of the item. Ross: Stated that it would be nice if that could be done, but that it should not prevent the approval of the proposed rezoning. Haase: Expressed agreement with Ross. Wells: Suggested handling the issue with two motions, the present one, and a second with Evans' suggestion. Evans: Expressed concern due to the presence of the large University property across the street and the possibility of its coming into the city. Kaplan: Stated they would prefer to have the outlots included, but did not do so because the property is not under the ownership of Scenic Views, Inc., and also because they did not wish to be accused of tampering with someone else's property. Said the rezoning would be more defensible with the inclusion of the outlots, that it would not be a down -Toning, and that single-family would be the only possible development anyway under the rezoning, as the lots are all under two acres. Smith: Stated, with respect to having a good zoning map, that inclusion of the outlots without one condition, would effectively create two zones, as the map would have to show a different RP zone than for the rest of the property. 'dells: Asked if the outparcels could be included in the P.U.D., even if not included in the rezoning. Smith: Replied they could be included, with certain restrictions with what could be done on them. 3/24/$poard Minutes • • Page 9 Wells: Asked, then, that if the lots were included in the P.U.D., the street improvements'would take place adjacent to those lots. Smith: Replied, definitely, because the whole project would be involved. Wells: Asked Evans whether he wished to propose an amendment or a second motion. Evans: Expressed ambivalence due to past experience of problems with odd spots of zoning, such as the skateboard park, and that is what he wished to avoid. Said the outparcels do not affect his approval of the zoning, but that he could see problems in the future. Smith: Suggested to include in the motion, or just as a recommendation to the applicant, that they try to incorporate all of the property there into any P.U.D., leaving the zoning as proposed. Van Driel: Asked if a P.U.D. could be done with two different zones. Smith: Replied it could. Mrs. Giddings: Owner of one of the parcels; stated she would accept the rezoning. Evans: Proposed amending the motion to strongly encourage the petitioner to include the out -parcels in the P.U.O. Observed that R-P would be a better zoning for the corner lot. Haase: Stated she was agreeable to the amendment. Ross: Asked if a monster had been created; assented to the amendment. Audience: Owner of the center parcel; asked for a clarification of the motion. Wells: Stated the motion is to recommend approval of the zoning as proposed, with recommendation to council and the petitioner that when the development proposal comes before the board for review all the out - parcels be included in the P.U.D. proposal; that does not mean that anything different would have to happen with the out -parcels, but it means that the board would be able to consider the entire block all at once as far as development is concerned, and would also require the developer to do the street improvements along Overland Trail. Kaplan: Without wishing to complicate matters, pointed out that inclusion of the out -parcels in the P.U.D. would require the complicity of the owners of those parcels --it would have to be submitted jointly. Stated that for that to happen, those owners would need some incentive to include their properties. Said that including those properties in the rezoning would be beneficial in terms of how the P.U.D. could be worked around their properties. Eckman: Stated the board was not requiring the applicant to submit an application including the out -parcels, but only requiring an attempt. Kaplan: Said he only did not want to create a situation where he was criticized for not including the out -parcels in the development, but stated he was willing to make every attempt to do so. Contended he could not see what the incentive for the owners of the out -parcels would be for inclusion. P & Z Board Minutes 3/24/80 Page 10 Vote: Haase: yes, complimenting the petitioner for the very thorough .discussion . applicable to the city's criteria for rezoning and the in-depth factual information which has been extremely helpful; Evans: yes, encouraging council to look into making the whole parcel R-P; Spahr: yes; Van Driel: yes, concurring with Evans' comment about uniform zoning; Eckman: yes; Wells: yes. Motion carried, 7 - 0. 8. #10-80 Rothmeier Rezoning A request to rezone approximately 28 acres located on Timberline Rd. and East Prospect from H-B, Highway Business, to I-P, Industrial Park District. Applicant: Joseph Rothmeier, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Waido: Described the location and proposed rezoning. Kaplan: Representing applicant. Discussed the history of the property and the reason for the H-B zoning --a desire on the part of the property owners to build a shopping center on the site --pointing out that this was done without the benefit of the Land Use Policies Plan. Stated that Policy 69 states that regional shopping centers should locate in areas easily accessible to existing planned residential areas. Policy 80 says that higher density residential development should locate near regional community shopping centers. Pointed out that the existing pattern of development within at least a 2-mile radius of the site is industrial, not residential, and that the residential development within •a 1-mile radius is low density and includes Edorl Park. Also noted that the land east of the property is not conducive to residential development. Stated that possible increased use of the railroads to the east of the property would inhibit vehicular access to the property. Pointed out that this zoning was done prior to the expansion of the Scotch Pines commercial area which would serve the existing and potential trade areas for the subject property as H-B. Stated the existing floodway is also a discouragement for retail development. Noted that Timberline Road is desionated as a truck by-pass, which, along -with the proximity to the interchange with I-25, is highly conducive to industrial development. Also pointed out that neighboring gravel pits were detrimental to any residential development. Stated that if the zoning were not changed, the property would most likely be used for warehouse or large-scale wholesale activity, but it would be preferable for it to have the I-P designation which would be more appropriate. Waido: Gave staff report, recommending approval, with the condition that the property be developed as a P.U.D. Evans: Asked for the zoning of the parcel to the northwest. Waido: Replied it is in the County. Kaplan: Stated it is industrial. Spahr: Stated the logic is very good in justifying the rezoning, and asked how the remaining H-B zoning could be justified. -P & Z Board Minutes • • 3/24/80 Page 11 Waido: Replied that those.properties.could.be included in this request, but that the owners had not received proper notification to do so. Kaplan: Pointed out that the owner of one parcel was making use of the H-B zoning with a wholesale outlet. Van Driel: Asked what use was being made of the other parcel. Waido: Replied there is a farm -house there. Haase: Asked if there were not a plan for a self -storage unit there. Waido: Stated that Ross represented the owners of that property and asked him to comment. Ross: Stated that the proposed warehouse units were in the industrial zone. Kaplan: Said that people from Boulder were planning a mini -warehouse there, but that floodway problems would have to be worked out first. Wells: Asked for any comments or questions on the proposal. Waido: Pointed out the work that had already been done on Spring Creek with respect to the floodway problem. Van Driel: Moved recommendation of approval subject to the condition suggested by staff. Evans: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Ross abstaining due to possible conflict of interest. 9. #7-80 Boardwalk Rezoning A request to rezone 13.08 acres located at Boardwalk Drive and Whalers Way from R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, to B-P, Planned Business.', Applicant: The Landings, Ltd., Reid Rosetnhal, c/o ZVFK Architects/ Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Waido: Described the location and proposed rezoning. Reid Rosenthal: Representing the Landings and the Boardwalk. Discussed the changes since approval of the previous zoning --the adoption of the Land Use Policies Plan, the approval of the Collindale (Golden Meadows) commercial center, tih South College Properties Annexation including 90 acres of business zoning. Stated their intent is to inwardly orient a neighbor- hood center to make it a true neighborhood center. Contended that the approved 65,000 sq. ft. of business zoning would not be sufficient to compete with the other business centers. Stated the rezoning was especially important as this is the only neighborhood located within the development and not on an arterial or major collector, and also that the proposed buildings will blend in with the residential structures, so will not have the visual mass to attract people. Said the uses will be predominantly office, with some commercial activity, including a health club. Stated the center is within 3/8 mile of almost 2000 units, an P & Z Board Minutes 3/24/80 Page 12 - 'optimum distance for walking or biking. Stated there would be a park across the street, allowing for a view of the mountains from the center. - Eckman: Asked if he had said there would be primarily offices. Rosenthal: Replied there would be about a 2:1 ratio of office to retail use. Said they were not planning a major food store, but a general store which would have staples, garden supplies, some hardware. Waido: Gave staff report recommending approval. Wells: Expressed concern that, while this center is defensible, others have been approved which may lead to an excessive amount of commercial zoning. Waido: Replied that, while alternatives existed in the South Fort Collins survey, they had never been utilized. Stated that staff used the current policies and that there was nothing in them against the rezoning as proposed. Wells: Asked if the staff had not recommended approval for the proposal along Harmony to the east of this. Waido: Replied it had. Rosenthal: Stated that the original proposal on Harmony Road was for 8 acres and was raised to 14 after they had gotten approval for their 61,000 sq. ft. Stated that eighty-nine families of the Landings Homeowners' Association showed up for a meeting last week and indicated their approval for expansion of the center because they did not want to travel outside their neighborhood for those services. Pointed out that this was to be a completely different type of center from the others which had been approved. which would be located on arterials with high visibility and which would contain super markets. Waido: Stated that the Policies Plan defines a range of square footage, but does not define any specific uses as a requirement for a neighborhood center. Rosenthal: Gave site plan to board to consider, to get an idea of the orientation of the center. Wells: Asked for comments or questions on the proposal. Van Driel: Stated he shared the concern about too much business use zoning, but stated the market place would dictate whether or not this type of development would be supported. Rosenthal: Stated the proposal is based on a market research study which recommended increasing the square footage to ensure success. Wells: Said she was not opposed to increasing the size of this neighborhood center, but felt the other centers are superfluous, especially as they compete with neighborhood centers directly, but are dependent on the automobile. r & Z Board Minutes r • 3/24/80 Page 13 Eckman: Expressed agreement with Wells' concern, saying that this proposal looks impressive. Moved to recommend approval without conditions. Haase: Second. Vote: Haase: yes, stating she felt it is very exciting to see the application of a neighborhood service center in this unique internal P.U.D. design concept; all others, yes. Motion carried, 7 - 0. 10. #21-80 Bruns P.U.D. (County Referral) A request for Master Plan approval for a 25 lot single family P.U.D., located east of South College Avenue and north of County Road 30. Applicant: Loren Bruns, 316 E. County Rd. 30, Loveland, CO 80537. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval with the condition that the two outlots should be called "open space", which, in fact, they are, rather than "outlots". Stated that the County Planning Commission had considered the item the preceding Wednesday and recommended approval. Wells: Asked if there were a representative of the applicant. (No reply.) Asked for comments on the approval. Van Driel: Expressed concern about the fact that there were two Bruns Drives and one Bruns Court. Stated he had spoken to the postmaster who concurred that two of the names should be changed. Wells: Asked what adjacent development there is. Smith:. Replied that to the. northeast is Turban Subdivision which is _developed at 22 to 5 acre lots, similar to this; to the west and south is a cemetery; to the northwest is undeveloped land; farther to the northwest is Collins Center. Wells: Asked if it were really closer to Loveland than to Fort Collins. Smith: Replied that it is in the south half of the one -mile strip separating the two growth areas. Wells: Asked if this were in the area being considered by the legislature for purchase. Van Driel: Moved recommendation of approval subject to the changing of two of the Bruns street names. Ross: Second. Wells: Stated it looks like urban sprawl, even though it is rural non -farm. Pointed out thatlhere is considerable land closer to the cities' centers which is undeveloped and that this type of development is going to be economically unfeasible in the future with transportation problems and the cost of development. Stated it was cutting down on the options for P & Z Board Minutes 3/24/80 Page 14 preserving open space between the two cities, and that she would not like to recommend it. Vote: Eckman: no, sharing Wells' concerns; Van Driel: yes; Spahr: no, sharing Wells' concerns also; Wells: no; Evans: no; Ross: no; Haase, no, stating she thought there was potential in the future for again working at this piece of legislation for preservation of open space, and by offering some opposition through the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, perhaps their voice would be heard and reaffirm support for continued legislative work for open space acquisition. Motion failed, 6 - 0. Wells: Stated she would not be present 3/25/80. Asked the Board to decide who would chair in her place. Ross: Stated he also would not be present. Haase: Asked Van Driel to chair the meeting. Van Driel: Accepted. Wells: Adjourned the meeting, at about 8:40 p.m. u CORRECTIONS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 1980 Page 7: Haase: Statement should be amended to read "the Board would either have to exclude #5 or in fact reject the master plan." Page 18: Haase: Third statement from the bottom of the page should be amended to read, "Noted it was not included in this evening's Coloradoan article regarding proposed charter amendments." Page 18: General disucssion statement: Should be amended to read "General discussion on a work session regarding media communications with Council or a representative from the Coloradoan."