HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD, 5TH FILING - FINAL - 42-89B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES•
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 1989
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present included Chairman Sanford Kern, Lloyd Walker, Rex
Burns, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, and Alternate Joe Carroll. Board Member
Jim Klataske arrived at 6:38. Member Jan Shepard was absent. Staff members
included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Rick Richter,
Paul Eckman, and Gail Ault.
Board Members who attended the December 15, 1989 worksession included
Chairman Kcrn, Members Burns, O'Dell, Strom, Carroll, Klataske. Members
Shepard and Walker were absent.
Planning Director Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The
Consent Agenda consisted of: Item 1, Minutes of the November 20, 1989
Planning and Zoning Board meeting; Item 2, 051-89 ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BATTERY & RECYCLING PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 3, *52-89
CALIFORNIA PLAZA PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 4, 4057-86I (42z Pal
SUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD, Sib Filing - Final; Item 5 #47-8911 THE
ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION - Preliminary; Item 6,
#55-89,A FRONTAGE ROAD INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION AND
ZONING; Item 7, #29-89,A COLORADO NATURE CENTER FOURTH
ANNEXATION AND ZONING.
Mr. Peterson -added Item 1, the Minutes, had been continued to the January 22,
1990 meeting. Item 4, Sunstone Village had an added condition that the
Development Agreement be signed. The staff pulled Item 3, California Plaza,
for discussion and Board Member Strom pulled Item 2, Rocky Mountain
Battery, for discussion. Chairman Kern noted he would not be voting on Item
7, Nature Center Annexation, due to a perceived conflict of interest.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Items 4,5, and 6. Member Strom seconded.
Motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Strom moved to approve Item 7,
Member Burns seconded and motion carried 6-0.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN BATTERY AND RECYCLING - #51-89
Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval.
Member Strom indicated his concern centered on the best method to accomplish
this proposal. He felt perhaps a rezoning was better than granting a variance.
He believed to qualify for a variance the applicant must 1) prove hardship due
to the current situation, and 2) show no adverse public effect will result.
Member O'Dell questioned the difference in the process for the two methods,
wondering why the PUD was pursued, and indicated a hardship was suffered
because the applicant could not meet all point chart requirements.
Mr. Shepard replied that recycling would be a use by right in the IG Zone.
The PUD process was pursued because it offered site plan review, and the
applicant felt the use was appropriate for the location as well as time
considerations.
•