Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/28/2000-AdjournedMarch 28, 2000 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Consideration of the Appeal of the January 20, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Final P.U.D., Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary On January 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Final P. U.D. This was a request for a 194,456 square foot large retail establishment on 20.73 acres located on the east side of Lemay Avenue, between Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Street (extended). The building is considered to be a "big box retail" establishment. Filing One is part ofa larger community1regional shopping center which consists of42.98 acres. The P. U.D. includes the construction of two new public streets; Magnolia Street (extended) and 12`n Street. On February 3, 2000, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office alleging that the Planning and ZoningBoard failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provision ofthe Code and Charter and that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading." Councilmember Bertschy withdrew from discussion and voting on the agenda item due to a perceived conflict of interest. ("Secretary's Note: Councilmember Bertschy left the meeting at this point.) City Attorney Roy explained and described the appeal process and the options available to the Council. 239 March 28, 2000 Mayor Martinez established time limits for each portion of the appeal hearing. City Manager Fischbach introduced staff members present for the appeal Ted Shepard, ChiefPlanner, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He noted a transcribing error in the transcript. Lawrence C. Rider, Martin & Mehaffy, LLC, 1655 Walnut Street, Boulder, representing the appellants, spoke regarding the denial of the application by the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council last year and stated that the citizen -initiated ordinance which was done after the two denials is the substance of this appeal. He recommended that the Council carefully study the transcripts, exhibits, and various submittals to determine the facts. He spoke regarding the work Fort Collins has done in land use planning. He stated that if the City proceeds with the application and relies on the ballot initiative that the long range work done on land use will be called into question and the integrity of the land use code will be jeopardized. He spoke regarding the importance of protecting the land use process. He stated that the appellant is questioning whether or not the matter submitted to the voters was a legislative matter appropriate for a vote. He spoke regarding case law regarding the use of initiative and referendum and argued that the ballot initiative was a quasi-judicial rather than legislative matter. He stated that the appellant is seeking to protect the City's land use processes and controls and that a finding that the initiated ordinance stands would approve a site -specific basis contrary to the substantive aspects of the work done on land use. He spoke regarding the consequences of such a finding. Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak Street, attorney representing the applicant, spoke regarding the history of the application and studies done for the project. She stated that the appeal alleges that the vote of the people approving the preliminary project was illegal and that the board considered false and misleading information regarding transportation issues. She stated that the State Constitution and the City Charter regarding initiative and referendum petitions would supercede and provision of the Code to the contrary. She stated that the initiative was narrowly drawn, was limited to the project after it had been fully reviewed and recommended by staff, adopted all of the staff -recommended conditions, and was filed within required time frame. She spoke regarding the Charter provisions and case law pertaining to initiative and referendum and argued that the ballot initiative was appropriate, and in addition that the assertion that the initiative was not appropriate was not timely filed. She also refuted the portion of the appeal alleging that the board considered false and misleading information regarding transportation issues. She stated that issues pertaining to the roundabout at Mulberry and Lemay are irrelevant to the project and requested that all references and information regarding the roundabout be eliminated from the discussion and the record. She spoke regarding the testimony included in the record relating to transportation issues and transportation improvements needed and planned in the area. Kathy Velasquez, 205 Third Street, representing approximately 90 residences, spoke in favor of the project. 240 March 28, 2000 Julie Jimenez, 204 First Street, outlined the reasons for neighborhood support of the project and asked Council to uphold the wishes of the voters. Cheryl White, resident of north Fort Collins, expressed support for the project. Vana Martin, First Class Direct, spoke in support of the project. Blair Kiefer, 5335 East Prospect Road, supported the project. Mr. Rider spoke regarding case law pertinent to the matter and the denials of the project prior to the ballot initiative. He asked that Council act to prevent the subversion of the land use planning process. Nancy York, Fort Collins resident, stated that Council's task is judicial in nature and that the project does not meet the requirements of the land use code. She spoke regarding traffic and safety issues and asked Council to reject the proposal. Ms. Liley spoke regarding transportation issues and land use criteria. Councilmember Kastein asked about Policy No. 70 regarding criteria for regional shopping centers. Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer, stated that the existing transportation system is deficient and that the developer will make improvements beyond the City's standards and acceptable levels of service for intersections. Councilmember Mason asked about acceptable levels of service and the Transfort service in the area. Bracke spoke regarding standards for level of service. Kathleen Reavis, Senior Transportation Planner, spoke regarding Transfort routes. Councilmember Mason asked about the cost of the pedestrian bridge. City Manager Fischbach stated that the developer has agreed to contribute $200,000 for the pedestrian bridge. Mayor Martinez asked about safety problems and levels of service. Bracke stated that there is currently a safetyproblem at Mulberry and Lemay, that appropriate improvements will reduce safety problems, that this project will mitigate all impacts with the planned improvements, and that future growth will contribute stress on transportation in the area. Reavis spoke regarding pedestrian system improvements. Mayor Martinez asked about the policy to encourage business growth to the north. Shepard spoke regarding the Land Use Policies Plan, which encourages growth to the northeast. Councilmember Weitkunat requested clarification regarding transportation issues and whether traffic capacity is measurable. Bracke stated that capacity is measurable through a level of service analysis. 241 March 28, 2000 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if safety is measured by specific criteria. Bracke stated that there is some room for interpretation and that there are criteria for pedestrian and vehicle safety. Reavis spoke regarding planned pedestrian improvements. Mayor Martinez asked if this project is governed by the "big box" guidelines. Shepard stated that this Filing One is a "big box." Councilmember Mason asked about the land use for the next phase. Bracke stated that assumptions include additional retail development. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Byrne, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss legal issues. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Byme, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: The meeting adjourned into Executive Session at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 7:45 p.m.) Mayor Martinez asked that the City Attorney give an opinion in light of the legal questions raised. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding the citizen initiative and stated that within the context of this appeal the Council must decide if it agrees with the position the Board took. He stated that in his opinion the Board's position was reasonable and prudent, and that the Board made a determination to consider the preliminary plan as having been approved by the City pursuant to the initiated ordinance and to move on to consideration of the final plan. He stated that it is within Council's discretion to agree or disagree with the position of the Board. Councilmember Mason asked about stormwater quality issues. Glenn Schleuter, Stormwater Development Manager, stated that the project is voluntarily going beyond best stormwater practices and will exceed land use code requirements. Councilmember Mason asked about trees to be included in the landscape plan and the concept of concrete windows. Shepard spoke regarding the landscape plan and window styles. Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to find that the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to find that the Planning and Zoning Board did properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land 242 March 28, 2000 Development Guidance System and that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board should be upheld. Councilmember Byrne spoke regarding the issue of "big box" developments and standards and stated that he feels that the applicant has satisfied the rules that are in place. Councilmember Kastein stated that he believes that the citizen initiative was an appropriate tool, that the processes are being followed appropriately, and that the final plan complies with the requirements. Councilmember Weitkunat spoke in favor of the motion and stated that the final plan meets all requirements. Councilmember Mason spoke regarding the decisions to be made and stated that the project meets all LDGS criteria but demonstrates the need for the new Land Use Code. Councilmember Wanner stated that the Board made appropriate findings and that the rules regarding such developments may need to be changed. Mayor Martinez stated that he would support the motion and spoke regarding the issues raised and the benefits the project could bring to the community. City Attorney Roy clarified that the intent of the motion is to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Mason spoke regarding planning in Fort Collins and "big box" standards. He stated that Fort Collins should continue to be a leader in planning and land use and should look at issues relating to the scale of "big box" developments. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Warmer and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 243 The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 0001131 a t - I wm L, ti, "lt I. Adjournment Mayor 244 March 28, 2000