HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-056-04/04/2000-MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RELA RESOLUTION 2000-56
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
THE APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
RELATING TO THE MULBERRY-LEMAY CROSSINGS APPEAL
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2000, the City Planning and Zoning Board (the "Board")
approved the Mulberry-Lemay Crossings, Lot One, Filing One, Final PUD (the "Project), the
principal component of which is a 194,456 square foot large retail establishment on 20.73 acres
located on the ease side of Lemay Avenue,between Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Street(extended);
and
WHEREAS,on February 3,2000,a Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with
the City Clerk by Citizens Against Regional Super Center (the "Appellant"); and
WHEREAS, the foregoing Notice of Appeal alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code and Charter and failed to
conduct a fair hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2000, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal, reviewed the record on
appeal, heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties in interest and, after discussion,
decided to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS,City Code Section 2-5 6(e)provides that no later than the date of its next regular
meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in
support of its decision on the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that, pursuant to City Code Section 2-56(e), the Council hereby makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions:
1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellant's Notice of Appeal
conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code.
2. That the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the relevant
provisions of the City Code and Charter in approving the project,including the
provisions of the City's Land Development Guidance System(the"LDGS")and
the Land Use Policy Plan("LUPP"), and the Board did not deny the Appellant
a fair hearing.
3. The Council specifically finds that:
(a) The Board did not exceed its jurisdiction or authority and did not
ignore its previously established rules of procedure by giving effect
to the citizen-initiated ordinance approving the preliminary PUD for
the Project and, based upon such approval, accepting for review the
final PUD for the Project.
(b) The Board did not consider any evidence relevant to its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
(c) The Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the provisions
of the LDGS, the LUPP or other provisions of the City Code or
Charter in determining that the final PUD for the Project (1) is in
substantial compliance with the preliminary PUD,(2)satisfies the six
conditions contained in the above-referenced initiated ordinance,and
(3) conforms to all other relevant requirements of the LDGS.
4. That,for the foregoing reasons,the Council hereby upholds the Board's decision
approving the Project.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 4th day of April,A.D.
2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
k"..
City Clerk