Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY LEMAY CROSSINGS, LOT ONE, FILING ONE - FINAL PUD - 36-96D - MEDIA - (27)today; clear ioniym. High: 86 Low: 48 Details, Page Al www.coloradoan.com New. Walm Mart's, ., . BySTAC' The Coloradoan Appeals deadline passes; council vote stands adoan The deadline to appeal the City Councils approval of a controversial new shop- ping center anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter came and went Thursday without a sound. That means work on the much -debated Mulberry- Lemay Crossings project - a Wal-Mart Continued from Page Al 375,000-square-foot shopping center planned for the north- east corner ofLemay and Mul- berry — can move forward. City Manager John Fis- chbach said developer Mark Goldberg can begin construc- tion on the project once he pulls building and earth - After the approval, Gary Carnes, the leader of CARS, said he was dropping out of the fight but that the group might contin- ue the fight. Former CARS member Gina Janett said the group had been con- cerned that Wal-Mart would file a counter suit. Other group members contacted Thursday declined to comment or did not return calls. Janett said she and the CARS members still oppose the super - center. moving permits from the city. A group that was expected to appeal the supersized project, Citizens Against Rs- gional Supercenters, or CARS, did not file with the Larimer County District Court by the 5 p.m. deadline. Boulder attorney Lawrence "It is an inappropriate location for such a major traffic genera- tor," Janett said Thursday. At the time of the council's de- cision, developer Goldberg said he expected a court appeal from CARS. Calls to Goldberg were not returned Thursday afternoon. Mayor Ray Martinez said he always knew of the possibility of an appeal, but said he was glad to see that CARS took the "common sense" approach. Rider, who represents the group, declined to comment at the request of his client. Last month, the City Council upheld the Plan- ning and Zoning Board's ap- proval of Mulberry-Lemay Crossings. Opponents had 30 days to file a court appeal +"": "I think hopefully the oppo- nerits understood the message from the community," Martinez said. "The community has been well spoken for, and this is an ex- ample of fulfilling their wishes. We need to do more of that with less labor and more consensus." The planning board initially de- nied the project in 1998. The coun- cil turned down Goldberg's appeal of that decision. Before the council's deci- sion, CARS had argued that the 375,000-square-foot project was a potential traf- fic hazard. The group also questioned whether the citi- zen-initiated ballot item giv- ing the project preliminary approval last year was legal. ' See WAL-MART, Page A2 to the planning board's decision. Goldberg then spearh+ded a cit- izen -initiated ordinance t6 approve, the prvjeces preliminary design. Voters approved the ballot measure in April 1999, sending the project back to the planning board.The planning board ap- proved the project's final design Jan. 20, prompting another ap- peal — this time by CARS.