Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - PRELIMINARY - 57-87 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA IT SUMMARY I NUMBER: FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 19, 1988 FROM: Ted Shepard SUBJECT: Resolution 88- Modifying the Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board of November, 2,-1987 allowing the North Lemay Plaza Preliminary P.U.D. (Case #57-87). RECOMMENDATION: Council should adopt the resolution based upon the findings of the City Council at the appeal hearing of January 5, 1988. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the January 5, 1988 City Council regular meeting, the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision to allow the North Lemay Plaza Preliminary P.U.D., was considered. After a full review of the record of the Planning and Zoning Board, and after public testimony from the appellant, the developer, Staff, and concerned citizens, the Council voted to modify the approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Board with the addition of a condition regarding the hours of operation. 0 0 RESOLUTION 88- OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGARDING NORTH LEMAY PLAZA PRELIMINARY P.U.D. (57-87) WHEREAS, on November 2, 1981, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and approved the request for preliminary P.U.D. for the North Lemay Plaza to authorize a convenience store and retail building on 1.78 acres located at the southwest corner of Conifer Street and Lemay Avenue; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 1988, the Council of the City of Fort Collins did hear the appeal of Mr. Kurt Smeester, 1200 Clark Street, with respect to the aforementioned Planning and Zoning Board decision; and WHEREAS, after receiving and considering all the evidence in the matter, including the record of the Planning and Zoning Board proceedings, the Council of the City of Fort Collins does hereby find and determine that the Board did not, in its deliberations, fail to correctly interpret the Land Development Guidance System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the North Lemay Plaza Preliminary P.U.D. (57-87) be, and hereby is, upheld upon the addition of the following condition: that the hours of operation of the convenience store be limited to an opening of 6:00 A.M. and a closing of 11:00 P.M. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 19th day of January, A.D. 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 0 0 January 5, 1988 //U v T e-,r "A vacancy currently exists on the Economic Opportunities Advisory Committee due to the resignation of Jo -an Barnett. The Council liaison has conducted interviews and will announce the recommendation at the January 5 City Council meeting. In keeping with Council's policy, this recommendation will be tabled until January 19 to allow time for public input." Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 88-5 inserting the name of Doug Dickson. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to table Resolution 88-5 to January 19. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of a Planning and Zoning Board Decision of Approval (Case #57-87) Regarding a 1.78 Acre Planned Unit Development. Known as The North. Lemay Plaza, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld With Conditions Following is sis memorandum on this item: "Executive Summar At the November 2, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board hearing (continued from the regularly scheduled meeting of October 26, 1987), the Board approved a request for preliminary approval of the North Lemay Plaza. This request involves 1.78 acres at the southwest corner of Conifer Street and Lemay Avenue. The proposed uses are a 2,604 square foot convenience store with three gas pump islands and canopy and a 10,672 square foot retail building. Background The applicant has proposed a 1.78 acre convenience commercial center on property that was zoned R-L-M, Low Density Multiple Family. The PUD proposal was reviewed under the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System (LOGS) and found to satisfy the Iocational and design criteria for an Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial land use. Staff found the orientation of, the buildings, the architecture, the landscaping and buffering, the off -site landscaping, and the reduced signage are sensitive design characteristics which contribute toward neighborhood compatibility, and promote quality development encouraged by the LDGS. -354- 0 January 5,_1988 • The su essful circulation of the citizen initiated Ordinance\ancommunicating 1987 is frustrating for staff. Staff analyzingoblem, weighing the alternatives, rE solution, the solution to -the Manager i disappoint such a small number of signatures, registere, can cause the repeal/referral of a difficultve that this is a major issue to the STAFF RECOMMENDATIft: peti on against I great job of ding a good ncil. It is d 2q of the ance. It's mmunity at large. Staff has met with th individuals who initiated t s petition. It appears that they had differen reasons for opposing the rdinance - concern about building another parki lot, concern that t CHOICES 95 Committee be included in the decision, and the ''debut" of a Larimer County Taxpayers Reform Group. It appea that these in viduals now have a better understanding of the City's ace needs. Staff recommends that Counci repeal t ordinance. Referring it to a special election would be cos and the time delay would essentially "kill" the deal on 281 North 11ea Staff will continue to pursue solutions to the space needs, an, individuals. Staff is optimistic another proposal to meet the spa( strong objections." A 11 continue to work with concerned t they can bring back to Council eds, that will not meet with such City Manager Burkett stated sta was rec mending Council accept the City Clerk's Certification and ado Item B wh h was an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 181, 1987. H stated the a ense of an election was not warranted. He added staff w ld be discussing ther options with the group responsible for.circulatingithe petitions. Councilmember Maxey mad a motion, seconded b Councilmember Horak, to accept the City Clerk' Certification of the Re rendum Petition. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrad Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabr, , Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None., THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horjk made a motion, seconded by Counc member Mabry, to adopt Ordinance/No. 9, 1988 on First Reading. Yeas. Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and inokur. Nays: None.. . THE MOTION C RIED. Resolution 88-5 Making an Appointment to the Economic Opportunity Advisory Committee. Tabled to January 19 FolloVfng is staff's memorandum on this item: -353- 0 January 5, 1988 The appellant takes issue with Neighborhood Compatibility component of the A11 Development Numbered Criteria Chart of the Land Development Guidance System. It is the appellant's contention that lighting, hours of operation, and the sale of pornographic material and alcohol would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The appellant further claims that Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart of the LDGS unfairly awards a development proposal with the credit available under Energy Conservation criterion. The appellant contends that this credit is undeserved since current private market construction practices typically accomplish the same result that the LDGS criterion is attempting to encourage. The appellant alleges the proposal would not achieve the minimum score of 50% on the point chart, the energy conservation credit assumes an exaggerated weighing without an equivalent sacrifice by the developer." Councilmember Stoner stated he would withdraw from the discussion and vote on this issue due to a perceived conflict of interest. City Attorney Huisjen stated this is an on -the -record appeal and that no new evidence should be presented to the Council. He stated Council would first need to determine if there are grounds that are sufficient for appeal. Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman stated the Code provides for the City Attorney to analyze an appeal when it is received and advise the City Clerk of any obvious defects in form or substance. He stated in accordance with the Code, he advised the City Clerk that it did not appear to him that the appellants had stated legitimate grounds for appeal except for the portion of the appeal filed by Mr. Kurt Smeester. He stated Mr. Smeester's appeal presents the argument that the number criteria chart and point chart D might not have been properly analyzed by the Planning and Zoning Board and that the development might not be compatible with the neighborhood with respect to lighting, store hours, sale of pornographic material, and sale of alcohol. He stated Mr. Smeester's appeal alleged that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code. He stated other portions of the appeal raise issues of traffic and neighborhood compatibility, but did not allege the Board made a mistake in its actions. He stated Council has the option to determine those issues do constitute grounds for appeal. Mr. Eckman stated in his conversations with the applicant, the issues of the sale of pornographic material and the sale of liquor in the convenience store could be resolved by compromise. He responded to questions from Council. City Attorney Huisjen and Assistant City Attorney Eckman provided further clarification of the appeal process in response to Council questions. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, that there are sufficient written grounds to hear the appeal based on grounds relating to errors in interpretation of energy conservation standards (point chart D) raised by appellant Smeester and including the -355- 0 0 January 5, 1988 neighborhood compatibility and environmental standards issues raised by appellants Nelson, Moser, Brungardt, Clemet, and Sigward. Councilmember Mabry stated he would vote against the motion because he believed it set a precedent for parties to appeal any Planning and Zoning Board decision because the party disagrees with the decision of the Board. He stated the Code requires the appellant to make specific allegations about alleged errors in the Planning and Zoning Board decision. Councilmember Winokur asked that the appeals procedure be reviewed and revised for clarity. He stated that Council must operate under the Code as currently written and therefore he would vote to hear the appeal as stated by Councilmember Kirkpatrick. Mayor Estrada stated he agreed with many of the points made by Councilmember Mabry, and also agreed that the current appeals process is unclear. He stated under the current process he believed this project was appealable. Councilmember Horak stated he did not believe the appeals process needs major revision. He stated the Code, as written, was workable for the citizens who will be making appeals to Council. He stated he did not want the process to become too legalistic. Mayor Estrada stated although he agreed with many of Councilmember Horak's comments, he thought the difference between a referral and an appeal should be made clear. Councilmember Mabry stated he believed Council was changing the intent of the Code with this appeal, and questioned why a vote was needed to hear the appeal because it appears anything constitutes grounds for appeal. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to hear the appeal was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Mabry, (Councilmember Stoner withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. City Planner Ted Shepard gave a presentation on this project and the actions taken by the Planning and Zoning Board. He answered questions from Council. Mayor Estrada stated the appellants would have 20 minutes to present their appeal, and the opponents would have 20 minutes to comment or rebut the grounds of the appeal, followed by 10 minutes for open, public discussion. He reminded parties involved that new evidence should not be presented to Council. Kurt Smeester, 1200 Clark, appellant, stated the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to approve this project was based on the premise that the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System was improperly evaluated, specifically relating to neighborhood compatibility.. He stated -356- 0. January 5, 1988 the appellants do not believe the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: (1) the potential for operation of the store on a 24-hour basis; (2) noise, traffic, and lighting; and (3) sale of pornographic material. Mr. Smeester elaborated on the noise, traffic, and increased lighting that the project will generate. He stated he did not believe the sale of pornographic material and alcohol was socially compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He pointed out that, using point chart D, the project was approved by a bare minimum of 50% of the points needed to pass. Mr. Smeester stated he did not believe the point earned for energy conservation was earned by the developer. He mentioned potential problems relating to underground water. He stated the majority of the neighborhood do not want the project built, but realize development is inevitable. He added the neighborhood is not opposed to development, but would like some control in order to ensure that the character of the neighborhood is maintained and that property values will not decrease. He suggested if the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board cannot be reversed, limitation of the store hours and sale of pornographic materials and alcohol would be acceptable to the neighborhood. Jessie Brungardt, 1307 Monterey. Drive, appellant, expressed concern about the criminal element that this type of development might attract. He spoke about the placement of an underground storage tank near a body of water that has direct drainage into the Poudre River. Robert Baker, Moondrift Farms, spoke of current traffic problems in the area and the impact this project will have on that situation. Bill Giesenhagen, owner/developer of the property, stated the owners of the convenience store have no immediate plans to operate the store on a 24-hour basis. He stated the store will not sell pornographic materials. He stated he believed the lights from traffic on the collector and arterial streets are more intense than the lighting the project will generate He added he thought more noise would be generated from daily traffic than from the project itself. He noted PDQ has not obtained a liquor license and when application is made, the Liquor Licensing Authority will determine whether a license is appropriate for that location.. He spoke of the heavy landscaping planned for the project. Mr. Giesenhagen explained the energy conservation measures being taken on this project. He stated he did not believe there was a reason to be concerned about the underground storage tank. He spoke of the design of the project in an attempt to make it aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. Yank Banowetz, 12 Forest Hills Lane, representing the Lindenwood Homeowners Association, spoke of the Association's concerns about traffic and neighborhood compatibility. Councilmembers asked questions of several staff members and the parties who spoke to the appeal. Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff described the traffic situation in the area and spoke of the traffic study process to be completed prior to final approval of the project. -357- El 0 January 5, 1988 Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a Board decision to include the limited in its hours of operation motion to modify the Planning and Zoning condition that the convenience store be to the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Maxey made a motion to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board with the additional conditions that the store hours be limited to the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., that no pornographic material be sold, and the traffic impact of the complex be mitigated in the initial phase. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to modify the Planning and Zoning Board decision to include the condition that the convenience store be limited in its hours of operation to the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she believed the problems the neighborhood has with point chart D indicated a problem with the overall LDGS procedure, especially in the energy conservation criteria. She stated she believed the project met the criteria, and falls within the overall LDGS philosophy that different uses can be made compatible with the neighborhoods with the use of buffering and architectural considerations. She stated she was willing to slightly modify the Planning and Zoning Board decision to include the limitation of hours, adding she was not concerned about the project's compatibility. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, .Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Stoner withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Stoner suggested staff bring back at least two options to exempt charitable organizations from paying sales tax. He listed two options: (1) modifying the existing ordinance, and (2) developing criteria to allow organizations to make application for exemption. Mayor Estrada added a third option to restrict any exemptions to occasional or temporary sales. He directed staff to prepare options for Council consideration. Councilmember Horak expressed an interest in obtaining information on how the State of Colorado and other municipalities deal with this issue. -358- i C] mb January 5, 1988 Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she was primarily interested -in the option that would exempt organizations for occasional sales. Councilmember Maxey stated he was interested in finding out which organizations are required to pay state tax. Adjournment Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on January 12, 1988. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor -359-