HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY MARKET PUD, 1ST FILING - FINAL - 54-87C - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 6
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 3
DATE: May 30, 1989
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Two Appeals of Actions of the Planning and Zoning Board on
April 24, 1989 that: 1 . Approved the request to amend the Oak-Cottonwood
Farm Master Plan 2. Approved the request for the Harmony Market
Preliminary P.U.D. 3. Approved the request for Harmony Market P.U.D. ,
Phase One, Final .
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record on appeal and
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. After consideration of the
hearing, Council should uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 24, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board granted approval to amend
the Oak-Cottonwood Farm Master Plan to allow a Community/Regional Shopping
Center as an additional land use on Parcel B-1 . Prior to the amendment
request, the parcel was designated on the Master Plan as allowing Business
Services. Uses allowed under Business Services were listed as retail
shops, offices, indoor theatres, restaurants, health clubs, hotels, medical
clinics, and similar uses. The amendment request also included designating
detailed, specific land uses on Parcels 1-G and 1-H in order to provide a
transitional buffer of allowed uses. The second action of the Planning and
Zoning Board was to grant preliminary approval for the Harmony Market
P.U.D. This was a request for a Community/Regional Shopping Center on
50.90 acres with a total leasable floor area of 332,550 square feet divided
between three retail anchor tenants, five retail spaces, future additional
pad sites, and one office pad.
The third action of the Planning and Zoning Board was to grant final
approval for the Harmony Market P.U.D. , First Filing. This request
included a Pace Membership Warehouse consisting of 100,000 square feet on
16. 12 acres.
These three actions are being appealed to the City Council for a finding
and a resolution.
DATE: May 30, 1989 -2- ITEM NUMBER: 3
Summary of the Appeals:
4111
There are two notices of appeal presented to City Council for
consideration. The first appeal is referred to as the "multi-party appeal ".
The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct
a fair hearing in that the board substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure in granting a preliminary and final approval
of the project at the same meeting date.
In addition, the multi-party appellants allege that the traffic count
considerations were not validly determined, that the project is too intense
for the area, and that the architectural compatibility with the residential
neighborhood is questioned.
Finally, the multi-party appellants state that noise and pollution
considerations have not been satisfactorily addressed.
The second appeal is known as the Bigelow appeal . This appeal alleges that
the Planning and Zoning Board acted without sufficient knowledge or that
they were misled by the preponderance of information provided by the
developer. It is also alleged that information provided by the Planning
Department was ambiguous and misleading.
In addition, the appeal alleges that the board failed to properly interpret
and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in not allowing a
specific period of time to take place before other actions can be approved
under a master plan amendment. •
According to Mr. Bigelow, the board also failed to interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter by accepting the Planning
Department's concurrent handling of the Preliminary and Final phases of the
P.U.D.
Finally, the appeal alleges that Site Access Study and the Air and Noise
Pollution Study were presented with insufficient time for Mr. Bigelow and
other residents to properly investigate, study, and make independent
information available to counter the project's data.
Scope of Council Consideration
The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are as follows:
1 . Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary
and without the support of competent evidence in the record?
2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code and Charter, including the Land Use Policies Plan, and the
Land Development Guidance System?
3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its
authority, ignored its previously established rules of procedure, or
considered evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially
false or grossly misleading?
•
4!
41/
DATE: May 30, 1989 -3- ITEM NUMBER: 3
The Council packet attached to this summary contains the information
provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, minutes of the April 24, 1989
public hearing, as well as information pertaining to both appeals.
i
•