HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY MARKET PUD, 1ST FILING - FINAL - 54-87C - CORRESPONDENCE - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (3) S
E
MAY 1 5 1989
Amended Notice of Appeal
May 14, 1989
This is an Amended Notice of Appeal to re-evaluate the Planning Boards actions taken on the PACE
Warehouse Project April 24, 1989,consisting of simultaneous preliminary and final approvals to:
1) Amend the Oak-Cottonwood.Farm PUD Master Plan-Case 54-87A
2) Harmony Market PUD Preliminary Case 54-87B
3) Harmony Market PUD(PACE)-Final Case 54:-87C
On April 8, 1989, I wrote the Mayor, with copies provided to the Planning and Zoning Board and the
Planning Director,concerning the Pace Project and as such,I am,under Section 2-46 of the Fort Collins
Code,"A Party of Interest"in this appeal.
I believe Section 2-48(1)was overstepped by the Planning and Zoning Board in that they acted without
sufficient knowledge or that they were misled by the preponderance of information provided by the
developer. The Board members'statements relating to PACE building being no larger or worse than a
King Soopers,and that it was depicted as being "like Toddys in design nature"is a misconception. The
information provided throughout the project by the City Planning Department was ambiguous and too
often misleading. The Planning Department changed their direction no less than five times at different
gatherings throughout the term as to whether the Amendment to the Master Plan was necessary or not.
Upon the Board directly asking the question of the Planning Department, a very uncertain "yes" was
given.
I believe the Planning Board failed to meet Section 2-48. (2) of the Fort Collins Code- ie: "Failure to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code and charter." The Land Development
Guidance System for Planned Development(LDGS)provides that for a major change to the Master Plan
to happen,a specific period of time needs to take place before other actions being approved under that
amendment. A major change is one which has to happen by the Planning and Zoning Board,where the
definition of a minor change is one capable of being made by the planning department.
Also under Section 2-48(2)-I feel the Planning and Zoning Board failed to interpret and apply relavant
provisions of the Code and Charter by accepting the Planning Departments' concurrent handling of the
IPPreliminary and.Final phases. The LDGS states on Page 42-Final Plan-- "Application for a final plan
may be made only after approval by the Planning and Zoning Board of a Preliminary except,however,for
good cause shown, the Planning Director may determine if applicant for the final plan may be made
concurrently with the Preliminary Plan." I have asked the Planning Department(Ted Shepard)and the
I
(2)
Project head(Tony Fiest) "What is the good cause shown and both could only tell me "the LDGS
procedures allow it", that they can do it and because the Project asked for it. I still have not been told411
what the "for good cause"is. The fact that the developer had all the information available in time to
accomplish the concurrent plans does not outweigh the fact that many, many residents were asking for
suitable time to look at the project.I believe we were not afforded that right.
Section 2-48.Item 3(b). Although environmental issues are not a part of the governing document,the
so called "environmental"issues were relevant to normal overall City Planning on this project. For the
City not to entertain these issues themselves, indicates insufficient planning information to the Board.
All of the "environmental" inputs studied - pollution, traffic, light, noise,odor,etc. were the Projeet's
information and of which the City Planners practically took as presented. Insufficient time was not
allotted through the speeded up process to allow myself and other residents to properly investigate,study
and make independant information available to counter the Projects data.I believe,as the"environmental"
issues are not part of the planning guide-the Board made it a part of this planning process by studying
it,hearing the issues,and commenting on these issues. These issues now need time for proper study by
both sides.
Again,I ask the City Council review these items and find that reason exists for reversal of the Planning
and Zoning's approval of these actions.
Thank You Sincerely,
sied-1
Edwin C.Bigelow !
818 Sandy Cove Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80525
226-8536 223-1448
. r
0 Adrn;tl r
------___:atne 5ervic�s
City Clerk - ..__... . - -
Cit of Fort Collins
May 10, 1989
To All Appellants. Harmony Market Project (PACE Warehouse Building)
A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 8, 1989 concerning the Harmony Market
Project (PACE Warehouse Building) . The City Attorney has reviewed the
appeal document, and his findings are set out in the attached memorandum
dated May 9, 1989. You will note the City Attorney's review has found some
defects in form and substance in the appeal , and he recommends ". . that
those persons filing the multi-party appeal read carefully Sections 2-48
and 2-49 of the Code and file an Amended Notice of Appeal in accordance
therewith."
40 Section 2-51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may
be filed by the appellant(s) at any time prior to the time for mailing by
the City Clerk of Notice of . Appeal to parties-in-interest. The City
Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 30, at
6:30 p.m. , and the Notice of Hearing must therefore be mailed no later than
May 15, 1989. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted NO LATER THAN
9:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, MAY 15, 1989 to allow sufficient time for legal review
and inclusion in the Notice of Hearing to be mailed that same day.
Sincerely,
Wanda Krajicek
City Clerk
1111
300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 8t)22-0,80 • i.,i'13) „1-f:7IR
410 1
- kdminis= ative Ser% iceti
City Clerk — ---------- --
f
4110
City of Fort Collins
May 10, 1989
Mr. Edwin C. Bigelow
818 Sandy Cove Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Mr. Bigelow:
RE: - amended Oak-Cottonwood Farm P.U.D. Master Plan
- Harmony Market P.U.D. Preliminary
- Harmony Market P.U.D. (PACE) Final
This letter is in reference to your letter of May 8, 1989 appealing the
Planning and Zoning Board decision on the above listed actions. The City
Attorney has reviewed the appeal document, and his findings are set out in
the attached memorandum dated May 9, 1989. You will not "e City
Attorney's review has found some defects in form and subst in the
appeal , and he rec, .mends that you ". . . carefully review Sections 2-48
4111 and 2-49 of the Code and file an Amended Notice of Appeal accordingly. "
Section 2-51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may
be filed by the appellant(s) at any time prior to the time for mailing by
the City Clerk of Notice of Appeal to parties-in-interest. The City
Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 30, at
6:30 p.m. , and the Notice of Hearing must therefore. be mailed no later than
May 15, 1989. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted NO LATER THAN
9:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, MAY 15, 1989 to allow sufficient time for legal review .
and inclusion in the Notice of Hearing to be mailed that same day.
Sincerely,
. 41100141NeAti
Wanda Krajicek
City Clerk
. 4111
300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 380 • Fort Collins. CO 80522--0380 • (303) 221-631
o
!. ;ttorneti
4111111111k III
Cite of Fort CAin, MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 9,. 1989
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney(
RE: Appeal of Harmony Market P.U.D. Project
I have received the May 8, 1989, appeal as filed by Edwin C.
Bigelow appealing the amendment to the Oak-Cottonwood Farm P.U.D.
Master Plan; the. Harmony Market P.U.D. Preliminary; and the Har-
mony Market P.U.D. (PACE) Final. Pursuant to Section 2-50 of the
City Code, it is my duty to, within five working days from the
date of the filing of a Notice of Appeal, review the same for any
obvious defects in form or substance. You shall then notify the
appellant in writing by certified mail of any such defect in the
Notice of Appeal within ten workings days of the date of filing
4111 of the Notice of Appeal. In accordance with Section 2-51, an
Amended . Notice of Appeal may be filed by the Appellant at any
time prior to time for mailing by the City Clerk of Notice of
Appeal to other parties in interest.
With respect to the Bigelow appeal, it is not specifically
entitled "Notice of Appeal, " but is referred to as "an appeal to
the City Council to re-evaluate the Planning Board's action taken
on the PACE Warehouse Project." I believe that this reference is
tantamount to a "Notice of Appeal" and should be given that mean-
ing.
1. The Bigelow appeal does reference the action of the
Board which is the subject of the appeal, that being the amended
Oak-Cottonwood Farm P.U.D. Master Plan - Case No. 54-87A; the
Harmony Market P.U.D. Preliminary - Case No. 54-878; and the Har-
mony Market P.U.D. (PACE) Final - Case No. 54-87C.
2 . The Bigelow appeal also references the date of the
action, that being April 24, 1989.
3 . The Bigelow appeal provides the name, address and tele-
phone number of the appellant without giving any indication of
the relationship of the appellant to the subject of the action of
the Board. The Bigelow appeal ought, accordingly, to be amended
1111 to indicate the nature of the relationship, showing that Mr.
Bigelow is a "party in interest" as defined in Section 2-46 of
the Code, entitled to file such an appeal.
411
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
May 9, 1989
Page 2
4 . The Bigelow appeal contains a listing of certain grounds
for the appeal, including specific allegations of error to be
considered on appeal. Those grounds are follows:
a. Section 2-48 (2) of the Code: "Failure to prop-
erly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Code and Charter. "
b. Section 2-48(1) of the Code: "Abuse of discre-
tion in that the board's decision was arbitrary and
without the support of competent evidence in the
record.
Although it is not clear whether the Bigelow appeal actually
alleges that there is a lack of support of competent evidence in
the record, there is an allegation that. the Board acted "without
sufficient knowledge" or that it was "misled. "
5. There is also an allegation that the information pre-
sented to the Board by the Planning Department was "ambiguous and
to often misleading. " There is no indication, however, that
assuming that allegation to be true, it resulted in the failure.
of the Board to conduct a "fair hearing. " See Section 2-48 (3) (c)
of the Code. There is also some allegation of a problem "with the
administrative handling of the process" because of the concurrent
handling of the preliminary and final phases. I cannot ascertain
whether this is an allegation of a violation of Section
2-48 (3) (b) of the Code or not. There is no allegation in the
appeal that indicates that any procedural problems resulted in
the failure to conduct a fair hearing, and accordingly, it is
unclear to me whether the reference to "process" is intended to
serve as a ground for appeal under Section 2-48 of the Code.
I would recommend that Mr. Bigelow carefully review Section 2-48
and 2-49 of. the Code and file an Amended Notice of Appeal accord-
ingly.
Such an Amended Notice of Appeal should be filed in your office
by Monday morning so that you can mail your required notice by
noon on Monday.
WPE:whm
•
•
Cit; Attorney
City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM
essammimissammamessiss
DATE: May 9, 1989
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Gag
RE: Appeal of Harmony Market P.U.D. Project
I, have received the May 5, 1989. "request for the Council to rev-
iew the Harmony Market Project. " For purposes of this memorandum,
I shall refer to this appeal as the "multi-party appeal." Pursu-
ant to Section 2-50 of the City Code, it is my duty to, within
five working days from the date of the filing of a Notice of
Appeal, review the same for any obvious defects in form or sub-
stance. You shall then notify the appellant in writing by certi-
fied mail of any such defect in the Notice of Appeal within ten
workings days of the date of filing of the Notice of. Appeal. In
accordance with Section 2-51, an Amended Notice of Appeal may be
filed by the Appellant at any time prior to time for mailing by
the City Clerk of Notice of Appeal to other parties in interest.
1. The multi-party appeal is not captioned as a "Notice of
Appeal" but rather is referred to as a "request for the Council
to review. " I think, however, that the document was intended to
serve the same purpose as a "Notice of Appeal" and should be
given that meaning.
2. The multi-party appeal does not specifically indicate
the action of the Board which is the subject of the appeal as is
required pursuant to Section 2-49(1) . It refers to the "Harmony
Market project at Harmony Road and Lemay Avenue" without giving
specific reference as to whether the appeal pertains to the
amended Master Plan, the Preliminary P.U.D. , the Final. P.U.D. or
any combination of the above.
3. The multi-party appeal does reference the date of the
Planning and Zoning Board hearing, that being April 24, 1989.
4. The multi-party appeal contains the name, address, tele-
phone number and relationship of the appellants to the subject of
the action of the Board, with the caveat that the document is
signed by numerous people indicating their relationship as either
"home owner, " "resident, " "renter" or "owner. " There is no indi-
a) cation as to how the appellants have a relationship that makes
them a party in interest entitled to file an appeal. See Section
2-46 of the Code for the definition of "party in interest. "
lot! LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6520
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
May 9, 1989
Page 2
5. Section 2-49(4) of the Code requires that the Notice of
Appeal list the "grounds for the appeal, including specific
allegations of error to be considered on appeal. " If you refer
to Section 2-48 of the Code, you will find a listing of the per-
missible allegations of error that will constitute grounds for an
appeal. The only allegation of error that I could readily
ascertain in the multi-party appeal is the allegation concerning
the "propriety of the commission granting preliminary and final
approval of the project at the same meeting, which is not con-
sistent with prior procedure. " Section 2-48 (3) (b) of the Code
lists as one of the grounds for appeal the following:
Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the board or
commission substantially ignored its previously esta-
blished rules of procedure.
I believe that the multi-party appeal probably intended to cite
this ground as an appealable issue, assuming that the appellants
believe that, because of the alleged inconsistency with prior
procedure, they have been denied a fair hearing. The multi-party
appeal does not contain any allegation, however, that they were
denied a fair hearing.
6. 1110
With respect to the other permissible grounds for appeal "
as contained in Section 2-48, there are some allegations in the
multi-party appeal which take exception to traffic count consid-
erations, intensity of use, architectural compatibility, noise
and pollution and the effect on property values of adjacent resi-
dential properties. Whether these statements indicate an inten-
tion by the appellants to allege any other permissible ground for
appeal as provided in Section 2-48 of the Code will be for the
Council to determine. I cannot ascertain whether the appellants
are simply disagreeing with the opinion and decision of the Board
or whether they believe that the Board has erred in any respect
under the provisions of Section 2-48 of the Code. For that rea-
son, I would recommend that those persons filing the multi-party
appeal read carefully Sections 2-48 and 2-4.9 of the Code and file
an Amended Notice of Appeal in accordance therewith. As you
know, any Amended Notice would have to be filed prior to time of' .
your mailing pursuant to Section 2-54 of the Code.
WPE:whm
i V
• - pFo(Fc-77: 7A7?
• ,,i: ,,,,i...,), ‘,., .
, .
. o'c________ -
MAjL_ 1989
May 5, 1989
4111 C1F Y CLERK
Dear City Council ;
This is being submitted to serve as a request for the council to
review the Harmony Market Project at Harmony Road and LeMay
Avenue.
The City Planning and Zoning Board, on. April .24, 1989, voted to
approve a Pace Warehouse Building in the. Harmony Market Project .,
We Feel that the commission errored in their review of these
factors;
The traffic count considerations were not .validly determined, by
not evaluating the entire proposed project which includes a
grocery store and other high traffic'. impact • uses. The
traffic impact was minimized, thereby distorting the effects
•
on our residential neighborhood.
,
We feel Sanford Kern errored in sjfa'ing. "Pace really is only the
size of a King Soopers, and will generate less traffic than a
King Soopers." The Project evaluated a Pace Store of
approximately 100.000 square fe , far larger than any King
Soopers in Fort Collins. Trikl abided traffic impact of a
grocery store in this Pribject alSb contributes to the problem.
Sit •was demonstrated by a considerable' number of people speaking
against the Project that we are concerned. The issues that we
Feel have not been satisfactorily addressed are:
1 . The Project is too intense for the area.
2. We question architectural compatibility with the residential
neighborhood:
3. Noise and pollution considerations
4. The effect on property values of adjoining residential
properties.
5. We question the propriety of the commission granting
preliminary and final approval of the Project at the same
meeting date. which is not consistent with prior procedure.
We are requesting that this Project be re-evaluated by the Fort
Colli.ns City Council .
NAME ADDRESS PHONE# RELATIONSHIP
� e-ir sz7Zv(a)Z J 6 -i, 3 -E .�, e.-��� ,
I7� •. G� :?,,W-.Z66 `dii" aflom9
jy Yr.
,,'/� ,/I 4'c.- .-..��.�� zJ�fir'.) j_. „_.., N, ��1 T' �' �Lx Z V <c, r •
p•V.0
-.-e- -7ycJ` ' �h--/-ki• 5.4..,..,_,e..........._,-. , 4' / :� �' Zyti, G��t.._ 1�J,/....'
i, ���'
ki.,,,.,, , 2 Ze-7-1 n"--
//'.- � _ A 47/ 1-/o, n Pr i�-' ) F�c r„e e ca 4 t"�
,..1 ✓�l z1A'Z,,if/J.124,K 4n4t60->te.e 4f*
-7 49 ). / tii, •-4-17-x/H;v71 lDr., Aile' . . 6-9s
i
l- f
•
4111
May 5, 1989
Dea - City Council;
This is being submitted to serve as a request for the council to
review the Harmony Market Project at Harmony Road and LeMay •
Avcnuc.
The City Planning and Zoning Board, on April 24, 1989, voted to
approve. a Pace Warehouse Building in the Harmony: Market Project.
We feel that the commission errored in their review of these
factors;
The traffic count considerations were not validly determined, by
not, evaluating the entire proposed project which includes a
grocery store and other high traffic impact uses. The
traffic impact was minimized, thereby distorting the effects •
on our residential neighborhood. •
We feel Sanford Kern errored in stating, "Pace really is only the
size of a King Soopers, and will generate less traffic than a
King Soopers." The Project evaluated a Pace Store of
approximately 100,000 square feet, far larger than any King
Soopers in Fort Collins. The added traffic impact of a
grocery store In this Project also contributes to the problem.
It was demonstrated by a considerable number of people speaking
against the Project that we are concerned. The issues that we
feel •have not been satisfactorily addressed are:
1 . The Project is too intense for the area.
2.. We question architectural compatibility with the .residential
neighborhood.
3. Noise and pollution considerations.
4. The effect on property values of adjoining residential
properties.
5. We question the propriety of the commission granting
preliminary and final approval of the Project at the same
meeting date, which is not consistent with prior procedure.
• We are requesting that this Project be re:=evaluated by the Fort
Collins City Council .
NAME ADDRESS PHONE# RELATIONSHIP
heninS l;6eee- /42' ,(it) / 1eD,e ytj-izts—
4/Si9 uEFi.0 C- ?9-036z
i 4 53 ,j1.) e T C vj C 1�3 - 4.5.. F � rrT 4y
J� G� ZL 3 - i3
r
I cf Si ,3/41f n C
..44; ,z.J2 7-z 6,6 ?
•
i2 i
• .•
. ... pratg.e Collins City Clip 1
NAME ADDRESS PHONE# RELATIONSHIP
' K f j.
Tti_ ( L.niA.)
' uroce, .\h/LL c4LLA, il. 3,30stai-4-:tp" . - i '
r I ic/le -2-2 3 cl( 3
--:71a4"' 1:3 • . 4 /tA - 45'1 0 &zea,u-.110 • . 23 -76.e97
( c F-) ec, 11 3" 0 6.0 •-•C e 44 L":..:.C4 Cs C-- ?? --- 2)5 i'' €e..:LA :\e,.....
z 1 A
‘. ..z.5. -/.5)/9 i I
I v 1
- --PaiAilke.,,i_ 4_ 01: zi5c)(0 caw ot es.rcle, ).;,3 - I 14.1 5 14-orAeoc;,fixer-
&I-
411 /ow-v.1f q 5-- / Sace:7-eA .
q S I. 3 Sea-444)4i Cr ZZ 3 667e-1 Re sr c I e-ii'l
0441 /27:44L 46 11 56040e7 C/12 ZZ3 -Ozei /
1K-1 )L-161971- 45 [Cl _SeEkit-dat CA sr ZZ3 -544L, Pes 1 del-cr.
'1 ,
,41-zale z 273-cr-5-1 fieweek),,z,f_.7,
7. 66,-- /,:go, if A 1 /
1 ) , i 1
. (1 ,4 / )44,-,'..-- - • 5 - -
, ,
• ( •
r.v?__ 4S73 5 - 4 latiely Cile.)7 • a,)b - 47/--C-ZS ()`"71-t'L.
i i y
(6 e.,c1 (4 .i/I 1/s- (// s.,,, c_..1,,, i'„. ? c_tv - cpsz I
,c. .,t,tit Peads,A, Ligtk st.,42., CIr 2 Z• C '62-72' gl------5( n,
k.)717r 51 • --' 4/. S/ Sec./ d.r-
<2.2 3 _7A 'y cywik,
) .., er rt.,
ju
• 0 9 1"
MAY 8 1989
4ai i uvrd'
1.-i i'Nrika .a-rt yome,
41244:141�
�_ al 11 - O
/99,
t44
-7/1 a-44.v 44.0.1 • det.d.e_ Pr siezq
a) W . Pv,A -P'`LL'`e4" r
s4-87
? a ��/9-6 -
Cam, s�- F7e
- ' /4e
Alh
/a .:-A Sf,4
. v (&s a-1 , clue E in,144.7 :4e
eLtii ege,a4tALI )07;0 CC'd - d-re/4-4;jf
4
a
1dm 4i EP,
;t.a see- . &
. .
•
1 %"•,1 5e-cli/ba, -tLip
ciwt 1.__Q
• 8.4,441„ ."/Atruz, • Q24.A0
(fo-cv-t-A-44 ateatitchi-k ±L12A-•-jiuir JAI ;t14_, az4
krf24"-ku-:-/t zpArAttn44(4
ci3O 2,3 ey. .4. 4.66 . ..14..
aluvta 447, 0 ..etitori-Lid4a ,eL
r_&t-kgi ,106 4,-76046 ,6Z .4,2".ne.%44,711414- 41zu,.)
G-e/ /-114r-A • &pen. Azrau.d_
rr
/ci.cAgtiv ce.441 ,_4(2440)t, tm, )1d.(_;; ,E
el."16=-4404d
._ et•
ILAK-04 OAV-44,
deafxfl.. ,e.nrvi-enttftitri ez/o
iiPti444 YeZ 4-e-e/v1-1-14-7 drezvrxi.x.e;
' 14424-44-e4d
"Lei-talt it.Y....„; &I i1t4 .
&x, ieLz
ur . d44,
ee*IA24464i ';2d.rLdi jer,oeseArri A
4/4
t-ale c_4,-
c4-4-4-c)P e,:ty
ee.g.ta ao -,epl
ph
4, lova
fir4:44-7:4/4)47 ttffe'is-pc211.41-)
,074. 41 ye:4 .-J41441
--Z-4-4-te-e.4.. 4-4sTu_. 614.1244-e-ci
-ZZ deu4(e_ey AL
.a4 .uttey
As.,uput...ny 2cris,L41-, Aa-o-ek A'
Qrj .a,ems ,.
2,14.4.6„„j -64 adogg4u. s
ve_4-0‘,66(A44/71 y .ette /,;/gle-7:xe, 7
.ea4-4-4 z• -e.,?:E6 12-444g. •
G .D. C-.37 eac”..
4490 ,teeiviam- 7/221-0/
,9
si:. -zivieth cc. pLez,„xe,;e44, ,e.yeezievA
_ ,e2=22 , ,ceramze, „Aadiazic.,
tl&
4„„
da_zt_00,
./77t41.4.e. "i4 r
zietetie:iv
JA-d-r-te ,e_e2.e.he ax+ ,r-A.Lew
LDGS -e4 psn.
eg.44-ssa /91.74--e ct)44-41d<i
,64del ,e-Z et-4 Co'&49egi
Aeefrhehi ALL,
,ram. .�, .J;ii'eerze4.rizcit.e, •
X26-P5-A , e. 4c,e,R)
223-/44 8/F