To: Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Council
From: Robert J. Slentz, Town Attorney
Sally Misare, Town Clerk
Title
Discussion/Direction: Statutory Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 2015-09 (TO BE TABLED)
Body
________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
Colorado statutes (§31-11-101, et seq.) require that the Town Council reconsider the adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-09 (Attachment A) upon the Town Clerk’s final determination that the referendum petition submitted on this ordinance is sufficient and valid. That determination was made on May 26, 2015 (Attachment B).
Discussion
The referendum petition on Ordinance 2015-09 has been determined to be legally sufficient by the Town Clerk. The cover page of the referendum petition section is attached (Attachment C). §31-11-105(3), C.R.S., governing municipal referenda provides:
If a referendum petition is filed, the ordinance or part thereof protested against shall not take effect, and upon a final determination or petition sufficiency, the legislative body shall promptly reconsider the ordinance.
Consequently, Ordinance 2015-09 is presented to Council for reconsideration pursuant to this statutory mandate. This is an opportunity for the Council to reverse its previous approval of Ordinance 2015-09 in light of the referendum petition, or alternatively, ratify the prior action.
The applicable municipal referenda statutes do not prescribe standards or criteria for the reconsideration. However, in addition to the public comment offered at the reconsideration hearing, the Town Council may consider the underlying basis for the previous approval of Ordinance 2015-09 summarized in the attached excerpt of the Development Services agenda memorandum (Attachment D). The preferred course of action advanced by the owner of the property subject to Ordinance No. 2015-09 should also be considered by the Town Council in making its determination.
If the Council intends to repeal Ordinance 2015-09, Council should approve Resolution 2015-51 (Attachment E). In such event, Ordinance 2015-09 is nullified and there is no further action required of the Council on the referendum petition.
To confirm its adoption of Ordinance 2015-09, Council should approve Resolution 2015-52 (Attachment F). With ratification of Ordinance 2015-09, §31-11-105(4), C.R.S. is operative which reads as follows:
If, upon reconsideration, the ordinance or part thereof protested is not repealed, the legislative body shall submit the measure to a vote of the registered electors at a regular or special election held not less than sixty days and not more than one hundred fifty days after the final determination of petition sufficiency, unless otherwise required by the state constitution. The ordinance or part thereof shall not take effect unless a majority of the registered electors voting on the measure at the election vote in favor of the measure.
In this event, an ordinance will be presented to Council for first reading at the special meeting on June 9, 2015 establishing the ballot title and question, and placing the measure on the ballot at a special municipal election to be held on August 18, 2015 pursuant to intergovernmental agreement with Douglas County. This IGA is in development and review.
Proposed Alternative Motions
(REPEAL) I move to approve Resolution No. 2015-51, a Resolution Repealing Ordinance No. 2015-09 upon Statutory Reconsideration Pursuant to Section 31-11-105, C.R.S.
(RATIFICATION AND REFERRAL) I move to approve Resolution No. 2015-52, a Resolution Ratifying Ordinance No. 2015-09 upon Statutory Reconsideration Pursuant to Section 31-11-105, C.R.S., and Directing Administrative Action Necessary to Enable the Referral of the Referendum on the Ordinance to a Municipal Election.
Attachments
Attachment A: Ordinance No. 2015-09
Attachment B: Final Determination of Petition Sufficiency
Attachment C: Referendum Petition Section
Attachment D: March 3, 2015 Agenda Memorandum
Attachment E: Proposed Resolution No. 2015-51
Attachment F: Proposed Resolution No. 2015-52
Town of Castle Rock
Agenda Memorandum
Agenda Date: 6/2/2015
________________________________________________________________________________
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Council
From: Fritz Sprague, Deputy Town Manager
Discussion/Direction: Statutory Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 2015-09
________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
On April 13, the Town received a petition regarding Ordinance No. 2015-09. Following the review of signatures, on April 30, the Town Clerk’s Office issued a determination of sufficiency. As of the close of business on May 26, the Town did not receive a protest, which now brings this before Council for a determination. As explained in the Town Attorney and Town Clerk’s companion memo, Town Council has two choices related to the referendum petition on Ordinance No. 2015-09 - rescind the ordinance, or refer it to a public vote. The purpose of this memo is to provide some context regarding the ordinance and analysis regarding Council’s options.
Discussion
Ordinance No. 2015-09 approved the zoning for the Promenade at Castle Rock Master Planned Development. The Promenade is a 166-acre project that is proposed to include up to 1 million square feet of new goods and services on the west side of Interstate 25 near the Outlets at Castle Rock, in an area that is currently within Castle Rock’s corporate boundaries and has been zoned for commercial development since 1987. The land is currently owned by Alberta Partners.
Now, because the referendum petition on Ordinance No. 2015-09 has been determined to be legally sufficient, Council must reconsider the ordinance, per state statute. Council generally has two options:
1) Reverse its previous legislative action in light of the referendum petition; or
2) Confirm the adoption of Ordinance 2015-09 and refer the ordinance to a vote
What a Recision Would Mean
If Council elects to rescind the ordinance, as in the first option, it would be nullified. There would be no election, and the current Castle Pines Commercial zoning on the property today would remain in effect until such a time as the property owner would request modifications to that zoning and/or proceed with development. Either Town staff, Planning Commission or Town Council would consider those requests, depending on whether the changes would be deemed major or minor, per the Town’s development regulations. It is worth noting that the current development plan on the property, the Castle Pines Commercial plan, has more commercial space, less open space and fewer requirements for addressing traffic impacts and aesthetics than the Promenade plan.
What an Election Would Mean
If Council would choose to refer the ordinance to a vote, another ordinance -establishing the ballot title and placing the measure on the ballot at a special municipal election to be held later this year - will be presented to Council as soon as such ordinance can be properly noticed. This is presently planned to occur June 9 on first reading and June 16 on second reading, to provide for an election in August.
If an election is held, and if residents vote in favor of the Promenade zoning, the plan as presented to Council earlier this year would go forward. If the vote goes against the Promenade, development can still occur - just under a different plan.
Referring the ordinance to a vote would bring the financial implication of a special election, estimated to cost $50,000 to $70,000. This election would be a mail ballot run by the Douglas County Elections Division on behalf of the Town. A clear benefit to holding an election is giving the public a direct say in the matter, which would bring the question of which zoning would run with the land to a conclusion.
Land Use and Economic Considerations
Commercial development is essential to providing core public services under Castle Rock’s taxing structure, which sets property tax very low. ($40 per year is paid to the Town on a $300,000 home.) Sales tax revenue, generated by commercial development, is essential in that structure and provides for the Town’s public safety services, as well as for the maintenance of roads and parks, open spaces and trails.
In addition to providing essential sales tax revenue, the Promenade would provide goods and services for which residents have asked. In the Town’s 2013 community survey, respondents were asked to name one thing our Town government could do to improve the quality of life in Castle Rock. The most common request was to provide more activities and entertainment. This was followed closely by a call for more restaurants, shops and businesses.
In its analysis of the Promenade plan, Town staff found that the plan meets the goals of the Town’s Vision 2020, as well as the policies and principles of the Town’s 2020 Comprehensive Master Plan. Among the vision goals the project would help to achieve:
• Achieve a diversity and balance of housing, services and employment
• Achieve the financial capability necessary to accomplish this Vision
• Provide outstanding community services including police, fire, emergency medical, parks, recreation, water and transportation
The Town’s Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing on the plan in January, joined staff in recommending approval of the plan. Ultimately, Council unanimously approved the plan earlier this year on both first and second readings in noticed public hearings.
Summary and Staff Recommendation
Because this privately-owned land is currently zoned for commercial development, the fundamental question is which zoning will prevail, the recently adopted Promenade zoning or the Castle Pines Commercial zoning. The chart below summarizes the difference between the two.
Differences between Promenade and Castle Pines Commercial zoning
|
Plan aspect |
Castle Pines Commercial |
Promenade |
|
Retail use permitted |
up to about 1.4 million square feet |
up to 1 million square feet |
|
Residential use permitted |
up to about 800 multifamily units |
up to 360 multifamily units |
|
Land uses permitted |
a mix of commercial, office, light industrial and multifamily uses |
eliminates light industrial uses |
|
Design requirements |
uses design guidelines developed in 1987; would allow LED signs |
incorporates updated architectural design guidelines; clusters like uses within the site and includes colorful landscape and attractive streetscape; the use of LED signs is not planned |
|
Transportation impacts |
offers an indirect connection to a new second highway interchange in addition to existing access points; traffic impacts would have to be further studied |
offers a direct connection to a new second highway interchange in addition to existing access points, which is considered in Promenade’s traffic plan |
Staff continues to support the Promenade zoning as a better plan on a parcel of land already positioned for commercial growth. As stated in this memo, it is Council’s discretion whether to rescind the ordinance or refer it to a vote.