Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/15/2024
City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 11 October 15, 2024 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Kim Meyer, Interim Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services SUBJECT Sanctuary on the Green Project Development Plan Appeal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider an appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decision on July 28, 2024, approving the Sanctuary on the Green Project Development Plan, PDP210018. The Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on August 8, 2024, alleging: • That the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they substantially ignored previously established rules of procedure. The Appellants assert that the Applicant did not diligently pursue approval of the development application as required by Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code. The Appellants claim the development application for Sanctuary on the Green should have lapsed on April 17, 2024, as a result. The Appellants further argue that the City’s changing interpretation of the lapse date for this development application demonstrated an improper bias benefitting the Applicant. • That the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence relevant to the findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. The Appellants assert that: “The Hearing Officer relied largely on the Staff Report and a letter from the Applicant’s lawyer when issuing his decision. Evidence that the plan is in compliance with NSP [Northwest Subarea Plan] is cherry-picked in both of these documents.” • That the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. The Appellants assert that: “The City erred in failing to provide the Hearing Officer with 342 pages of public comment in advance of the July 15, 2024, hearing, creating an unfair hearing.” The comments were received and publicly available, but city staff inadvertently did not directly forward those to the hearing officer until staff was made aware of the error. Page 346 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 11 That the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code – specifically the following Land Use Code1 sections: 2.2.11 – Lapse 1.2.2 – Purpose 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility 4.5(E) – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Development Standards Northwest Subarea Plan BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Sanctuary on the Green Project Development Plan (PDP210018) Project Overview: The PDP includes developing 41.34 acres for residential uses with a total of 212 dwelling units and an overall maximum density of 5.13 dwelling units per gross acre. The PDP proposes three housing types, including alley-loaded single family, two-family, and single-family attached with a total of 453 off-street parking spaces. The PDP provides outdoor amenity areas, open space, natural habitat buffering, a neighborhood center, and small neighborhood park. Bicycle and pedestrian connections are provided throughout the project to connect to existing neighborhood streets and the Soldier Creek Trail. The Applicant requested two Modifications of Standards to address walkway requirements and number of housing types. The property is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and is located within the Northwest Subarea Plan (referred to as ”NWSAP“ and ”NSP“ by different parties) area. Project Timeline: February 15, 2019 – Applicant submits first application for Sanctuary on the Green, PDP190003. The first PDP application submitted in 2019 contained multi-family dwellings, which required a Type 2 Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. June 17, 2021 - The Planning and Zoning Commission considered PDP190003. The Commission voted to continue the item to a future hearing date to allow the Applicant an opportunity to address some of their concerns. July 28, 2021 - The Applicant withdraws the application without a final decision from the Planning and Zoning Commission. November 5, 2021 – Applicant submits a substantially different application for Sanctuary on the Green, PDP210018. This proposal no longer contained multi-family dwelling units, which required a change of the applicable review process to an Administrative (Type 1) Review under section 4.5(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code (LUC). May 2, 2022 – Administrative Hearing Officer holds a public hearing for Sanctuary on the Green. 1 Note: The Transitional Land Use Regulation s apply to the project, because the project was submitted before May 17, 2024. All references in this AIS to “Land Use Code” or “LUC” refer to sections of the Transitional Land Use Regulations. Page 347 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 11 May 16, 2022 – Hearing Officer renders a decision to approve Sanctuary on the Green, PDP210018, with two modifications of standards, alternative compliance for LUC Section 3.6.3(D) – (F), and two conditions. The Decision also urges the Applicant/Owner to voluntarily continue to engage with surrounding property owners and City staff during final development plan review to explore how the PDP/FDP may be modified to further reduce overall residential density and lower the height of some proposed three-story single-family buildings to two-stories. May 31, 2022 – Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network files an appeal, alleging the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing because he considered evidence relevant to his findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading. The Appeal also alleged the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing because the Hearing Officer was biased against the Appellants by reason of a conflict of interest or other close business, personal or social relationship that interfered with the Hearing Officer’s independence of judgement. Lastly, the Appeal alleged that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply six sections of the Land Use Code. August 16, 2022 – City Council holds a hearing on the appeal for Sanctuary on the Green. City Council upholds the decision made by the Hearing Officer on all issues raised. October 4, 2022 – Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network and Miranda Spindel (Plaintiffs) file a lawsuit under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 106(a)(4) challenging City Council’s ruling on the Sanctuary on the Green appeal. May 18, 2023 – District Court Judge Jouard hears oral arguments for Plaintiffs’ complaint for judicial review under Rule 106. July 24, 2023 – District Court Judge Jouard orders that the Hearing Officer’s Findings and Decision approving PDP210018 and City Council’s approval of the same are set aside and vacated. The Judge remands the matter to the Hearing Officer and instructs the Hearing Officer to, “…consider, evaluate the criteria of the NWSAP, and apply it within the Officer’s discretion in order to review, evaluate, make findings, and render a well-founded Decision based upon the law, which may include different or new findings and conditions as warranted. The Court, however, does not seek to limit the Hearing Officer’s discretion or prescribe any particular determination.” August 14, 2023 – Applicant requests scheduling the remand hearing for Sanctuary on the Green. City schedules the hearing for September 14, 2023. August 25, 2023 – Applicant’s legal counsel declares a conflict of interest and Applicant requests re-scheduling September 14, 2023, hearing date. September 11, 2023 – City re-schedules hearing to November 2, 2023. November 2, 2023 – Hearing Officer falls ill and requests re-scheduling the hearing. The Hearing Officer opens the hearing and continues the hearing to November 30, 2023. November 29, 2023 – Applicant requests postponing the hearing on November 30, 2023, indefinitely. Staff cancels November 30, 2023, hearing. May 6, 2024 – City re-schedules hearing for July 15, 2024. July 15, 2024 – Hearing Officer conducts remand hearing for Sanctuary on the Green PDP. July 24, 2024 – Hearing Officer renders decision approving Sanctuary on the Green. Sanctuary Fields Neighborhood Network reviews decision report and did not see PDF with written public comment as part of record. Staff sends written public comment to Hearing Officer for Page 348 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 11 consideration. July 28, 2024 – Hearing Officer renders supplemental findings and decision approving Sanctuary on the Green PDP upon consideration of additional written public comment. August 8, 2024 – Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network files appeal to Hearing Officer’s decision. Notice of Appeal On August 8, 2024, the City Clerk’s Office received a Notice of Appeal by the Appellants, Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network. The appeal is attached. The Notice of Appeal alleges the following: That the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they substantially ignored previously established rules of procedure. The Appellants assert that the Applicant did not diligently pursue approval of the development application as required by Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code. The Appellants claim the development application for Sanctuary on the Green should have lapsed on April 17, 2024, as a result. The Appellants further argue that the City’s changing interpretation of the lapse date for this development application demonstrated an improper bias benefitting the Applicant. That the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence relevant to the findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. The Appellants assert that: “The Hearing Officer relied largely on the Staff Report and a letter from the Applicant’s lawyer when issuing his decision. Evidence that the plan is in compliance with NSP [Northwest Subarea Plan] is cherry-picked in both of these documents.” That the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. The Appellants assert that: “The City erred in failing to provide the Hearing Officer with 342 pages of public comment in advance of the July 15, 2024, hearing, creating an unfair hearing.” The comments were received and publicly available, but city staff inadvertently did not directly forward those to the hearing officer until staff was made aware of the error. That the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code – specifically the following Land Use Code sections: o 1.2.2 – Purpose o 2.2.11 – Lapse o 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility o 4.5(E) – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Development Standards o Northwest Subarea Plan Record Relevant materials and files on record for the appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decis ion are attached and highlighted below, including materials from the July 15, 2024, Remanded Administrative Hearing: Video of hearing and verbatim transcript Hearing Officer Findings and Decision and Supplemental Findings and Decision Project Development Plan staff report and attachments including site plans, traffic studies, utility plans, etc. Staff presentation Applicant presentation Page 349 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 11 Written comments received Supplemental documents including Certified Record from District Court proceedings First Fair Hearing Issue on Appeal: Lapse Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that they substantially ignored previously established rules of procedure? [New evidence allowed.] The Appellants argue that the Applicant did not diligently pursue approval of the development application as required by Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code. The Appellants claim the development application for Sanctuary on the Green should have lapsed on April 17, 2024, as a result. The Appellants further argue that the City’s changing interpretation of the lapse date for this development application demonstrated an improper bias benefitting the Applicant. The Appellants submitted Exhibits B, C, and D to the notice of appeal in support of their claims. 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code states: Application Submittals. An application submitted to the City for the review and approval of a development plan must be diligently pursued and processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing one-hundred-eighty-day requirement, which extension may not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in length, and one (1) additional extension which may not exceed sixty (60) days in length. This subsection (A) shall apply to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to this Code and to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code. There was no discussion of this matter at the hearing. Attachment 35 contains an approved extension request and Attachment 36 contains summary evidence of the extension request made by the Applicant. Notice of Appeal Exhibits B, C, and D of the Notice of Appeal contain correspondence relevant to this allegation. Second Fair Hearing Issue on Appeal: Substantially False/Grossly Misleading Evidence Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence relevant to the findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading? The Appellants allege the following pieces of information relevant to the findings of the Hearing Officer were substantially false or grossly misleading : Evidence of compliance with the Northwest Subarea Plan was “cherry-picked.” The Applicant’s claim that the open space as part of this site was in response to neighborhood concerns. Appellants allege less than half of the site is developable due to, “…floodplain, wetlands, and other factors.” Applicant’s claims that decrease in density were in direct response to neighborhood requests. Appellants argue that some decrease in density was due its non-compliance with the Land Use Code and that removing multi-family units was to change the decision maker on the project. Appellants also argue that Applicant has not met with neighborhood group since the fall of 2021. Hearing Officer stated that 3-story elements of the plan are largely on the interior of the site. Appellants allege 3-story elements of the project face, “…open pasture, an orchard, and a single 100-year-old one-story farmhouse…”. Page 350 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 11 Portions of the record relevant to Land Use Code purposes and compliance with the Northwest Subarea Plan include the following: Document Document Page Number Notes Staff report 4, 7-13, 17-20, 52 Verbatim Transcript 3-8, 10, 11-12, 18-22, 22-32, 35-41 Attachment 29 – Written Comments – Prior PDP (PDP190003) All All comments deal with topics discussed in the Northwest Sub- area Plan Attachment 38 – Applicant’s Northwest Subarea Plan Analysis All E-mailed comments 5, 7, 9-16, 20-22, 25, 51-52, 54-55, 59, 73, 78, 83-85, 87-88, 90, 94-95, 97, 99, 102-104, 106-107, 109, 111, 115, 116, 135-160, 169- 174, 176, 186-187, 190, 193, 195-196, 199- 201, 203-205, 209, 211-212, 220-221, 223, 225, 233-235, 237, 243, 250, 252-253, 255, 257-258, 260, 262-263, 266, 271, 273-274, 276, 278, 280, 283-285, 287-288, 290, 293, 300-302, 304, 307-309, 311, 329, 335, 337- 338, 340 Relevant portions of the record to the amount of open space proposed as part of Sanctuary on the Green include the following: Document Document Page Number Notes Staff report 4-6, 18-20, 32-36 Verbatim Transcript 5-13, 18, 21, 22-32, 35-42 Attachment 4 – Site Plan 1 Attachment 5 – Landscape Plan 1, 21 Attachment 9 – Environmental – Habitat Buffer Zone Exhibit All Attachment 12 – Environmental – Wetland Determination All Attachment 15 – ICON-PDP- Floodplain Report All Attachment 16 – ICON-Pre-project Floodplain Map (Overall) All Attachment 17 – ICON-Post-Project Floodplain Maps All Page 351 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 11 Attachment 27 – PDP Neighborhood Meeting Notes 2 Attachment 29 – Written Comments – Prior PDP (PDP190003) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 21, 23-24, 27, 31, 32, 35 Attachment 39 – Applicant’s Response to Neighborhood Comments 1-3, 7-10 E-mailed comments 6, 10, 21, 51-52, 73, 78, 85, 91, 94, 97, 109, 115, 161, 170-171, 173, 195, 201, 206, 208, 215, 217, 224, 227, 237, 240, 243, 246, 252, 259-260, 263, 269, 290, 295, 301, 307, 309, 311, 314, 320, 339 For the allegation related to changes in density of the project, the relevant portions of the record include: Document Document Page Number Notes Staff report 15 Verbatim Transcript 3, 10, 15, 20-22, 24, 26-27, 29-31, 35-39 Attachment 28 – Old Versus New Plan Exhibit All Attachment 39 – Applicant’s Response to Neighborhood Comments All All of the comments deal with the density of the proposal E-mailed comments 12, 16, 26, 59-61, 63, 83-92, 106-107, 115, 159-160, 192, 196, 199-201, 203-205, 220- 223, 247, 258, 274, 276-280, 293, 315 Portions of the record relevant to the allegation related to the location of 3-story buildings include: Document Document Page Number Notes Staff report 38-39 Verbatim Transcript 6, 8-10, 14, 20, 39 Attachment 4 – Site Plan 2, 4 Attachment 6 – Architectural Elevations 1-6 Elevations of buildings with 3- story elements Attachment 27 – PDP Neighborhood Meeting Notes 2 Attachment 29 – Written Comments – Prior PDP (PDP190003) 5, 6, 8, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25, 31, 36 Attachment 39 – Applicant’s 7 Page 352 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 11 Response to Neighborhood Comments E-mailed comments 9, 13, 21, 25, 51, 55, 60, 73, 84, 89, 97, 99, 107-108, 112, 116, 118, 135-158, 170, 172, 190, 193, 195, 200, 204, 221, 225, 229, 232- 233, 240, 257, 276, 278, 280, 282-283, 295, 301, 307, 318, 337 Third Fair Hearing Issue on Appeal: Receiving All Relevant Evidence Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that they failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant? The Appellants allege that the City did not provide 342 pages of public comment in advance of the hearing and thus the Hearing Officer did not consider all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. The Hearing Officer rendered a decision on July 24, 2024, without including in the record a 342-page packet of public comments. The packet contained comments from the hearing on July 15, 2024, and from the previously scheduled hearing on November 30, 2023. Upon realizing the error, Staff sent the packet of comments to the Hearing Officer to consider and render an amended decision. The Hearing Officer rendered a supplemental decision on July 28, 2024, after receiving and considering the packet of additional public comment. The Hearing Officer rendered the supplemental decision within the timeframe permitted by Land Use Code Section 2.2.7(D)(1). Failure to Interpret/Apply Issues on Appeal Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply the following relevant provisions of the Land Use Code (LUC)? o 1.2.2 – Purpose o 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility o 4.5(E) – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Development Standards o Northwest Subarea Plan The Appellants allege that Sanctuary on the Green is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Appellants argue that Sanctuary on the Green is not consistent with statements in the Northwest Subarea Plan about new development being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the appeal references Section 3.5.1 requiring compatible building massing as well as the height standards found in Section 4.5(E) to argue that three-story single-family townhomes are not permitted in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district without a modification of standards. LUC §1.2.2 – Purpose §1.2.2 of the Land Use Code states: The purpose of this Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including, but not limited to, the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated subarea plans. (B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal. (C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. (D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm Page 353 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 11 drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks. (E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. (F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. (G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. (H) reducing energy consumption and demand. (I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. (J) improving the design, quality and character of new development. (K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. (O) encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities. The discussion for the Second Fair Hearing Issue on Appeal highlights the relevant portion of the record pertaining to compliance with the Northwest Subarea Plan, which is the crux of the Appellants’ argument that Sanctuary on the Green does not comply with LUC Section 1.2.2. LUC §3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility The Notice of Appeal does not specify which portion of Section 3.5.1 is the subject of the Appellants’ allegations. The phrase quoted in the Notice of Appeal, “compatible building massing” does not appear in the Land Use Code. The General Standard found in Section 3.5.1(B) states: New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established or is not consistent with the purposes of this Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context. Page 354 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 11 Components of the record relevant to this allegation include: Document Document Page Number Notes Staff report 19 38-39 Staff’s analysis of how Sanctuary on the Green compares to the characteristics of other surrounding subdivisions Staff’s analysis of compliance with §3.5.1 Verbatim Transcript 8-11, 14 Attachment 4 – Site Plan 2, 4, 18, 22-32, 35-41 Attachment 6 – Architectural Elevations 1-6 Elevations of buildings with 3-story elements Attachment 26 – Administrative Interpretation #1-18 All Attachment 27 – PDP Neighborhood Meeting Notes 2 Attachment 29 – Written Comments – Prior PDP (PDP190003) All All of the comments deal with elements of compatibility Attachment 37 – Building Coverage Study All Attachment 39 – Applicant’s Response to Neighborhood Comments 1, 4, 7, 10 E-mailed comments 10-15, 17, 19-21, 52, 54-55, 73, 77, 84-85, 89-90, 94, 96-97, 99, 106-108, 112, 115-116, 118, 135- 161, 163, 166, 171, 173, 177-178, 190-193, 195, 200-201, 204-205, 214, 221-223, 225-226, 229, 233, 237, 242-243, 250, 252, 257-258, 260, 263, 265-266, 276-278, 280, 283, 285, 290, 298, 300-301, 303, 307-311, 318, 337-338 Page 355 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 11 of 11 LUC §4.5(E)(4) - Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight (8) Dwelling Units and for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing between Four (4) and Eight (8) Dwelling Units When Three (3) or More Stories in Height The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone districts contain specific design standards for multi-family dwellings containing at least four dwelling units and the building is three-stories in height. The Appellants allege that the building height that should apply to the proposed single-family attached buildings is two and a half stories found in Section 4.5(E)(3). Attachment 26 of the record contains an Administrative Interpretation of this issue and clarifies that the 3 - story height limit applies to single-family attached buildings with four units or more. Northwest Subarea Plan The Northwest Subarea Plan is a component of CityPlan, the City’s comprehensive plan, and is referenced in the purpose statement of the Land Use Code, §1.2.2, which indicates the need to ensure that “ all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including, but not limited to, the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated subarea plans.” The code language itself is designed and specifically written to implement the City’s various standards, policies, and plans. By demonstrating compliance with the specific standards and regulations of the Land Use Code through the submittal materials for the Project Development Plan, a development project demonstrates that it satisfies and aligns with the purpose and spirit of the code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal Process Overview 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Clerk Notice, Site Visit Notice, Mailing List 4. Staff Report with Attachments, July 15, 2024 5. Staff Presentation at Administrative Hearing 6. Applicant Presentation at Administrative Hearing 7. Public Comment at Administrative Hearing 8. Certified Record of August 16, 2022 Appeal 9. Verbatim Transcript, July 15, 2024 10. Link to Video, July 15, 2024 11. Hearing Officer Decision, July 28, 2024 12. Staff Presentation to Council Page 356 Item 18. City Council Appeal Process Overview Sanctuary on the Green Appeal • City Code appeals procedure (Sections 2-46 to 2-56) governs appeals to the Council. • An appeal was filed on August 8, 2024, to challenge the July 24, 2024, decision of the City’s administrative hearing officer, supplemented by the hearing officer’s July 28, 2024, supplemental decision, approving the Sanctuary on the Green Project Development Plan #2100018. This decision is a review on remand after a prior approval that was successfully challenged in Larimer County District Court. • Under this appeal process, the City Council’s role is not to make a new decision. The Council’s role is to review the decision made by the Hearing Officer and evaluate whether the whether the appellants’ arguments are persuasive that Hearing Officer did not conduct a fair hearing and did not properly apply the specified provisions of the Land Use Code in its decision. • Because of this limited review, sometimes called “review on the record,” the City Code requires the Council to review this matter based on the factual record of the decision of the Hearing Officer and arguments presented in the appeal hearing. • While the parties may make arguments based on the evidence in the record, no new evidence may be considered, except: 1. The appellants and opponents to the appeal are allowed to submit new evidence in very limited circumstances under the process and deadlines in the City Code. For this appeal no new evidence was timely submitted. 2. Councilmembers may: ▪ Provide new evidence through observations from any individual site visit and from the organized site visit if there is one; and ▪ Ask questions of staff and parties-in-interest during the hearing and receive evidence in response to those questions. • The Council will review and consider the decision appealed, the evidence that was presented to the Hearing Officer before the decision, the verbatim transcript of the Hearing Officer’s hearing, and the arguments, responses and discussion in the appeal hearing. • The subject matter of the appeal hearing and decision is limited to only the issues identified in the notice of appeal. Page 357 Item 18. 2 • The appellants or party(ies) opposing the appeal, may submit presentation materials presenting their arguments (but not additional new evidence) for the appeal hearing no later than noon on the day of the hearing. • The presentation materials are then posted on the City Clerk’s appeal page, with notice given to the appellants. If the submitting party also wants those materials to be distributed to Council, they must provide 20 hard copies for distribution in advance of the hearing. • Only parties-in-interest are allowed to participate in the appeal hearing and only at the specified time. • Parties-in-interest include: 1. The appellant(s); 2. The applicant; 3. Any party with a proprietary or possessory interest in the land that is the subject of the application; 4. Any person to whom the City mailed notice of the Hearing Officer hearing; 5. Any person or organization that provided written comments prior to or at the Hearing Officer hearing; or 6. Any person or organization that appeared at the decisionmaker hearing. • At the beginning of the appeal hearing, staff will make a presentation giving an overview of the issues on appeal. • If there are procedural issues to be addressed, the presiding officer (Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem) will address them before the parties’ presentations. • The presiding officer will ask any members of Council who visited the site for this appeal hearing to provide a summary of what they observed. • The presiding officer will specify the amount of time for presentation by the Appellant and the time for presentation by those opposing the appeal, and time for rebuttals if needed. This is usually 20 minutes for each “side” and 10 minutes for rebuttal by each, but sometimes is set for a shorter or longer time depending on the circumstances. • At the conclusion of the presentations and any follow up questions from Council, the Council will review the evidence included in the record, the arguments and discussion from the hearing, and then will act by motion to address the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. • A resolution documenting the Council’s findings and decision will be presented to the Council for approval no later than the Council’s next regular meeting after completion of the appeal hearing. Page 358 Item 18. Notice of Appeal Filed by Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network August 8, 2024 Page 359 Item 18. NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR CITY CLERK’S PDP 2100018 Type 1 Administrative Hearing Decision and USE ONLY:Action Being Appealed:Supplemental Decision DATE FILED: INITIALS.jeL1t Date of Action:07/2812024 Decision Maker:Marcus McAskin Appellant/Appellant Representative (if more than one appellant): Name:Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network Phone Ii:(303)494-3000 Address:330 N Taft Hill Road Email:andrew@frascona.com Fort Collins,CO 80521 INSTRUCTIONS For each allegation marked below,attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the record which support the allegation of no more than two pages,Times New Roman 12-point font.Please restate allegation at top of first page of eachsummary. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The Decision Maker committed one (1)or more of the following errors (check all that apply): Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code,the Land Use Code,and Charter. List relevant Code andlor Charter provision(s)here,by specific Section and subsection! subparagraph: Land lJse Code 1.2.2;2.2.11;3.5.1;4.5 (E);Northwest Subarea Plan Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: D (a)The Board,Commission,or other Decision Maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained intheCodeorCharter.[New evidence not allowed] (b)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure.[New evidence not allowed] (c)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.[New evidence allowed] (d)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker improperty failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant.[New evidence allowed] D (e)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker was biased against the appellant by reason of a conflictofinterestorotherclosebusiness,personal or social relationship that interfered with the Decision Makers independence of judgment.[New evidence allowed] NEW EVIDENCE All new evidence the appellant wishes Council to consider at the hearing on the appeal must be submitted to the City Clerk within seven (7)calendar days after the deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal and must be clearly marked as new evidence.No new evidence will be received at the hearing in support of these allegations unless it is submitted to the City Clerk by the deadline (7 days after the deadline to file appeal) or offered in response to questions posed by Councilmembers at the hearing. Form updated 4/2212020 Page 360 Item 18. List of Appellants Andrew Pipes 4750 Table Mesa Drive Boulder,CO 80305 (303)494-3000 andrewcThfrascona,com Mary flmby 627 Irish Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)692-3788 mary.timby(ä~gmail..com Valerie Vogeler 520 N Taft Hill Road Fort Collins,CO 80521 (314)952-2327 pv vogeler@sbcglobal.net Miranda Spindel 330 N Taft Hill Road Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)217-6088 allskvhne524~pmail.corn Paula Harrison 438 N Hollywood Street Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)412-1401 hamsop@ymail.com Carol Ostrom 324 Irish Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)472-0200 dreamdancerl18@yahoo.com Ernest Frank 242 N Sunset Street Fort Collins,CO 80521 QAJAQER99@ymaIl.com Page 361 Item 18. Mary Beth Fisher 1158 N Taft Hill Road Fort Collins,CO (970)685-8268 mboflsherc&yahoo.com Cohn Fisher 1158 N Taft HUl Road Fort Collins,CO (970)442-0906 NGBXOi~)vahoo.com Kathryn Dubiel 2936 Eindborough Drive Fort Collins,CO (970)658-7233 TM.k.i.dubiel@gmail.com Denise Steffenhagen 4021 Bracadale Place Fort Collins,CO 80524 (541)350-5133 cmvviewsc~vahoo.com Margot Steffenhagen 400 N Impala Drive Ft.Collins,CO 80521 (409)251-8222 steffenhayenm@cimail.com Erica Baczek 404 Webb Ave Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)412-4666 ericabaczek08l 3(~yahoo.com Frank Baczek 2909 Dean Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (847)609-4081 frank baczek(&sbccilobal.nel Page 362 Item 18. Seth McEwan 324 N Impala Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (720)955-4135 sethmcewan@vahoo.com Mary Hoover 330 N Sunset Street Fort Collins,CO 80521 (720)556-5852 iohnrnarvhppyer(~)live.corn Laura Larson 320 N Impala Fort Collins,CO 80521 (413)320-9392 Laura larson(~hotmail.corn Megan Kelly 2524 Myrtle Court Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)294-1440 mmgkelly~pmail corn Schuyler Gantert 2524 Myrtle Court Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)690-0173 skypantert(d~pmail corn K.Andrea Faudel 2022 Vine Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (206)696-1919 asharal @aol .com Charles Kopp 501 Hanna Street Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)672-8597 charleskoppol iThamail.com Page 363 Item 18. Cheryl Distaso 135 South Sunset Street Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)310-6563 distpso@riseuo.net Pete Cadmus 687 Irish Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)420-8467 petecadrnus©hotmail.com Kyran Cadmus 687 Irish Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)420-0087 ckvrancWcimail.com Kevin Bailey Pleasant Valley Properties,LLC P0 Box 332 Laporte,CO 80535 (970)493-7931 kmbailev@baiabb corn Raygina Kohlrneier 273 N Sunset Street Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)310-8126 rayven80@hotmail.com Chad Johnson 23 S Taft Hill Road Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)988-2236 e,ghtvfive85(&amail.com Megan Johnson 25 S Taft Hill Road Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)988-4131 mltiedUä~vahoo corn Page 364 Item 18. Phil Fraser 1621 Richards Place Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)443-0467 Michael Ryan 408 N Impala Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)294-8212 jmchael.rvan.actuDhearts@amaIIcom Nicole Ryan 408 N Impala Drive Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)329-6334 nicpIervanvacE~amail.com Page 365 Item 18. Pathos-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. APPELlANTS party-in-interest isa person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, ommission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of tt~ecisi made-by the.~arZei 11111 commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the mailer that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:.Date: Anc4sza,-08/0512024 Name:Email: Andrew Pipes andrew@frascona.com Address:Phone It: 4750 Table Mesa Dr.,Boulder,CC 80305 (303)494-3000 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I am a representative of the Appellant who made provided written comments to City Staff for the matter being appealed and whose members are comprised of citizens who own property and received a mailing of notice of the subject hearing being appealed. Signature: Name: Address: Date: Email: Phone It: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone #: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: A1TACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 366 Item 18. APPELLANTS Partlas-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. A party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the Doard, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spokeat,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •.Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. .A City Councilmember. Signature:,..~.Date: fl’l4it#r /anS~.07/29/2024 Name:6’Email: Maw Timby mary.timbyQgmail.com Address:Phone It: 627 Irish Dr.Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)692-3788 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I provided wntten comments to City staff prior to the Sanctuary on the Green hearing. ,~jr Signature:~~1_,,z7 Date:,2—2U1t( Email:Name:~e~J,&~A ~1tc)~jL~r(~≤24 C3~t~4 -LO’ Phone It:Addres~0 ~‘110 L~7 to~Y Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ~&~j~tA ,~-~rovtc½.c~~ntk-~~ar.-~/~3 ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Signature:/Date: Email:~‘/_-Vot~Q /resbc,,k4arQ Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest:ro ~J I QjflflJL&rnaL\Lb ~sWa. Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 367 Item 18. APPELLANTS i~~c≥~’/-~744 z/)y~~,Jooev /J’cf-yea,4 ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. ~,party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:Date:fk4~7-29-24 Name:Email: Paula Harrison harrisop@gmail.com Address:Phone 4$: 438 N.Hollywood St,Fort Collins,CD 80521 970-412-1401 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I provided written comments for the hearing regarding Sanctuary Field. Signature:~Date:.7 ~5 Z!-( Email:Name:d~-~,’os~-~-~4(en~ccQjuvar ~cci Address:32*(~jsis1~&C ~~V5~Z/phone#: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: fsaio-t ftc~&i Signature:Date:.-37~,~~ Email’Name:~A~A~~gqyg am~J~ Phone#:Address:~~~—~--~(~o\~rs ~oci~ Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest:‘V cLe0 0*’,‘eiw’~C5 /C74L4/p ~%%A /F4~t i~h-~~s3~½,~z~s4’ Porn’updated 4/22/2020 Page 368 Item 18. APPELLANTS PartIes4n~intmt.est have the light to Me an appeal. ~party-in-Interest Is a person who,or orgartation whidi,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, ~omnimsion or other decision rnslwr.Sudi standIng to appeal is bItsd to the fOllowing: .The eppflcent. •Anyone who owns or occupies the propeity wtdch1was the of thededaionImade~by theTboard. commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of.or spoke at,the of the board,commission or other decisiona •Anyone who provided written conunente to the appropriate City staff fOr dellvety to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hewing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councthnernber. Slgnaturt Date:7—29 a-V Name:Email:fli€~,..,thtL9sLt≠n-~Lo ~.sr~ya~tto..~ Addrest Phone t //S7k21~4r bj.’/fl ~ //b.in~paC ~ c~Pt~s-ja7FS a,flL fL~~.4~on~±L~a~,4~sL’~1tts1cs Signature:Date:J?C4-z.ø z-y Name~4 Email:~A4A,~ Address: /751 Al.-mpr ,4’~4%~’R~J ,W-’Z,c.o 77C~WZ-ØW Describe how you qualify as a party-In-I~L~.st t~d €fls~LA~i~’A ~~r-e_a.”—I/Si l7lrr ~~,4c ide &n,tran,d*Jt *acfl6c fain’*Ae a4j(y5cnc/Ut4rt~S Date:Slgnature~~S ________ Email:Name: L I _________ Address:L~\ ~hAy F/(df,nrC-~t)I 97O-~≤3-7z~ Describe how you qualify ~a party4n-intacst - J?Jt&~z≠~€3~c€/%euri~je’i /≤X~/1zca% ATTACH ADDmONAI.SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Fonn —4Q212020 Page 369 Item 18. 4n-Interost have the right to tile an appeal. APPElLANTS party-In-interest Is a person who,or organ~alion Which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, Ion or oilier decision maker Such standing to appeal Is limited to the following: •The applicant •Anyone~topwns or occuplOs Uib property which was the subject of the decision made by the board commission or other decision maker •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,.or spoke at the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff lot delivesy to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that Is being appealed •A City Cauncllmember sl~nature$Date: Name:Email:DENISE STEFFENNAGEN cmwlews@yahoo.com Address:4021 BRACAUALE ftACE.FORT COLLINS 80524 Phone U: 5413505133 Describe how you qualify as a party-ln4nterest I have attended all the Council sessions and made comments arid amelia. t Date:?~:~*°~ SIgnaturey~j. EmaiFName:1.0-c_ik__S €44 Phone UAddress:q~j ~. Describe how you qualify as a pa n-Interest: I’&’%~b&ck-~1&ah tu,u~s ~ Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone U: Describe how you qualify as a partyn4nterest ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Ii-’ Fo,m updated 4.QZQOZO Page 370 Item 18. APPELLANTS Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. A~party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. —%Date:—3)7.4 j 2?1 Name:Email: ~-1 C-ft 9kfl.%&1L-E~-ae.a ~e~av s)&3.yc~Moo.rnni Address’Phone 4*: tmq tiJg/~,tj-.~,rp_~r~-~[iui1s g~gt,fr~q-~q/2~Y/i~b4i Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest:~rece,ad ~Yui /fl~(hal-ga flt hMr62J Signature:~øc~~~i—Date:2h’~4 .~.‘ Email:Name:~/?4c2et FRAøk £4ca1f~SSCGIcSSL -P4Er Address:Phone N: ~,2~O?LM,t~J~IZOcTCCLL/MS gcS~21 ~)/7 ?cO9fo2’J Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest:~~CvmmS,vr 1~,bEV O~&VI 1awC0otfl5F~13 n.J ocr/.z3.±LIL’~J 41-~o’J W~~LBAV&FOR ‘1Y6.4,€s QPrI4/I.vJ~EIC4~CC Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone N: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/2212020 Page 371 Item 18. Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. APPEllANTS party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior t~tr at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:Date:abC htcaoaa-0810412024 Name:Email: Seth McEwan sethmcewan©yahoo.com Address:Phone if: 324 N Impala Dr Fort Collins Co,80521 (720)9554135 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: My property abuts the proposed development,I received the mailed notice,spoke at the hearing and provided written comments which were not seen or considered before the decision to approve was rendered. Name: Address: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone #: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATtACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Email: Signature:Date: Phone if: Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 372 Item 18. . -in-interest have the right to file an appeal APPELLANTS Date:Signature:,~-. .7/mo/2029 Email:Name: CAckr •~-\oo’.Je~r jokNrt%~nr/hcJcwe1~hc~ie~ccr~ Pcr4 C?~\if’E Phone#:Address: 3307N*5~~E2I 72O ~ DescrIbe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: r ~ece~q~r-~i-:ce 01 t\’~e \me~J~r~os’A C~5O prc~iiäet L~it HerN C-fl I Signature: Name: Date: — Email: Address: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Phone U: SIgnature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone U: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-Interest: ATtACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY party-in-interest is a person who or organizatiop whic!9,has standing to apoeai the final decision of a board commission or other decision maker ‘such sta~’ding t~appeaI is limited to the following •The applicant •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board commission or other decision maker •Anyone who received the mailed notice of or spoke at the hearing of the board commission or other decision maker Anyone who provided,’*qit~eftcom3~1ts*o tt~e~appçopr~e,City s$aff for deljvery4o tl~e bpard,.com~ssia~or other decision maker prior to or a~he hearing on the mafter that is being appealed. A City Councilmember Form updated *2212020 Page 373 Item 18. APPELLANTS Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Date:~ Email:Name:‘w ~-~~----lao ra (arw€QQ~o~ Address:~~ Describe how you qualify at a party-in-interest: My ~~P~r6 ct+,o~~ Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone It: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone #: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 374 Item 18. Pathos-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. APPELLANTS party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the sub~d of’tie ~~on rn~-~Us-board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior tt~or at the hearlig on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:lA~,4A~~tt*~Date:08101/2024 Name:Email: Megan M Kelly mmgkelly~gmail.com Address:Phone It: 2524 Myrtle Court (970)294-1440 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Received mailed notice while living at 223 Pennsylvania,property that backs up to Sanctuary on the Green.Have since moved to the South side of Poudre High-we still use the current space for wildlife viewing/walking our dog Date; 08/01/2024Signature:Schu~~aert skygantert©gmail.com Email:Name: Address:Phone N:2524 Myrtle Court (970)690-0173 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Same as my wife above. Signature:Date; Name:Email: Address:Phone N: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATtACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 375 Item 18. APPELLANTS Signature:4-4~._.~,Date:~.z~iy Name Email:~4t..we.z~FAUECL Address:Phone #:gL:fl~~~\)ip~e-)&2b4—(~~4~,qtq Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: 1 ~wt c/ace ,ie4g1~Lor ~-~fltr’coercS\3 Signature: Name: Address: Date: Email: Phone N: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone N: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: A17ACH ADDITIONAl.SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. A party-in-interest is a peç~ç~whQ.or organization which,has standing to appc~I thy fin~I ~cci~icn ci ~ commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 376 Item 18. APPELLANTS ~Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. IA party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, fcommission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address: De5cribe how you qualify as a party-in-interest; Phone#: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone #: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATFACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Email:Name:C~4~c~/CoP~~/~ppo/c~CN~/c-COA Phone#:Address:~/IAMjJA ~~o’~r cocq&ç c 0 ?7°-~7 tr-S-S3’7 Describe how you qualify ass party-in-interest ~~,~-e--<.c--—~ue-v -,~_i-,ce~,ue-ri <_e~cc- 17-er J~,Len,y,~~J-I.4L.’e PILOt/ID SQ A.nt(TTE-A,co,~,~5-~Crny S74F5 I ~rrn UPdated 4/22/2020 Page 377 Item 18. Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. APPELLANTS party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, ommission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of t[ecsrnnimaie~qtebcerc~.~II commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior tflt’r at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:.-,Date: (2twJ’Z7àz~ta 08/0512024 Name:a Email: Cheryl Distaso distaso@nseup.net Address:Phone if: 135 South Sunset Street,Fort Collins,CO 80521 (970)310-6563 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I submitted written comment prior to the hearing. Signature: Name: Address: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Date: Email: Phone if: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone if: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: A1TACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 378 Item 18. rtges-in-,nterest have the right to file an appeal. APPELlANTS party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, mmission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of t~ecEnrmm&~q-thetioerc*ij~ii commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior t8tr at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:Date: ,D.zz~a Cac4nuwi.08/0512024 Name:Email: Peter Cadmus petecadmus@hotmail.com Address:.Phone #: 687 Irish Drive,Ft Collins,CO 80521 (970)420-8467 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I provided written comments to City Staff for delivery to the board prior to hearings on Sanctuary on the Green. Signature: Name: Address: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Date: Email: Phone #: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone It: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: A1TACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 379 Item 18. Parties-in-interest have the tight to file an appeal. APPELLANTS party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the sub~of tt~~i rnaD,bv the.~rtl, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the heating of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Signature:Date: 5Ø4S-08105/2024 Name:6’Email: Kyran Cadmus ckyran~gmail.com Address:Phone #: 687 Irish Drive,Ft Collins,CO 80521 (970)420-0087 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I provided written comments to the City Staff for delivery to the board during hearings on Sanctuary on the Green. Signature: Name: Date: Email: Address: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Phone #: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone if: Describe how you cmalify as a party-in,interes.tc A1TACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 422/2020 Page 380 Item 18. Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. A party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, comniss*cncr •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision make’ *—‘-.~——.—~~.-—~-~t.z—.~-s~.--r’~.j..ac G....~X,.-.a.•~qt~iw.~4IgA..~a t1~.....d~atath ç kt..4i,&Ø~~)~djd~4~CW )i~1~Wit~;Tt t ao~&4a~%, oTher cfecisfcn m~flñb t~hnTI~ai *~t~k~ A City Councuimember. ATFACH ADD!UOflAL £~GNAT’JRE SMESS AS NECESSARY Signature az71~Detr Name:(~etV1FJ mE~i f~~A~rV*U~Y p~p~gp~≤t-~ Address:fo øoy ~pfrPo~t t~ØO5~5 ~Phone#~194q~T~/ Describe how you auaflfv as a oaitv-iainteresrr ~ws 4o0it’ImP~A pt2-~g1~ëI NOIKE,~goVu~~b wgii7PA}awn1 Signature:Pa: Name:Email: Address:Phone #: Describe haw yr~z qua~4~.~ Faint updated 4’22i2020 Page 381 Item 18. APPELLANTS Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. A party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember.—_________ ‘ Signatur Name:Ey’Th—~Date:Email:R~-73~~.~.Kcsti I’M .ea €.—r~yve.~soeho/nc./COn Address: ~73 A’.Suosel Phone 3~ Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: z recta ~a I-I ~eca no1,~t ~/~Uc ~~.•J_•j~-~.. Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone N: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone N: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/22/2020 Page 382 Item 18. APPELLANTS Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. A party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the mailer that is being appealed. •A City Councitmember. si~nature:~2ja..c~,~_.._..Date:~•-Zo 2.4 Name:Email: Cha2 ~\p~wtcoy~ei~k~y44ve s5~ç Address:Phone #: 2-S S Ta-Qt j4~kI R~I ~Co~~Jv~s~oi;i 970 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: We.receive Signature:Date:¶/Y/~v EmaiFName: Phone It:Address:~~~u ~~l(t4i q~qfl-q/J/ Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest:(..~~oSaf tAiL Ct(CiVtJt4~i(i~~5 o~r~d T\se.i~i’fkä q Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone It: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Page 383 Item 18. APPELlANTS Date: Name:Email:~(~~\ec ~~ Address:Phone #:4o%r~Nx-c~~pcs≥\c3~0K.3 \o~-3r~c\ Describe how yrni qualify as a pavty-in4mevest.c o~\en A1TACI-I ADDITiONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Parties-in-interest have the right to file art appeal. A party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The apphcant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Myos~e who provided writtan ca-nmants tn the aicrooñate City staff fo detivery to the board,commission or other de5isiori maker prion.to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember/ Signature:~-t~~j Date:ç ,~,~~ Name:1 Email:~fl-~L--~A9&~Q Address:e~3s ?L .~yDctLI Phone#: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: (FkA t&JV~4k-er~COcA,(w.cri Form updated 4/22’2020 Page 384 Item 18. APPELLANTS Sign~~?S2.-c%Date ~ :Email: ~1V/d ~dAy!A.~I1~4r½N2ynw.i /co4 ?3~°≤‘rigp,~,44..ve,~r94//,icu cig -550-6605 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: A ~4een -~re.w 4’417L Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone #: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-Interest: ATrACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Patties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. A party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. Form updated 4/2272020 Page 385 Item 18. August 8,2024 Fort Collins City Council Members:Jenny Arndt (Mayor),Susan Gutowsky,Julie Pignataro,Tricia Canonico, Melanie Potyondy,Kelly Ohlson,Emily Francis City Hall 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins,CO 80521 RE:Notice of Appeal for Sanctuary on the Green PDP 210018 Type 1 Administrative Hearing Decision Dear City of Fort Collins Councilmembers, This appeal is made by the Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network (“SFNN”),organized in 2018 as an informal organization comprised of over 150 neighbors from the Green Acres,Sunset St.,Taft Hill and Laporte Avenue neighborhoods that surround the property proposed fon~veIopinent.Theattavliecl form contains signatures from our steering committee and other neighbors.This written Notice of Appeal is filed within the required 14 calendar days following the decision dated July 28,2024. We are appealing the decision based on the following grounds: 1)Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City of Fort Collins’(“City”)Municipal Code (“City Code”)and Land Use Code (“LUC”): a)1.2.2; b)2.2.11; c)3.5.1; d)4.5(E)(3)&(4);and e)Northwest Subarea Plan (“NSP”). 2)Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: (b)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. (c)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. (d)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. Page 386 Item 18. 1)Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the City Code and the LUC 2)Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing:The Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. The Application Automatically lapsed on April 16,2024.Following cancelation of the November 30,2023 scheduled hearing,1 a representative of SFNN (Miranda Spindel)emailed the City (City Planner Clay Frickey) inquiring about the City’s policy for the number of hearing cancellations pennitted and the timeframe for rescheduling.The City responded by citing to the lapse provision in the LUC that requires applicants to diligently pursue approval of their plans,in reference to LUC §2.2.11.When asked for the application’s lapse date,City identified the same as April 16,2024.2 Thereafter,SFNN checked in with the City every month from December through April and,each time,the City confirmed that they had no communication with the applicant. On April 16,2024,the City confirmed that it “hadn’t heard anything from the applicant”and that April 16,2024 was the final day to request an extension.Subsequently,the City confirmed that it did “not receive[]an extension request”and that the City would be notii~’ing the applicant of the lapse.3 On April 17,2024,the City represented that the applicant was disputing the lapse of their application arguing that their November 1,2023 PowerPoint presentation for one of the canceled hearings should count as diligently pursuing their application.4 SFNN asserts that emailing a PowerPoint presentation for a hearing that the applicant voluntarily canceled is neither diligently pursuing their application nor “additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address [written]comments from the City.”5 Moreover,the fact that the City made multiple representabioi~ the lapse date was April 16,2024 after the applicant had submitted the unused November 1,2023 PowerPoint presentation establishes its contemporaneous interpretation that the City did not believe such email met the requirements of LUC §2.2.11.The City’s reinterpretation of the LUC and their own decision is an improper interpretation of the LUC and demonstrates an improper bias benefiting the applicant.Then,on April 18,2024, the City indicated that they were considering email from the apolicant (emphasis)on November 29,2023 as diligently pursuing their application,pushing the lapse date to May 27,2024.Review of the City’s document for the July 15 hearing titled Emails RE Extension Request.pdf does not show an email from the applicant on this date.Unsurprisingly,the applicant immediately then applied for a 120-day extension,the information for which had not been received by the City as of April 29,2024.Sometime between April 29,2024 and May 13,2024, the applicant allegedly requested a hearing,which was granted by the City without the granting of an extension under LUC,§2.2.11 ~6 Yet,the applicant submitted ajustification for extension document for the July 15,2024 hearing that alleges an extension was approved on April 24,2024 by a different City Planner.The email exchange used as evidence of diligent pursual of an application was actually spurred by SFNNJ On November 10,2023,SFNN contacted the local ditch company asking to receive a copy of a Letter of Intent that was requested prior to the application’s first Type I hearing,dated November 30,2021.SFNN contacted New Mercer Ditch Company staff,Melissa Buick,who confirmed that an email from August 2020,related to a different proposal,was the only communications that existed.SFNN then emailed city staff on November 10, 2023,and received no response.However,email records submitted for the July 15,2024,hearing record show the City and applicant scrambling to obtain this LOI between November 10,2023 and the upcoming November Which was canceled on the afternoon of November 29,2023,one day prior to the scheduled hearing. 2 See Exhibit B. ~Exhibit C. Rendering the lapse date as April 29,2024. LUC.§2.2.11(A). ‘See Exhibit C. ‘See Exhibit 0. I Page 387 Item 18. 30,2023 hearing.A new LOT was created and dated November 29,2023.This scrambling immediately prior to the November 30,2023 hearing was used as evidence of the applicant’s diligence.Rather,it was SFNN that was diligently pursuing the application,not the applicant.Despite rescheduling their hearing three times at the request of the applicant,the City acknowledges that the project proposal has had no changes since November 2021. The Proposal Does Not Comply with the NSF in Violation of LUC 1.2.2.In 2022,the Hearing Officer’s decision clearly indicated that he did not believe PDP20001S complied with the NSP.He specifically tasked the applicant to work together with the neighborhood to address two main neighborhood sensitivity/compatibility concerns.His decision recommended that the applicant work together with the neighborhood “in order to explore how the PDP/FDP may be modified to further reduce overall residential density and lower the height of the some of the proposed three-story single-family attached buildings to two-stories”and urged the applicant to “work with neighbors to:(I)increase the compatibility between the Project and existing neighborhoods that abut the Subject Property;(2)ensure that goals and policies articulated in the NSF are successfully implemented,”neither of which occurrei In May of 2023,the Larimer County District Court held that the NSP and LUC are both regulatory and the proposal must comply with both.Now.in 2024.the exact same develonment yrovosal is evaluated and determined to somehow now comDlv with the NSP by the very same Hearing Officer.The plan is no more compatible now than it was in 2022 and we are appealing this obvious error.Disappointingly,the Hearing Officer failed to make any findings regarding the NSP,instead opting to lazily copy and paste the applicant’s October 19,2023,letter into Exhibit B of his Supplemental Findings and Decision (the “Decision”).8 Understanding that compatibility does not mean the “same as”and instead refers to sensitivity in maintaining the existing neighborhood character,we do not believe the Hearing Officer properly applied relevant codes,plans,or the court’s order here.Page 32 of the NSP states that “as new development occurs,it should be of low intensity to be compatibie with the diversity and semi-rural feel of the area.”It also states that “The Northwest Subarea will retain its character and integrity through the appropri ate placement and density of new housing that is compatible with existing neighborhoods.”The NSP Framework Plan’s stated purpose is “to create predictability in what type and intensity can be expected for one &own property as well as neighboring properties.”Both the LUC and NSP speak to what “affects compatibility including height,scale, lot sizes,setbacks,mass and bulk of structures.”LUC 3.5.1 requires “compatible building massing”with surrounding neighborhoods.SFNN has contended since 2021 that this development’s multiple three-story buildings and tiny lot sizes are incompatible.More specifically,the LUC establishes height requirements for single family attached housing as a maximum of “one-,two-and three-family dwellings shall be two and one-half (2.5)stories.”9 And despite the applicant removing multifamily housing from the proposal,the City cites to the multifamily housing section of the LUC’°in their interpretation of permissive building heights.The current proposal calls for 3-story row homes that will stand 45 feet tall with grading,over 3 times the height of any of the homes that abut the development site.This proposal should either have required a 1~’pe 2 hearing to accommodate multifamily housing or must fail because it does not meet the LUC requirements for single family attached housing and was not granted a variance.It is unlawful to permit the applicant and the City to circumvent the law by utilizing the improper sections of the LUC to push the application forward. o Notably,the Decision makes zero references or findings relevant to the neighborhood’s character,which is a cornerstone of the NSP.In other words,the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the NSP. °LUG,§4.5(E)(3). ID §4.5(E)(4). 2 Page 388 Item 18. 2)Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing:The Decision Maker Considered Evidence Relevant to its Findings Which was Substantially False or Grossly Misleading. The Hearing Officer relied largely on the Staff Report and a letter from the applicant’s lawyer when issuing his decision.Evidence that the plan is in compliance with NSP is cheny-picked in both of these documents.This Hearing Officer perhaps wouldn’t have recognized this information as false or misleading as he is not familiar with the area arid has not made any effort to prioritize citizen input or visit the actual neighborhood.While it is correct that some of the plan does align with the NSP,areas that do not conform were pointed out to the Hearing Officer through submitted written documentation as well as public comments and ignored in his decision. A significant challenge of building on this site is that less than half of the acreage of this property is buildable due to the floodplain,wetlands and other factors.This property is quite complex;it contains wetlands, floodplain,a high-water table along LaPorte and Taft Hill,a large irrigation ditch that bisects the land and a large swale to channel flood waters along the west corridor of the property.As a result,almost 50%of the acreage is unbuildable.The majority of open space being preserved falls into these categories.It is not generously being provided by the applicant in response to neighbor request or NSP as claimed -rather,it is land that is not able to safely support housing. The applicant has also claimed that decreases in density are in direct response to neighborhood requests.While the applicant has reduced the density of the development from 371 units in the initial proposal to the 212 units proposed in the 2021 application and replaced multi-family buildings with single-family attached row houses, these changes were not the result of collaborative intent.The applicant’s initial proposal had a large assisted-living facility proposed to be built in the middle of the floodplain on the property.This facility was removed due to non-compliance with City Code and the LUC,not as a concession to neighbors.This removal decreased the density by over 100 units without changing the nature or character of the development.The switch to single-family housing was done in order to avoid return to a ~pe 2 hearing after their application was poised to fail in front of the Planning and Zoning Board.The applicant has not actually met with neighbors since the Fall of 2021 and has,instead,insincerely reached out about meeting right before each hearing but without any intention of actually changing the plans based on those meetings.Those emails were submitted as public comment prior to the July 15,2024 hearing. This proposal calls for twenty-eight 3-story attached single-family buildings (166 dwelling units).Although the Hearing Officer states that these 3-story buildings are largely concentrated to the interior of the site,this is false and misleading.The entire east side of the development,which faces open pasture,an orchard,and a single 100-year-old one-story farmhouse,is 3 stories tall.These buildings will be much higher than 39 feet 8 inches when grading for the floodplain is undertaken and will block foothills views.SFNN asserts that the distant 3-story properties that were used as comparables were used to misrepresent the development existing in the neighborhood to the Hearing Officer,were described falsely by the applicant as abutting this site,the acceptance of which is clear error and an abuse of the Hearing Officer’s discretion and shows his ignorance of the area.We believe that three story row houses are incompatible with the single-story neighborhoods that abut this site and do not meet the standard of the NSP in preserving their character. For example: 3 Page 389 Item 18. Bellwether Farms:A total of five houses are 2-story with walk-out basements.The applicant’s attorney repeatedly showed images of these houses,purporting that they were representative of all neighboring properties and claiming that they abut the property on the north side.These homes do not abut the development site,or represent the majority of Bellwether Farms’houses,of which 90%are 1-and 2-story homes.The only actual abutting properties are single story,single family detached homes,many on 1-acre plots.The project clearly does not meet the LUC’s compatible building massing requirement. Ramblewood Apartments:This is a commercial leasing complex that lies to the south,across LaPorte Ave., built in 1976,30 years prior to the creation of the NSP.Because the apartment complex is commercial (not individually owned),does not abut the applicant’s property,and buildings pre-date the NSP,we assert that the City should not have allowed this to be used as a comparable property. Imnala Redevelonment:This is a federally funded affordable housing project that does not abut the proposed development.The proposed development contains zero affordable housing units,and thus,while both exist in the NSP,different sections of LUC apply and comparing the two is nonsensical. Page 390 Item 18. 3)Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing Because the Decision Maker Improperly Failed to Receive All Relevant Evidence Offered by the Appellant The City erred in failing to provide the Hearing Officer with 342 pages of public comment in advance of the July 15,2024 hearing creating an unfair hearing.SFNN was told that all written comments must be received by July 14,2024 at 5:30 pm.A total of 342 pages of comments were received by the City and posted to the City website before the hearing.Of note,the Hearing Officer did receive four comments after the deadline that were accepted into the record.The Hearing Officer’s decision for the July 15,2024 Type 1 Hearing was issued on July 24,2024.A copy was sent to SFNN and its counsel,Andrew Pipes.Upon review of the decisiöh,SFNN noticed that the 342 pages of public comment sent prior to the hearing were not included on the record.Upon SFNN notifying the City of their error,”the City emailed SFNN and the Hearing Officer stating that the City “thought [it]had sent these emails to Marcus and [it]dick ‘t.”In a separate email to the Hearing Officer,the City wrote that “[a]community member noticed there were several pieces of correspondence that were supposed to be a part of the record for you to consider for Sanctuary on the Green that did not make it to you.”2 It is puzzling as to why an experienced Hearing Officer who conducted a hearing over the exact same project and had since prepared for this hearing no less than three times would not question the absence of written public comment before the hearing.Moreover,the City’s representation to the Hearing Officer that “there were several pieces of correspondence”that were not included in the record is a gross mischaracterization of the 342 pages of correspondence opposed to the proposal.This error is exacerbated by the fact that written comment is a primary avenue for citizen input in land use hearings and 342 pages of public comment opposing the proposal is an overwhelming piece of evidence that the public is not in favor of the proposal,which coincidentally is a chief principle of the NSP,and is vital to the total mix of infomution needed to make an informed decision.The public comment included emails documenting the City changing the lapse date,documenting the applicant’s insincere reach-outs,and evidence gathered by neighbors of the development proposal’s incompatibility through photographs and analysis.In response to receiving 342 pages of evidence opposed to the application,the Hearing Officer stated that the “July 24 Decision is confirmed in all respects.”This is the type of unreasoned, pre-detennined analysis replete throughout the Decision.This dearth of thought and failure to consider the citizenry’s comments within the Decision is exacerbated by the fact that the Hearing Officer never visited the site and appears to not understand the decisions that he makes,leading to improper and illogical decisions.And when combining the Hearing Officer’s failure to consider the written public comments with the verbatim adoption of the applicant’s NSP analysis,it appears that the Hearing Officer’s decision was prearranged. Although the Hearing Officer officially accepted the public comment for the record by re-issuing the Decision, it was very clearly not analyzed or otherwise incorporated.The blatant dismissal of the voices of Fort Collins citizens in the development review process should be brought to light and challenged.The City risks setting a very dangerous precedent if this process is deemed “fair”or “proper.” “See Exhibit E. 12 See Exhibit F. Page 391 Item 18. Exhibit A Historical review: This proposal was initially before the Planning and Zoning Commission as a Type II proposal.The hearing lasted until past midnight.The applicant withdrew the application during the hearing when it became clear the proposal was failing.The Planning and Zoning Commission therefore issued no decision. The applicant then minorly amended the development proposal to replace multifamily housing with single-family attachedsowJiomes..Thi&wasse-~submiUed.it a&a.new.proposal PDP 210018 Eliminating the multifamily housing changed the application from a Type II to a Type I development application under the LUC.This change bypassed Planning and Zoning and instead went to an Administrative Hearing with a single administrative “Hearing Officer.”We believe the applicants intended to eliminate the review by the Planning Commission.Emails between the applicant and the City demonstrate communication regarding ensuring “the record starting clean”without the previous Planning and Zoning Commission’s comments.The City also waived some time restrictions and fees for this new application.By filing a new action,the record from the original proposal was no longer part of the review.The city thus treated the proposal simultaneously as both an old application (for the purpose of waiving the 6 month resubmittal delay and giving the applicant a $34000 discount on fees)and a new application (for the purpose of moving out of Type 2 and erasing previous evidence). The City scheduled the T~’pe I hearing in May 2022,and the Hearing Officer approved the development proposal.The order stated,“[t]he Hearing Officer concludes that the [NWSAPI lacks sufficient guidelines or standards on which to deny the [application]for the Project.”We believed this statement was inconect under the law and that the NWSAP provides more than sufficient guidance contrary to the proposed development. SFNN next appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision to Fort Collins City Council.On August 16,2022,the Council conducted an administrative hearing on the appeal and voted 5-2 to affinn the decision and approve PDP No.210018.On September 6,2022,the Council adopted Resolution 2022-095,approving,adopting,and confirming the Hearing Officer’s Decision in all respects. On October 4,2022,SFNN foniially filed suit against the Fort Collins City Council in Larimer County District Court (Case No.2022CV30661.)SFNN did not name the applicant in the lawsuit,but they intervened as a defendant in the action. The trial court issued its decision on July 24,2023,and the district court agreed with SFNN.The court concluded the Hearing Officer’s decision was legally erroneous and that he abused his discretion in failing to consider the NWSAP as part of his review.The court remanded the development proposal back to a Type 1 Hearing,where the Hearing Officer must,this time,consider both the NWSP and Land Use Code.Where the two conflict,the more restrictive plan supersedes. The City scheduled the re-hearing for September 14,2023,but then postponed the hearing on August 30,2023, due to a conflict of interest between the Hearing Officer and the applicant’s attorney.Further information was not provided about this conflict. 6 Page 392 Item 18. The re-hearing was scheduled for November 2,2023,relying upon the same November 5,2021,application documents and two additional documents apparently submitted on October 19,2023.The Hearing Officer started the hearing that night but continued it to a later date due to the Hearing Officer’s illness. The City then re-rescheduled the hearing for November 30,2023,but the day before the hearing,the applicant requested the hearing be postponed without justification and without a new date set.For this hearing,the applicant relied on the same plans submitted on November 5,2021,and two additional application-related documents submitted on October 19,2023. The hearing was finally rescheduled and held July 15,2024.See appeal for details between November 2023 and the scheduling of this hearing.A decision was issued on July 24,2023.A supplement to the decision was issued on July 28,2024 and the decision thus dated July 28,2024.Public provision of the hearing decision,other than to Miranda Spindel and Andrew Pipes,was emailed and sent by mail on July 30,2024.The City wrote,in response to inquiry,that appeal must be filed by August 12,2024 at the end of the business day. Page 393 Item 18. Exhibit B Lapse date established by City RE:Re:Re:FW:Sanctuary Hearing Continuance Inbox Clay Frickey <cfiickey~fcgov.com Mon,Dec 4,2023,10:27 AM to me,Em,Andrew Hey Miranda, The applicant submitted two new documents to us on October 19.180 days from October 19 would be April 16,2024. Thanks, Clay Clay Frickey Pronouns:he/him Planning Manager City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave. 970-416-2517 office cfrickey~fcgov.com From:Sanctuary Neighbor <sanctuaryfieldnetwork~gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,December 3,20236:12 PM To:Clay Frickey <efrickey~fcgov.com> Cc:Em Myler <emyler~fcgov.com>;Andrew B.Pipes <andrew@frascona.com> Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re:Re:FW:Sanctuary Hearing Continuance Thank you for this information. Can you tell me when the clock starts for this proposal to be considered inactive/I 80 days from? Thanks Miranda On Thu,Nov 30,2023 at 9:22 AM Clay Frickey <cfrickey~fcgov.com wrote: Hey Miranda, We have a lapse provision in our Land Use Code that requires applicants to diligently pursue approval of their plans.If an application is inactive for 180 days,the application lapses and they 8 Page 394 Item 18. would have to start the development review process over.Applicants can request an extension of 120 days and one more extension of 60 days.Other than the lapse provision there isn’t anything in the Land Use Code that dictates when we must take applications to a hearing or how many times we may re-schedule hearings. We will continue to keep you in the loop on when there might be a re-scheduled hearing.The applicant did not provide us a date or timeframe when they think they’ll want to reschedule the hearing. I am sony this hearing keeps moving.It’s a frustrating situation and we will continue to share information and updates as we have them. Thanks, Clay Clay Frickey Pronouns:he/him Planning Manager City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave. 970-416-2517 office cfrickey~fcgov.com From:Sanctuary Neighbor <sanctuaryfieldnetwork~gmaiI.com> Sent:Wednesday,November 29,2023 2:45 PM To:Clay Frickey <cfrickey~fcgov.com> Cc:Em Myler emyler~fcgov.com>;Andrew B.Pipes <andrew@frascona.com Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re:FW:Sanctuary Hearing Continuance Hi Clay, Wow.Thank you for letting us know as soon as you were notified.What a lot of work for everyone to go through this multiple times.Is there any limitation on how many times a hearing can be cancelled and rescheduled or the timeframe by which they must reschedule?Could you please keep us looped in as soon as a conversation begins about rescheduling this? Em -would you be able to update the city webpages that have the hearing on them and noti~’ those who provided public comment?If it is still possible to send me the written public comments submitted between the last scheduled hearing and this one,I am keeping a file in case we need to resubmit them. Thank you, 9 Page 395 Item 18.