Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/11/2011-SpecialAugust 11, 2011 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Special Meeting — 5:45 p.m. A special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Thursday, August 11, 2011, at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. ("Secretary's note: Councilmember Troxell arrived at 5:50 p.m.) Councilmembers absent: Kottwitz Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Mayor Weitkunat stated this Special Meeting has been called for the purpose of considering a possible Executive Session. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, that Council go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(4)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff regarding the manner in which particular policies, practices, and/or regulations of the City may be affected by existing or proposed provisions of federal, state, or local law, and to discuss potential litigation. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's note: Council reconvened at 7:50 p.m.) Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that Council direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to formally express to Western Area Power Administration, Platte River Power Authority, and the City's member -partners in Platte River, the City's objections to construction proceeding on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station Transmission Line Project and, further, that the Council authorize the City Attorney to seek a court order enjoining construction of Phase III, if necessary, or to take such other appropriate legal action as may be needed to protect the interests of the City. City Attorney Roy noted formal action on this item was not listed as part of the agenda. Should Council believe action is time -sensitive enough that it cannot be delayed, a motion must first be, made to declare inaction would be contrary to the public interest. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson and Councilmember Poppaw withdrew the motion. 437 August 11, 2011 Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that postponing action on this item would be contrary to the public interest. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that Council direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to formally express to Western Area Power Administration, Platte River Power Authority, and the City's member -partners in Platte River, the City's objections to construction proceeding on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station Transmission Line Project and, further, that the Council authorize the City Attorney to seek a court order enjoining construction of Phase III, if necessary, or to take such other appropriate legal action as may be needed to protect the interests of the City. Mayor Weitkunat stated she is not completely supportive of the possibility of obtaining a courtorder enjoining construction and, should that be the ultimate result, further discussion should occur. Councilmember Troxell stated this motion has to do with protecting the viewshed and environmental aspects at Pineridge Natural Area. Councilmember Horak stated communications with PRPA and the City of Loveland have not been successful. Additionally, no public outreach about this project has occurred since 2006. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Weitkunat introduced the next item as a discussion relating to procedural issues for_T-he_.: Grove appeal hearings to be held August 16, 2011. City Attorney Roy stated he recommended this proceeding due to the number of procedural issues which have been raised by parties in interest on both sides of the appeals. He suggested Council determine time limits, for the upcoming hearings. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for staff s suggestion regarding time allotment this evening. City Attorney Roy suggested allowing equal time to be divided amongst the speakers on each side of the issue. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted tonight's issue is solely procedural in nature. City Attorney Roy noted certain procedural questions will be addressed at the start of next week's hearing. L1C%j August 11, 2011 Dick Thomas, 1901 Wallenberg Drive, asked if citizens present at the hearing will be able to object to false or opinion statements, or statements of new evidence. City Attorney Roy replied there are no written rules relating to objections. Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, requested 10 minutes to discuss procedural issues at the hearing and 60 minutes for each presentation with 10 minutes for each rebuttal. Response to the allegations would be too difficult to complete in the staff recommended 30 minutes. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted appeal presentations are usually limited to 20 minutes with a 10 minute rebuttal period. Jonathan Feiman, 959 Gilgalad Way, appellant spokesperson, stated the appellant has not requested extra presentation time. He stated the applicant should be familiar with all of the documents submitted by the appellants. Chase Eckert, ASCSU Governmental Affairs Director, suggested time restrictions could result in facts being overlooked. Sarah Burnett, 713 Gilgalad Way, asked if a vote would be held on each allegation and asked if the appellants could submit a color PowerPoint presentation rather than an illegible black and white version. Doug Brobst,.1625 Independence Road, Neighbors and Students United, requested his group be allotted either 10 minutes of the applicant's time or 10 additional minutes to state its opinion regarding the project. Donna Fairbank, 1712 Clearview Court, Avery Park Neighborhood Association and member of Neighbors and Students United, suggested each group with a prepared presentation should be given the opportunity to present. City Attorney Roy stated the City Code provides. for a single block of time for parties -in -interest in support of the appeal and a single block of time for parties -in -interest on the opposing side. The time allocation has historically been worked out internally amongst those groups. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted time limits aid in managing an appeal hearing. City Attorney Roy stated some feedback relating to this issue has prompted some proposed Code changes relating to appeals. Jerry Potter, 627 Gilgalad Way, asked if the ODP and PDP appeal hearings will be held at the same meeting and expressed concern about the potential length of that meeting. City Attorney Roy stated Council has the authority to continue the hearing should the hour get so late as to prohibit a meaningful discussion. 439 August 11, 2011 Councilmember Manvel noted Council has been charged with reading a great deal of material and watching the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and will therefore be going into the hearing with a vast amount of knowledge. Therefore, he recommended the presentation time be less than 60 minutes, though perhaps more than 30 minutes. City Attorney Roy suggested each side be allotted 10 minutes for procedural issues and 45 minutes for substantive presentations. Councilmember Horak noted additional time will allow Council the ability to fully understand each argument. Councilmember Manvel noted brevity would be appreciated at the hearing. Mayor Weitkunat stated each side will be allowed 10 minutes to discuss procedural issues at the start of the meeting, followed by 45 minutes for each substantive presentation and 10 minutes for each rebuttal. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: OF FORTCo • ,. City Clerk ..m