HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 2/18/2020 - Memorandum From Delynn Coldiron Re: Items Relating To Montava Planned Unit Development Master Plan And Overlay (Agenda Items 21-22) Packet #1From: Clay Frickey
To: Sara Gonzales; Delynn Coldiron; Talisa Gula-Yeast
Subject: FW: Montava et al
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 10:48:34 AM
Hey all,
This is another public comment we should pass along to Council for Montava.
Thanks,
Clay
From: Donna Sprague <tobyzdonna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:52 AM
To: Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>; City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Subject: Montava et al
Are there any requirements, or at least agreements, between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer
County to discuss and coordinate proposals for developments and annexations?
Observing all the flagpole annexations existing in the northeast quadrant of FC GMA, are traffic and
utilities for new Fort Collins subdivisions ever considered as part of the approval process?
Why are local utility district boundaries and resources not respected (PVREA, Boxelder Sanitation,
ELCO Water, etc.) and enforced?
If infill development is desired, why is the Mulberry corridor still in the County, along with several
mobile home parks?
Why is Vine Drive still in the same configuration as it was twenty years ago? When will the train
crossings be solved?
Until these issues are resolved, all new development in this quadrant should be put on hold.
There appear to be two residential projects already approved for the Lemay area north of Vine,
along Suniga. This area should be the last approved construction until the above issues are
addressed and cured.
From: Eric Sutherland
To: City Leaders
Subject: Significant legal problems with Montava PUD ordinance.
Date: Monday, February 17, 2020 9:18:18 PM
Attachments: emails Request for Inspection of Public Records_ Montava quasi-judicial.pdf
emails Can you please just follow the Charter.pdf
For those of you who find yourself on the BCC list of this email, (there are 130 of you
and I did not get 100%), you are getting this email because I scoured the public
record emails of Council and the Agenda Item Summaries looking for people who
were concerned about the Montava PUD. My apologies for the broadcast nature of
this message.
There are significant legal problems with the Montava PUD Ordinance and related
legislation. It is probably more accurate to say that no one at City Hall really had a
good idea what they were putting together and the result is laden with justiciable
deficiencies. Of course, the real problem is that approval of the Montava PUD
represents horrible public policy in the areas of land use planning and water. Max
Moss' "vision" thing is nothing more than a variation of drive-'til-you-qualify with a
straw stuck into the Fort Collins Utilities municipal water supply.
Perhaps the easiest way to undersand the legal problems with the Ordinance is to
note that the language in the Ordinance changed significantly between first and
second readings. (Of course, one has to sort through about one thousand pages of
material to find the first and second versions of the Ordinance.) Such a dramatic
change to the purpose of the Ordinance is not permitted by Article II section 6 of the
Fort Collins City Charter, which states:
All legislative enactments .... shall be by ordinance, which shall not be so
altered on the final passage as to change the original purpose. (Article II
section 6 of the Fort Colins City Charter.)
So, Council would be violating the provisions of our Charter by passing what has been
authored by the City Attorney for second reading.
Why is this happening? To beter understand that, one can look at the email exchange I had
with City Attorney Carrie Daggett in response to a request for inspection of public records that
I made looking for the standards that the Montava PUD is required to comply with in order to
be lawfully approved by Council. See the attached .pdf file, emails Reqest for Public
Inspection. Here, the city attorney says that the actual standards that must be met may not be
disclosed because simply identifying what Council is supposed be basing their decision on
requires 'legal conclusions' and she will not be sharing those.
This is supposed to be a quasi-judicial decision folks. But the city attorney couldn't tell us ...
or Council ... what standards needed to be met in order to approve the Montava PUD. Quasi-
judicial means laws not women or men. Quasi-judicial means that we have, as a community,
decided that the determination of what gets developed in our community and how is
established by written standards that carry the weight of law ... not the preference of whoever
the voters of Fort Collins have put to Council.
Now just imagine, how in the world did Council apply the facts of the Montava PUD
application to the law ... if no one knew what the law was and the law was scheduled to be
changed by resolutions that were yet to be considered? It is truly unnerving to think that our
city government operates this way. Regretably, this sort of thing is happening with
astonishing frequency these days.
As a consequence of the issues raised in the attached email and a couple others, City Hall
decided it better do some razzle-dazzle fix-up of the PUD Ordinance language and also
introduce an entirely new ordinance, Ordinance 040 2020, on the consent agenda ... all to
account for the legal shortcomings of the PUD Ordinance as approved on first reading in a
marathon, 7 hour, special meeting of Council on January 14th.
Of course, by so doing, Council is now going to consider an Ordinance with an entirely
different purpose than it approved on first reading and this is a violation of the City Charter. I
have asked Council not to violate the City Charter, but I would bet anyone $100 that they will
do it anyway. See the attached .pdf file emails Can you please just follow the Charter. In this
email thread, I have included an excerpt of what Max Moss wrote to me when I attempted to
discuss the legal deficiencies of his application and the process with him. (He wasn't
interested.)
This is certainly not the only legal deficiency. There was a notice failure that renders the
entire process invalid. The Montava PUD does not compy with important provisions of the
Land Use Code. Compliance with City Plan ... and here one has to guess what version of Cty
Plan is applicable, 2011 or 2019, ... is also insufficient for approval.
WATER ISSUES
The vast majority of you wrote to Council regarding concerns about water. On this issue, I
am terrified that no one in city hall or the community seems to realize an important legal
reality:
Fort Collins Utility's plans for water supplies have been crafted without
consideration of the legally enforceable responsibility the city has to provide
fresh water to any development that holds entitlements. An owner of
property in ELCO's water district may petition the district court to be
excluded from ELCO into the municpality's water service territory. Once that
is accomplished, the City's responsibility to provide potable water to the
property lies in mandamus in the City Charter.
ELCO has no water to sell a development like Montava. A developer must bring water shares
to ELCO in order to get water taps. There is no water available in the quantities needed by
Montava to be purchased, and even if there were, it would be outrageously expensive.
Consequently, HF2M is not 'asking' to be served by the Fort Collins Utilities. He is asking for
entitlements that will ultimately put him on an equal footing for water taps with any other
development in the city limits.
No one in these United States puts out over a $1 million to secure entitlements without a damn
good idea where the water to serve the development will come from. In this case, it will
come from reserve water supplies that the City of Fort Collins has put together over the past
70 years. I do not believe that anyone on Council, even Ross Cunniff, understands this ... or
the fact that approving the Montave PUD may have the effect of nullifying the last 20 years of
water planning that the city has done.
Why is it that our City Government is intent on pursuing such miserable public policy? I
don't know. It does seem that, with only one or maybe two exceptions, every 'city leader' is
intent on eroding our quality of life and future ... and they do not mind violating the law to do
it.
Honestly, I think we are all screwed. The laws that have been enacted to protect our
community and quality of life are systematically disregarded by city officials. The values of
kindness and fair play that I find everywhere I go in Fort Collins just aren't present when the
city administration starts marching lock step toward something like approval of the Montava
PUD application. It really is a rotten environment and we will all be made to pay a price for
it.
Eric Sutherland
2/17/2020 Yahoo Mail - Re: Can you please just follow the
1/2
Re: Can you please just follow the
From: Eric Sutherland (sutherix@yahoo.com)
To: cdaggett@fcgov.com
Cc: cityleaders@fcgov.com
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020, 10:25 PM MST
Look, I am sorry that the first PUD application has exposed deficiencies in the process and
created a frightful entanglement of legal issues. These things happen. I certainly lack the
facilities to see into the future to understand every potential conflict that may arise as a
consequence of a new law. I don't think it is damning or unflattering that the city finds itself in the
predicament that it is in.
But ignoring the cascading effect of one justiciable deficiency after the other, especially for the
benefit of an unpopular legislative action, is simply not the best way forward.
Moss is after the water. At most, he is only two court proceedings away from being on equal
footing with all others for FC Utilities water taps. I wouldn't say that if not for corroborating
evidence. This fact alone should give everyone pause. The incongruence between planning
and water policy has been legitimate criticism for years. Moss is after the water and nothing
stands in his way once he has secured entitlements. The city would have no rational basis for
opposing a mandamus claim.
Even if I was wrong about that, and I really don't think I am, Council should forego any action on
Montava entitlements until such time as the water issue is fully understood. Otherwise, Fort
Collins might as well kiss the last decade of water planning good bye and welcome in a new era
of confusion and impossibly unacceptable planning outcomes.
I tried to engage Moss on the subject of the deficiencies of his application. This is what he wrote
back to me:
Hi Eric.
....
I appreciate your passion, but you and I have completely different views of the world. When
you accuse me of hiring Lucia in order to break the law, you simply have a view of the world
that doesn’t represent reality. Everything we do is for the good of people and the
community. Not one thing is done to slide past rules, break the law or hurt people. We live
to build community, the right way.
Please don’t email me any more. I cannot imagine how we could have a conversation with
you, when you believe things about me and my team that are just so wrong.
I wish you the best. I truly do.
Max Moss
2/17/2020 Yahoo Mail - Re: Can you please just follow the
2/2
President | HF2M Colorado
Pretty funny considering that several grounds for invalidating the Ordinance (like the notice
failure) have nothing to do with his application.
The very best thing to do here is exactly what I asked for. Please follow the Charter. Do not
present Council with an Ordinance that has a purpose that is substantially different than what was
approved on January 14th.
Eric Sutherland
On Thursday, February 13, 2020, 09:27:54 PM MST, Carrie Daggett <cdaggett@fcgov.com> wrote:
Mr. Sutherland,
What agenda item is this about?
-C
Carrie Daggett
On Feb 13, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Eric Sutherland <sutherix@yahoo.com> wrote:
All legislative enactments .... shall be by ordinance, which shall not be so altered on the final
passage as to change the original purpose. Article II section 6
Council may not approve an Ordinance on second reading that has a substantially different
purpose than it had on first reading. As you know, an ordinance inconsistent with the
Charter may be assailed at any time. A challenge need not be brought within the 28 day
limitation of Rule 106.
This is a procedural issue. It is not a concern about the merits of any particular aenda item.
Consequently, this email should be directly sent to Council without interruption.
Eric Sutherland
2/17/2020 Yahoo Mail - Re: Request for Inspection of Public Records: Montava quasi-judicial
1/3
Re: Request for Inspection of Public Records: Montava quasi-judicial
From: Eric Sutherland (sutherix@yahoo.com)
To: CDAGGETT@fcgov.com; cityleaders@fcgov.com
Cc: decoldiron@fcgov.com; byatabe@fcgov.com; reverette@fcgov.com
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 04:47 PM MST
Ms. Daggett,
What, exactly, will Council be utilizing in terms of a standard to judge Montava's application for a
PUD?
Please remember that the City withholds emails from Council members because this is
proceeding and other proceedings are quasi-judicial. If this is quasi-judicial, then what the heck is
Council utilizing as a legal framework for its decision.
I understand that the to citations of the LUC are responsive to PART One of my request. I have
read and reread them a dozen times over the past couple weeks.
Your position that legal analysis would be required to identify what records are responsive to
PART Two of my request is untenable. It is absurd. This information should have been placed
front and center in the materials that Council and the public reviewed. The applicant's
application should have identified them. After all, the applicant shoulders the burden of proof in
any instance where non-compliance is alleged.
Heaven help the good people of Fort Collins.
Eric Sutherland
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 04:29:56 PM MST, Carrie Daggett <cdaggett@fcgov.com> wrote:
Mr. Sutherland,
Your request below appears to call for legal analysis and conclusions that go beyond our obligations under the
Colorado Open Records Act.
That said, it may be helpful to point out that the local provisions establishing both the process for and the standards
applicable to an application for Planned Unit Development Overlays, including the related Master Plans, are set forth
in the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins.
2/17/2020 Yahoo Mail - Re: Request for Inspection of Public Records: Montava quasi-judicial
2/3
For your convenience, I have attached Division 2.15 of the Land Use Code, entitled Planned Unit Development
Overlay Review Procedure. This is available on the City’s website at the following URL:
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART2AD_DIV2.15PLUNDEOVREPR
In addition, I have attached Division 4.29 of the Land Use Code, entitled Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay,
for your convenience. This is also freely available on the City’s website at the following URL:
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART4DI_DIV4.29PLUNDEPUOV
I am responding on behalf of myself and the City Clerk.
~Carrie
Carrie M. Daggett
City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
970-221-6520
cdaggett@fcgov.com
From: Eric Sutherland <sutherix@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:54 PM
To: Delynn Coldiron <DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>; Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>
Subject: Request for Inspection of Public Records: Montava quasi-judicial
Please provide for public inspection all records responding to the following cirteria:
PART One
All records that evidence a local law requiring Council to make a determination by applying
facts to a specific case to certain criteria established by law in the quasi-judicial matter
regarding Montava that has been continued to January 14th, 2020.
PART Two
All records that evidence criteria established by law that are applicable to the determination of
the matter regarding Montava that has been continued to January 14th, 2020.
Reference: Snyder v. Lakewood
2/17/2020 Yahoo Mail - Re: Request for Inspection of Public Records: Montava quasi-judicial
3/3
In order to support a finding that the action of a municipal legislative body is quasi-judicial, all of the following
factors must exist: (1) a state or local law requiring that the body give adequate notice to the community
before acting; (2) a state or local law requiring that the body conduct a public hearing, pursuant to notice, at
which time concerned citizens must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and (3) a
state or local law requiring the body to make a determination by applying the facts of a specific case to
certain criteria established by law.
Thank you,
Eric Sutherland
LUC DIV_2.15___PLANNED_UNIT_DEVELOPMENT_OVERLAY_REVIEW_PROCEDURE_.doc
46.5kB
LUC DIV_4.29___PLANNED_UNIT_DEVELOPMENT__PUD__OVERLAY_.doc
62.5kB
From: Gregory George
To: Chris Maslin-Cole; drsparkman61@yahoo.com; drummond.hrco@gmail.com; lorin@waterwiselandscapes.com;
mktsol@msn.com; Analene Carlisle; Andrea Mihajlov; Bret Olsson; Dale Leidheiser; David Beede; David Cismoski;
David Schwaab; Deanna Adams; Dianna French; Dick Easley; Don Homan; Ed Robert; Eric Sutherland; Francie
Scolley; Fred Zipp; Ginger Davila; Goanna Harms; Hunter Harms; Jim and Judy Moore; Jim Salisbury; Kathy
Mrocko; Les Kaplan; Linda Helm; Linda Rager; Longs Pond; Melinda Laituri; Michael Gordon; Morgan Bridger;
Nan Sollo; Patty Nichols; Paul Navarre; Quentin Rockwell; Rachel Hopper; Rachel Lee; Ray Cole; Rita Deike;
Roger Cox; Ronnie Owens; Save Country Club Road; Tasha Marchant; Ted Rossin; Ty Easley; Vicki Mayea;
Virginia Mohr-Callahan; Wendy Nero; City Clerk Office
Cc: Darin Atteberry; Emily Gorgol; Julie Pignataro; Kristin Stephens; CAO Admin; Ross Cunniff; Sarah Kane; Susan
Gutowsky; Wade Troxell
Subject: Montava PUD
Date: Sunday, February 16, 2020 3:58:23 PM
There seems to be a misconception floating around that those of us who have concerns about the Montava PUD are totally against it ever
being approved. Many of us have made it perfectly clear that we think development of the PUD would be an asset to northeast Fort
Collins. We are however very concerned that the existing rural road network is totally inadequate to accommodate the addition traffic
generated by Montava.
The following is intended to further explain Condition #4 I’m recommending in my Position Paper sent out last week.
My concern about traffic congestion is greatly compounded by the way the City administers its Adequate Public Services Ordinance -
Level of Service (LOS) standards for transportation. The common practice allows the Director to grant exceptions to the fundamental
stated purpose for the Adequate Public Services ordinance, which is “to establish an ongoing mechanism which ensures that public
facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development”.
The Director grants exceptions to compliance with the City's LOS for transportation and allows building permits to be issued if he/she
finds that the improvements necessary to meet the LOS standards for transportation are “not reasonably related to and proportional to the
impact of the development". Given the enormous scale and cost of the improvements called for in the Montava Master Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) to meet the City's LOS for transportation, it is certain that the Director will make the finding stated above to allow the
issuance of building permits prior to the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for transportation being in place.
This process allows the City to start collecting street impact fees for new residential dwellings to help pay for street improvements in the
future. The problem being that it results in a considerable delay from when the traffic impacts from a development are created and
when the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for transportation are in place.
In the case of Montava, the massive scale and cost of the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for transportation will
result in an undetermined number of PUDs being approved prior to compliance with LOS. This lag time will cause unbearable and
unsafe traffic congestion on the existing rural street network in northeast Fort Collins for who knows how long.
City traffic engineers have stated that they would rely on the existing street network, essentially N. Timberline Road and E. Vine Drive,
to accommodate traffic generated by Montava until the Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive connection is in place. According to the TIS, the
intersection of N. Timberline Road and E. Vine Drive is operating at a LOS D, which is the City’s minimally acceptable LOS. According
to City traffic engineers, the calculation of LOS does not take into consideration additional vehicle delays resulting from the railroad
crossing. Therefore, relying on this as the route to access Fort Collins seems unrealistic, potential unsafe, and not at all convenient.
Given these circumstances, it would seem more professionally accurate and honest to determine that this intersection does not meet the
City’s LOS standard.
The only options to N. Timberline Road and E. Vine Drive are County Club Road and I-25. Which route will most people take to go
grocery shopping?
Condition #4, as stated in the Position Statement, is exactly what City Council asked City staff to come back with as far as a condition
providing some level of certainty as to when the street improvements necessary to meet the LOS would be in place. All we are asking
for is that each PDP comply with the stated purpose of the City’s Adequate Public Service ordinance for transportation and meet
the minimally acceptable LOS D, without the Director granting an exception.
At first reading of the Montava PUD ordinances and against all odds, we were able to get two “no” votes and require the public hearing to
be continued to second reading. The main reason we were successful was due to the enormous turnout and relevant comments made at
the hearing. It just may be possible that some City Council members will consider our recommended conditions as reasonable,
particularly since the developer agreed to 3 of them at the first public hearing. In addition, we are no longer requesting that no
building permits to be issued until the Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive connection is in-place. Now we are asking that future
PDPs be required to meet the stated purpose of the City’s Adequate Public Service Standards for transportation and meet the
City’s adopted Level of Service standards for transportation, without the Director granting an exception.
Hopefully this posting clarifies some of what’s in the Position Paper I sent out last week and provides ideas for talking point you can
present at the hearing on this Tuesday night.
Let’s not give up! There is still a chance will can have a say in what the City approves.
Greg George
From: Katherine Duchen Smith
To: main@savecountryclubroad.groups.io
Cc: Chris Maslin-Cole; drsparkman61@yahoo.com; drummond.hrco@gmail.com; lorin@waterwiselandscapes.com;
mktsol@msn.com; Analene Carlisle; Andrea Mihajlov; Bret Olsson; Dale Leidheiser; David Beede; David Cismoski;
David Schwaab; Deanna Adams; Dianna French; Dick Easley; Don Homan; Ed Robert; Eric Sutherland; Francie
Scolley; Fred Zipp; Ginger Davila; Goanna Harms; Hunter Harms; Jim and Judy Moore; Jim Salisbury; Kathy
Mrocko; Les Kaplan; Linda Helm; Linda Rager; Longs Pond; Melinda Laituri; Michael Gordon; Morgan Bridger;
Nan Sollo; Patty Nichols; Paul Navarre; Quentin Rockwell; Rachel Hopper; Rachel Lee; Ray Cole; Rita Deike;
Roger Cox; Ronnie Owens; Save Country Club Road; Tasha Marchant; Ted Rossin; Ty Easley; Vicki Mayea;
Virginia Mohr-Callahan; Wendy Nero; City Clerk Office
Subject: Re: [Save Country Club Road] Montava PUD
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:23:51 PM
We will be there tonight as well.
One of our Council supporters told Bruce yesterday that the size of the meeting "turnout" is
what Council members will consider MOST important, so we urge you all to please try to
attend tonight's Council session!
Not sure we're receiving all the email correspondence either.
Thanks Greg,
Kathie
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 9:25 AM lvhurtado via Groups.Io <hurhas=yahoo.com@groups.io>
wrote:
Greg,
Thanks. We’ll be there.
Should also note that I don’t think I’m receiving only limited information from the Save
Country Club Road discussion group. Don’t know if others are having same problem.
Victor Hurtado & Margaret Haas
On Sunday, February 16, 2020, 3:58 PM, Greg George <gregcgeorge8@gmail.com> wrote:
There seems to be a misconception floating around that those of us who have concerns about the Montava PUD are
totally against it ever being approved. Many of us have made it perfectly clear that we think development of the
PUD would be an asset to northeast Fort Collins. We are however very concerned that the existing rural road
network is totally inadequate to accommodate the addition traffic generated by Montava.
The following is intended to further explain Condition #4 I’m recommending in my Position Paper sent out last
week.
My concern about traffic congestion is greatly compounded by the way the City administers its Adequate Public
Services Ordinance - Level of Service (LOS) standards for transportation. The common practice allows the Director
to grant exceptions to the fundamental stated purpose for the Adequate Public Services ordinance, which is “to
establish an ongoing mechanism which ensures that public facilities and services needed to support development are
available concurrently with the impacts of such development”.
The Director grants exceptions to compliance with the City's LOS for transportation and allows building permits to
be issued if he/she finds that the improvements necessary to meet the LOS standards for transportation are “not
reasonably related to and proportional to the impact of the development". Given the enormous scale and cost of the
improvements called for in the Montava Master Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to meet the City's LOS for
transportation, it is certain that the Director will make the finding stated above to allow the issuance of building
permits prior to the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for transportation being in place.
This process allows the City to start collecting street impact fees for new residential dwellings to help pay for street
improvements in the future. The problem being that it results in a considerable delay from when the traffic
impacts from a development are created and when the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS
for transportation are in place.
In the case of Montava, the massive scale and cost of the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for
transportation will result in an undetermined number of PUDs being approved prior to compliance with LOS. This
lag time will cause unbearable and unsafe traffic congestion on the existing rural street network in northeast Fort
Collins for who knows how long.
City traffic engineers have stated that they would rely on the existing street network, essentially N. Timberline Road
and E. Vine Drive, to accommodate traffic generated by Montava until the Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive
connection is in place. According to the TIS, the intersection of N. Timberline Road and E. Vine Drive is operating
at a LOS D, which is the City’s minimally acceptable LOS. According to City traffic engineers, the calculation of
LOS does not take into consideration additional vehicle delays resulting from the railroad crossing. Therefore,
relying on this as the route to access Fort Collins seems unrealistic, potential unsafe, and not at all convenient.
Given these circumstances, it would seem more professionally accurate and honest to determine that this intersection
does not meet the City’s LOS standard.
The only options to N. Timberline Road and E. Vine Drive are County Club Road and I-25. Which route will most
people take to go grocery shopping?
Condition #4, as stated in the Position Statement, is exactly what City Council asked City staff to come back with as
far as a condition providing some level of certainty as to when the street improvements necessary to meet the LOS
would be in place. All we are asking for is that each PDP comply with the stated purpose of the City’s
Adequate Public Service ordinance for transportation and meet the minimally acceptable LOS D, without the
Director granting an exception.
At first reading of the Montava PUD ordinances and against all odds, we were able to get two “no” votes and require
the public hearing to be continued to second reading. The main reason we were successful was due to the enormous
turnout and relevant comments made at the hearing. It just may be possible that some City Council members will
consider our recommended conditions as reasonable, particularly since the developer agreed to 3 of them at the first
public hearing. In addition, we are no longer requesting that no building permits to be issued until the
Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive connection is in-place. Now we are asking that future PDPs be required to
meet the stated purpose of the City’s Adequate Public Service Standards for transportation and meet the
City’s adopted Level of Service standards for transportation, without the Director granting an exception.
Hopefully this posting clarifies some of what’s in the Position Paper I sent out last week and provides ideas for
talking point you can present at the hearing on this Tuesday night.
Let’s not give up! There is still a chance will can have a say in what the City approves.
Greg George
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#247) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New
Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [kduchensmith@gmail.com]
_._,_._,_
From: Kevin Jablonski
To: City Leaders
Subject: Montava PUD hearing
Date: Monday, February 17, 2020 9:00:49 PM
Hello Mayor Troxell and City Council Members,
I am the Board President of Poudre Valley Community Farms (PVCF) and the Northern Colorado
Foodshed Project, two organizations with missions aimed at conserving farmland, protecting
farmers, and growing our local food economy. As I stated in my remarks at the first Montava PUD
hearing, and because I will not be able to attend the second reading this week, I would like to
express my support for your approval of the Planned Unit Development Overlay, and for the project
as a whole.
Specifically, I am writing to provide my opinion that the Montana PUD overlay will achieve “public
benefits significantly greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard
zone district” in regard to inclusion of a working farm on the land. This “diversification” is indeed an
“innovation in development”, and holds the potential to serve as a model for the region and the
nation. We at PVCF, along with Native Hill Farm, have worked with the developer from the very
beginning to ensure that the 40-acre vegetable farm on site will not be simply tacked on for
marketing purposes (as we have seen elsewhere) but instead an integral part of the development,
on the best soil with sufficient water. Max Moss has not only welcomed our input, but also
continually supported the development of the farm in every conceivable way, including seeking out
numerous examples of ag-centered development from across the country to learn what works, and
what does not. He has demonstrated patience, perseverance, and integrity throughout, and has also
thrown himself into other local food efforts as his passion for the subject has grown.
In addition to the farm (which will be supported, in part, through HOA fees that every home will pay-
an innovation in itself), we are working with Max on plans for an education, meeting, and event
center adjacent to the farm, where PVCF will host community workshops, events, and dinners. This
promises to create significant community benefits—far beyond what could be expected on a typical
development. Other planned elements, such as a potential butcher shop and food cooperative, also
promise to help grow local food. As the Foodshed Project points out, in 2017, 1.5% of Larimer
County agricultural products were sold in-county. In comparable counties across the country, this
statistic is typically in the range of 10-20%. We have room to grow, to the benefit of many, and the
Montava development can play a big role in that.
I will leave it there, but know that there are many other potential benefits to local agriculture of
Montava, both in itself and as a model. I express my full support for the project, and would welcome
the opportunity to discuss any of this further if that would be of use.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kevin Jablonski
Poudre Valley Community Farms
Northern Colorado Foodshed Project
From: Kim Hoke
To: City Leaders
Subject: strong support for Montava
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:42:28 PM
Dear city council,
I’d just like to express my strong support for the approval of the Montava PUD in advance of tonight’s meeting. I
first found out about Montava through Native Hill Farm, and was convinced by Max’s interactions with Nic and
Katie that he was truly dedicated to the success of this urban farm - Max selected the best land for the farm based on
intense study and conversations, and he’s been renting the land from Budweiser so Native Hill can start preparing
the soil for future planting.
Attending planning & zoning board meetings and the recent city council meeting made me even more convinced
that everything about the Montava plans aligns with my values, not just the farm. Instead of discussing traffic on a
county road tonight (which is terrible but unrelated to the PUD), maybe we should discuss whether the city should
stop all development other than Montava until other developers similarly show dedication to our values such as
energy efficiency and social justice. I expect Montava to be an example not just for Ft Collins development but on a
national scale. Max and Montava have put forth innovative and thoughtful solutions to current and future challenges,
and I believe Ft Collins will be very proud of this unique development.
Please continue to support Montava — I currently live in Old Town, and when I can no longer climb the stairs in my
house, I hope to move to a small cottage in Montava where I can walk to stores and restaurants.
-Kim Hoke
619 West Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
From: lvhurtado
To: main@savecountryclubroad.groups.io; Chris Maslin-Cole; drsparkman61@yahoo.com;
drummond.hrco@gmail.com; lorin@waterwiselandscapes.com; mktsol@msn.com; Analene Carlisle; Andrea
Mihajlov; Bret Olsson; Dale Leidheiser; David Beede; David Cismoski; David Schwaab; Deanna Adams; Dianna
French; Dick Easley; Don Homan; Ed Robert; Eric Sutherland; Francie Scolley; Fred Zipp; Ginger Davila; Goanna
Harms; Hunter Harms; Jim and Judy Moore; Jim Salisbury; Kathy Mrocko; Les Kaplan; Linda Helm; Linda Rager;
Longs Pond; Melinda Laituri; Michael Gordon; Morgan Bridger; Nan Sollo; Patty Nichols; Paul Navarre; Quentin
Rockwell; Rachel Hopper; Rachel Lee; Ray Cole; Rita Deike; Roger Cox; Ronnie Owens; Save Country Club Road;
Tasha Marchant; Ted Rossin; Ty Easley; Vicki Mayea; Virginia Mohr-Callahan; Wendy Nero; City Clerk Office
Subject: Re: [Save Country Club Road] Montava PUD
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:50:56 AM
Greg,
Thanks. We’ll be there.
Should also note that I don’t think I’m receiving only limited information from the Save
Country Club Road discussion group. Don’t know if others are having same problem.
Victor Hurtado & Margaret Haas
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Sunday, February 16, 2020, 3:58 PM, Greg George <gregcgeorge8@gmail.com> wrote:
There seems to be a misconception floating around that those of us who have concerns about the Montava PUD are
totally against it ever being approved. Many of us have made it perfectly clear that we think development of the PUD
would be an asset to northeast Fort Collins. We are however very concerned that the existing rural road network is
totally inadequate to accommodate the addition traffic generated by Montava.
The following is intended to further explain Condition #4 I’m recommending in my Position Paper sent out last week.
My concern about traffic congestion is greatly compounded by the way the City administers its Adequate Public
Services Ordinance - Level of Service (LOS) standards for transportation. The common practice allows the Director to
grant exceptions to the fundamental stated purpose for the Adequate Public Services ordinance, which is “to establish
an ongoing mechanism which ensures that public facilities and services needed to support development are available
concurrently with the impacts of such development”.
The Director grants exceptions to compliance with the City's LOS for transportation and allows building permits to be
issued if he/she finds that the improvements necessary to meet the LOS standards for transportation are “not reasonably
related to and proportional to the impact of the development". Given the enormous scale and cost of the improvements
called for in the Montava Master Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to meet the City's LOS for transportation, it is certain that
the Director will make the finding stated above to allow the issuance of building permits prior to the street
improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for transportation being in place.
This process allows the City to start collecting street impact fees for new residential dwellings to help pay for street
improvements in the future. The problem being that it results in a considerable delay from when the traffic impacts
from a development are created and when the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for
transportation are in place.
In the case of Montava, the massive scale and cost of the street improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS for
transportation will result in an undetermined number of PUDs being approved prior to compliance with LOS. This lag
time will cause unbearable and unsafe traffic congestion on the existing rural street network in northeast Fort Collins
for who knows how long.
City traffic engineers have stated that they would rely on the existing street network, essentially N. Timberline Road
and E. Vine Drive, to accommodate traffic generated by Montava until the Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive connection
is in place. According to the TIS, the intersection of N. Timberline Road and E. Vine Drive is operating at a LOS D,
which is the City’s minimally acceptable LOS. According to City traffic engineers, the calculation of LOS does not
take into consideration additional vehicle delays resulting from the railroad crossing. Therefore, relying on this as the
route to access Fort Collins seems unrealistic, potential unsafe, and not at all convenient. Given these circumstances, it
would seem more professionally accurate and honest to determine that this intersection does not meet the City’s LOS
standard.
The only options to N. Timberline Road and E. Vine Drive are County Club Road and I-25. Which route will most
people take to go grocery shopping?
Condition #4, as stated in the Position Statement, is exactly what City Council asked City staff to come back with as far
as a condition providing some level of certainty as to when the street improvements necessary to meet the LOS would
be in place. All we are asking for is that each PDP comply with the stated purpose of the City’s Adequate Public
Service ordinance for transportation and meet the minimally acceptable LOS D, without the Director granting
an exception.
At first reading of the Montava PUD ordinances and against all odds, we were able to get two “no” votes and require
the public hearing to be continued to second reading. The main reason we were successful was due to the enormous
turnout and relevant comments made at the hearing. It just may be possible that some City Council members will
consider our recommended conditions as reasonable, particularly since the developer agreed to 3 of them at the first
public hearing. In addition, we are no longer requesting that no building permits to be issued until the
Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive connection is in-place. Now we are asking that future PDPs be required to
meet the stated purpose of the City’s Adequate Public Service Standards for transportation and meet the City’s
adopted Level of Service standards for transportation, without the Director granting an exception.
Hopefully this posting clarifies some of what’s in the Position Paper I sent out last week and provides ideas for talking
point you can present at the hearing on this Tuesday night.
Let’s not give up! There is still a chance will can have a say in what the City approves.
Greg George
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#246) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic
| New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [hurhas@yahoo.com]
_._,_._,_
From: Nic Koontz
To: City Leaders
Subject: in support of Montava
Date: Monday, February 17, 2020 3:47:42 PM
City Council and FC city leaders,
I am writing to again express my full support of the Montava project. As a farm we have been
working closely with Max and his team since 2017 in order to do this agri urban aspect of the
development correctly from the get go, no bucking horse nonsense here. We would not be
involved in the project were there not a genuine commitment from Max and his team to do
this right from the get go and have it be an example others can learn from as well as be an
asset for the ft collins community as a whole. We are excited to get growing out at the
montava farm for all of Ft Collins.
This full on commitment is across the whole development process and is an exciting
opportunity for the city to do something(among many things the city already does) that is
groundbreaking and nationally recognized. This doesn't mention the net zero energy aspects,
non potable water, thoughtful transportation, affordable housing, mixed income and uses , and
quality construction to name a few. I am ready to move in and I know many of our friends are
as well!
To us it is a question of not IF development will happen but HOW it will and this seems to be
the chance to really go for the gold in every aspect that the city wants and to learn and teach
and create a new example of how land can be developed to meet many goals.
I do acknowledge the many issues/concerns broader development has brought to northern
colorado, ft collins, and NE fort collins. I think the only way to solve these issues is to look at
them straight on and solve collaboratively and creatively, not put our heads in the sand like
development won't happen or isn't needed.
Many thanks,
Nic Koontz
209 Columbine Ct ft collins, co 80521
-Co-owner, farmer
Native Hill Farm
www.nativehillfarm.com
c: 970.217.8964
fresh. local. naturally grown produce. cultivating community
From: Seth Jansen
To: City Leaders
Subject: Montava is the right way to grow
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:19:06 PM
Dear City Leaders:
I grew up riding my bike on the country roads north of Fort Collins. Douglas Road, CR
11/Turnberry, Country Club, and Gregory were a long way to go from my home on Terry
Lake Road on my singlespeed BMX bike but I enjoyed the exploration and my parents
appreciated the freedom it afforded me. Two weeks ago, my first child was born. If we were
still living in my childhood home, I wouldn't even consider allowing him to explore those
same roads as a ten year old alone on a bike. The roads haven't changed much, the shoulders
are still narrow and the cars go fast, but there are SOOO many more cars. With this nostalgic
callback to the quieter days of 30 years ago, you might think this was a letter in opposition to
Montava and the additional traffic it will bring. On the contrary, I think a long-term,
master-planned development like Montava is the only way to avoid the cumulative
negative impacts of development that plague north/northeast Fort Collins today.
Since those early days on my BMX bike, north Fort Collins has grown incrementally, house-
by-house, year-by-year. But there have been very few improvements in infrastructure to
support those homes and the traffic they bring and little in the way of services to support these
new residents and give them an option other than driving into town. A development on the
scale of Montava offers a unique chance to look forward 30 years with foresight and to plan
for the kind of infrastructure improvements that our region needs. Montava also brings a
critical mass of development to the area that will allow for planned amenities like trail
connectivity, the working farm, and enough residential mass to attract commercial services to
the area so residents don't have to drive for basic needs. Montava also has the scale to offer a
meaningful amount of affordable housing which seems to have been difficult to attain in
smaller developments.
The development will come one way or another, and the number of housing units may not be
that different whether it comes incrementally in separate developments or incrementally under
Montava's plan. But the quality of the development and the quality-of-life for this quadrant of
the community will be vastly improved if this is done within a master plan like what Montava
is proposing.
I've worked with a lot of developers over the years, mostly as a sustainability consultant. As
the former President and Executive Director of Poudre Valley Community Farms, I've worked
extensively with Max Moss and the Montava team to lay the groundwork for the farm at
Montava. I've come to see Max less as a developer and more as a community builder. I think
it is a rare opportunity to have the chance to build community at this scale...instead of just
building houses.
I encourage City Leaders to continue their support at this second reading for Montava at
Council tonight. And to continue to support the future phases of the development that come
before Council as long as they remain true to the vision of a planned community that results in
a better outcome than the incremental development I've observed during my time here.
With infrastructure improvements, bike lanes, and bike trails that connect northeast Fort
Collins to the rest of the City's wonderful bike system, there may be another day in the future
when a ten year old can explore northeast Fort Collins by bike. But I'm convinced that will
only happen if we plan for it...and work with a partner that can bring community building at a
scale that justifies all the work that needs to be done.
Sincerely,
Seth Jansen
From: Todd Wolden
To: Eric Sutherland
Cc: City Leaders
Subject: Re: Significant legal problems with Montava PUD ordinance.
Date: Monday, February 17, 2020 9:33:39 PM
Well if you have any suggestions on what to do about this please let me/us know because
whatever happens will have zero effect if we don't stand together and organize... it has been
my experience in FoCo that the politicians we elected do not give a damn about resident
complaints once they become fixated on a project they ram it through. I don't expect they will
get this right when the city government can not successfully get the police department to quit
violating citizens rights and costing the city millions per year in legal fees and settlement
payouts...most recently last week to the tune of $150k plus undisclosed legal fees.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 9:14 PM Eric Sutherland <sutherix@yahoo.com> wrote:
For those of you who find yourself on the BCC list of this email, (there are 130 of
you and I did not get 100%), you are getting this email because I scoured the public
record emails of Council and the Agenda Item Summaries looking for people who
were concerned about the Montava PUD. My apologies for the broadcast nature of
this message.
There are significant legal problems with the Montava PUD Ordinance and related
legislation. It is probably more accurate to say that no one at City Hall really had a
good idea what they were putting together and the result is laden with justiciable
deficiencies. Of course, the real problem is that approval of the Montava PUD
represents horrible public policy in the areas of land use planning and water. Max
Moss' "vision" thing is nothing more than a variation of drive-'til-you-qualify with a
straw stuck into the Fort Collins Utilities municipal water supply.
Perhaps the easiest way to undersand the legal problems with the Ordinance is to
note that the language in the Ordinance changed significantly between first and
second readings. (Of course, one has to sort through about one thousand pages of
material to find the first and second versions of the Ordinance.) Such a dramatic
change to the purpose of the Ordinance is not permitted by Article II section 6 of the
Fort Collins City Charter, which states:
All legislative enactments .... shall be by ordinance, which shall not be so
altered on the final passage as to change the original purpose. (Article II
section 6 of the Fort Colins City Charter.)
So, Council would be violating the provisions of our Charter by passing what has
been authored by the City Attorney for second reading.
Why is this happening? To beter understand that, one can look at the email
exchange I had with City Attorney Carrie Daggett in response to a request for
inspection of public records that I made looking for the standards that the Montava
PUD is required to comply with in order to be lawfully approved by Council. See
the attached .pdf file, emails Reqest for Public Inspection. Here, the city attorney
says that the actual standards that must be met may not be disclosed because
simply identifying what Council is supposed be basing their decision on requires
'legal conclusions' and she will not be sharing those.
This is supposed to be a quasi-judicial decision folks. But the city attorney couldn't
tell us ... or Council ... what standards needed to be met in order to approve the
Montava PUD. Quasi-judicial means laws not women or men. Quasi-judicial
means that we have, as a community, decided that the determination of what gets
developed in our community and how is established by written standards that carry
the weight of law ... not the preference of whoever the voters of Fort Collins have
put to Council.
Now just imagine, how in the world did Council apply the facts of the Montava PUD
application to the law ... if no one knew what the law was and the law was
scheduled to be changed by resolutions that were yet to be considered? It is truly
unnerving to think that our city government operates this way. Regretably, this sort
of thing is happening with astonishing frequency these days.
As a consequence of the issues raised in the attached email and a couple others,
City Hall decided it better do some razzle-dazzle fix-up of the PUD Ordinance
language and also introduce an entirely new ordinance, Ordinance 040 2020, on
the consent agenda ... all to account for the legal shortcomings of the PUD
Ordinance as approved on first reading in a marathon, 7 hour, special meeting of
Council on January 14th.
Of course, by so doing, Council is now going to consider an Ordinance with an
entirely different purpose than it approved on first reading and this is a violation of
the City Charter. I have asked Council not to violate the City Charter, but I would
bet anyone $100 that they will do it anyway. See the attached .pdf file emails Can
you please just follow the Charter. In this email thread, I have included an excerpt
of what Max Moss wrote to me when I attempted to discuss the legal deficiencies of
his application and the process with him. (He wasn't interested.)
This is certainly not the only legal deficiency. There was a notice failure that
renders the entire process invalid. The Montava PUD does not compy with
important provisions of the Land Use Code. Compliance with City Plan ... and here
one has to guess what version of Cty Plan is applicable, 2011 or 2019, ... is also
insufficient for approval.
WATER ISSUES
The vast majority of you wrote to Council regarding concerns about water. On this
issue, I am terrified that no one in city hall or the community seems to realize an
important legal reality:
Fort Collins Utility's plans for water supplies have been crafted without
consideration of the legally enforceable responsibility the city has to
provide fresh water to any development that holds entitlements. An owner
of property in ELCO's water district may petition the district court to be
excluded from ELCO into the municpality's water service territory. Once
that is accomplished, the City's responsibility to provide potable water to
the property lies in mandamus in the City Charter.
ELCO has no water to sell a development like Montava. A developer must bring
water shares to ELCO in order to get water taps. There is no water available in the
quantities needed by Montava to be purchased, and even if there were, it would be
outrageously expensive.
Consequently, HF2M is not 'asking' to be served by the Fort Collins Utilities. He is
asking for entitlements that will ultimately put him on an equal footing for water taps
with any other development in the city limits.
No one in these United States puts out over a $1 million to secure entitlements
without a damn good idea where the water to serve the development will come
from. In this case, it will come from reserve water supplies that the City of Fort
Collins has put together over the past 70 years. I do not believe that anyone on
Council, even Ross Cunniff, understands this ... or the fact that approving the
Montave PUD may have the effect of nullifying the last 20 years of water planning
that the city has done.
Why is it that our City Government is intent on pursuing such miserable public
policy? I don't know. It does seem that, with only one or maybe two exceptions,
every 'city leader' is intent on eroding our quality of life and future ... and they do not
mind violating the law to do it.
Honestly, I think we are all screwed. The laws that have been enacted to protect
our community and quality of life are systematically disregarded by city officials.
The values of kindness and fair play that I find everywhere I go in Fort Collins just
aren't present when the city administration starts marching lock step toward
something like approval of the Montava PUD application. It really is a rotten
environment and we will all be made to pay a price for it.
Eric Sutherland