HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-112-12/17/2002-MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEA RESOLUTION 2002-112
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
THE APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
RELATING TO THE 616 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS,on September 30,2002,the City's Administrative Hearing Officer(the"Hearing
Officer") approved the 616 South College Avenue Project Development Plan (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002, a Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision was
filed with the City Clerk by Judith A. and Grant W. Reid, (the "Appellants"), and an Amended
Notice of Appeal was filed by the Appellants with the City Clerk on October 24, 2002 (the
"Amended Notice of Appeal"); and
WHEREAS,on November 19,2002,the City Council,after notice given in accordance with
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal, reviewed the record on
appeal, heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties in interest and, after discussion,
upheld the decision of the Hearing Officer; and
WHEREAS,City Code Section 2-56(e)provides that no later than the date of its next regular
meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in
support of its decision on the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that, pursuant to City Code Section 2-56(e), the Council hereby makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions:
1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellant's Amended Notice of
Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code.
2. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by substantially
ignoring her previously established rules of procedure or by considering
evidence relevant to her findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading or by failing to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
Appellants.
3. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply the relevant
provisions of the Code, and specifically Sections 3.4.7(E), 3.5.1(A), (B), and
(E)(1) and 3.5.3(D)(1) in approving the project with conditions.
4. That, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Hearing Officer approving the
project is hereby upheld.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 17th day of December,
A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
'40LAAL -'� buz
City Clerk
2