HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - PDP - PDP110018 - REPORTS - CITY COUNCILNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-56(e) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
1. That the Recording Allegation, as stated in the Sutherland Notice of Appeal,
conforms to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code;
2. That, for the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Officer did not follow previously
established rules of procedure, and as a result, impaired the ability of the parties -in -
interest t6 seek Council review of the Decision, and therefore failed to conduct a fair
hearing;
3. That, in light of the foregoing, the June 5, 2012, decision of the Hearing
Officer approving the PDP is hereby overturned and remanded for a new hearing and
decision.
4. That, in light of the foregoing, all remaining allegations of the Sutherland
Appeal, and the Lawton-Nitzel Appeal are now moot, and, accordingly, the Council
will take no further action on them.
5. That, because no action will be taken, on the Lawton-Nitzel Appeal, the
appeal fee paid in connection with the Lawton-Nitzel Appeal shall be refunded in
full.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
24th day of July A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2012-064
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING TWO APPEALS OF THE
JUNE 5, 2012, ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN HEIGHTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP # 110018)
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2012, the City's Administrative Hearing Officer, Richard V. Lopez,
issued a written decision (the "Decision") approving the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan
(PDP # 110018) (the "PDP") after an administrative hearing conducted on May 21, 2012 (the
"Hearing"); and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2012, Eric Sutherland ("Sutherland") filed a Notice of Appeal of
said Decision in the Office of the City Clerk and Tom Lawton and Lori Nitzel ("Lawton-Nitzel")
together filed a Notice of Appeal of said Decision in the Office of the City Clerk, each alleging that
the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing and that the Hearing Officer improperly
interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Land Use Code in approving the PDP; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2012, Sutherland and Lawton-Nitzel each filed an Amended Notice
of Appeal regarding the Decision (respectively, the "Sutherland Appeal' and the "Lawton-Nitzel
Appeal"); and
WHEREAS, the Sutherland Appeal contains, among other allegations, the allegation under
subparagraph 2-48(b)(2) of the City Code that the failure to record the Hearing resulted in a failure
to follow previously established rules of procedure and therefore constitutes a failure to conduct a
fair hearing (the "Recording Allegation"); and
WHEREAS, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the
City Code, the City Council has considered said allegation on appeal, reviewed the aspects of the
record related to the Recording Allegation, heard related presentations by parties in interest to the
appeal, and, discussed the Recording Allegation and its relationship to the remaining issues raised
in the Sutherland Appeal and the Lawton-Nitzel Appeal; and
WHEREAS, under City Code Section 2-57(f), the City Council must remand a matter for
rehearing if it finds that the appellant was denied a fair hearing; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council has determined that the failure to
record the Hearing did result in a failure to follow previously established procedures and in this
instance has resulted in a failure to conduct a fair hearing, as more specifically described below; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-56(e) provides that no later than the date of its next regular
meeting after the hearing on an appeal, the City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact
in support of its decisions on the appeal.