[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6102835,"mediaKeyId","2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef","parentId",2803213,"title","Loveland urges FAA to restore radar at Northern Colorado Regional Airport; council weighs traditional tower","audioSeconds",1203,"startMs",12293000,"endMs",13496000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef&start=12293&end=13496","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef/thumbnail_12293000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6102835/Loveland-City/Larimer-County/Colorado/Loveland-urges-FAA-to-restore-radar-at-Northern-Colorado-Regional-Airport-council-weighs-traditional-tower","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102835-87ba2f40dfdd4b0f7dcfb0cb31f64248/orig.mp4?Expires=1771121257&Signature=LmYaoRj7OPwFTdY7YKGV6BsDj94MNoak3IOJZuYov4jzSeqAHV~SG6kT4mC5Rp8inAn8EkaHab2p2DyRq5s9VZNmQSRdJw0hBMnaL3fK1MT1XI8eouI19eUE-lu~ZLVQgChwFDvaovpinRzWdiQqLesV6-i7LuWgJ0SxDfSJCS7YDLGQdCMeuy~9il8UGo1Q8~CK1-BqtEckBPakeLd7TbTSVcspSyOkHVEZQ9KUvREQk4xLz4dj~Mmpb8ACwL4sOGqcGGNpnekLMvr6qCR2aeHlKNT6zdNc-V4yRARdEXIOmp6znHvbq0KgIZkWzNsf8Zt5aaLhwMfselmneexR3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Loveland CO","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","Loveland City Council received a briefing on operational safety and control‑tower options at the Northern Colorado Regional Airport and indicated support for staff outreach to the Federal Aviation Administration and the city’s congressional delegation.

Airport Director John Kenny described the airport’s current arrangement: the facility operates with a mobile (temporary) control tower cab and has participated in a virtual (remote) tower program run by the FAA but the virtual system’s vendor transition removed radar capability used for verification. Kenny told council the airport is \"the only control tower in the state\" that lacks radar in the tower cab and that the mix of aircraft types and approach speeds at the field increases the operational complexity and the value of radar for sequencing and separation.

Kenny said two paths exist: participate in the FAA’s virtual‑tower program (which has vendor and certification timelines) or pursue a conventional sticks‑and‑bricks control tower. He summarized cost differences presented by FAA staff: the virtual‑tower path would require an approximate $9 million installation cost and about $57,000 per month in ongoing charges; a traditional 65‑foot tower has an estimated capital cost of roughly $17 million but the FAA typically funds controllers and the long‑term operating cost (after initial capital) would be lower. Staff said the virtual tower certification and installation timeline likely places a live virtual tower two years or more in the future; FAA leadership recently opened additional opportunities to seek funding for traditional towers.

Councilors, staff and the city attorney discussed government liability and the FAA’s operational role in tower and airspace decisions. The city attorney summarized applicable legal principles in public session and said an executive session was not necessary for the briefing. No formal council action was taken; councilors directed staff to continue advocacy with FAA leadership and the congressional delegation and to report back on options and timing.

Why it matters: Radar and tower type are directly relevant to the airport’s safety, commercial service potential and long‑term capital planning. Restoring radar or funding a conventional tower would affect capital budgets, federal grants and service capacity at the regional airport.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Loveland City Council Meeting March 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Airport director told council that the airport is the only staffed control tower in Colorado without radar; staff asked council to back outreach to the FAA and congressional delegation to restore radar or pursue a traditional control tower.","taxTitle","Loveland City, Larimer County, Colorado","taxId",4546,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6102839,"Residents press council on homelessness and shelter siting; opinions clash over First Christian Church site",3650,880000,4530000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef&start=880&end=4530","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef/thumbnail_880000.jpg","/articles/6102839/Loveland-City/Larimer-County/Colorado/Residents-press-council-on-homelessness-and-shelter-siting-opinions-clash-over-First-Christian-Church-site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102839-9d0dfe2c4b471d10fb2118cbcc1e4def/orig.mp4?Expires=1771121257&Signature=PTA5V1bdqMyq2OeO~Tj7hXam8~qUTTL9b8Sy0Lu9LzXTmete~nkf971TPj3FnoyGxqSGORwImorACQ8Ismnih7tzjcZjvMDvdK8G7xmCg-UlTq8XqgKUlW9cIAk~YXhC-dGGYtWDa4O2Husd7cE-gWB8XLnv68GKqUI616q2msqxxDnUnxmQ0oLoPt2JdyoO-79FovtiS3n~jUPFm2eGQj4K~O4HSA4dlwYBscmWpk8utGN97dYZUHHLttmjGX~j0EE5SKV49WJJujj1aneABhZ71ss1XZRZ-vz2bIq790H58ihg5~VwYzrQHx4MgRHZY24Cei27gQhrOeAUVho5KA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A large group of Loveland residents used the public‑comment period to press the council on homelessness, shelter siting and the Loveland Resource Center (LRC). Speakers included residents who supported a shelter at First Christian Church and others who objected to that or other proposed sites, citing public‑safety, neighborhood impacts and insufficient oversight.

Several speakers asked the city to participate more actively in regional planning and to work with Homeward Alliance and other partners. Tricia Sellers said Loveland \"is part of the region, so Loveland needs to participate in helping\" and asked council to invite regional partners to revisit plans that previous committees were not allowed to share.

Supporters of a shelter cited data and research about sheltered people’s employment and health needs. Chuck Hubbard, speaking on behalf of Together Colorado, Larimer County, cited a working paper from researchers at the University of Chicago on characteristics of sheltered and unsheltered people and argued that a downtown corridor site offers access to employment and services.

Opponents raised concerns about public safety and process. Connie Luke said the city currently lacks controls and oversight for shelter operations and argued that a PUD granted right of use limits the public’s ability to provide input; she urged a moratorium and creation of formal review requirements before authorizing 24/7 facilities. Lenny Figue and others argued a Homeward Alliance site review would be biased by parties with financial interest and cited police contact counts and perceived negative downtown impacts.

Other comments urged attention to funding and transparency. Tricia Sellers and others asked the council to solicit Homeward Alliance and regional partners to ensure Loveland’s concerns and ideas are integrated into regional plans. Several speakers asked the city to provide fuller impact studies, and some requested that the council pause decisions until robust oversight, funding assurances and code tools are in place.

No formal action was taken during the public‑comment period. Councilors asked clarifying questions and staff said regional coordination and oversight options could be explored in subsequent agenda items or working groups.

Why it matters: Shelter location, oversight standards and funding affect neighborhoods, public safety and service delivery; the debate at public comment underscores divided community opinion and a demand for clearer processes and better interjurisdictional coordination.","Dozens of residents used the public‑comment period to urge the council to act on homelessness; speakers were sharply divided over a proposed shelter site at First Christian Church and the city's role in regional solutions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6102843,"Council approves technology fee to fund new permitting system; exemption attempt for single‑family permits fails",2470,8086000,10556000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef&start=8086&end=10556","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef/thumbnail_8086000.jpg","/articles/6102843/Loveland-City/Larimer-County/Colorado/Council-approves-technology-fee-to-fund-new-permitting-system-exemption-attempt-for-singlefamily-permits-fails","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102843-028e0f6a06a3da5e3c180791cab22218/orig.mp4?Expires=1771121257&Signature=ZZ1Y1G170zecvf~9MlcnmsPFbOpjbwYc3kh4EEKhKY28KmWbyKrCtrSg~WdqgGKhZnxz9J70F-E7Nu4I0iOgPwVG-D5ezsWvTPJ7FSAsWhUzBP-pNZeNboaRcbnFV5a4~fAGUvKyi49rYRf-n5HzWrwf6zlmBtTL9BpVYUvR~9cJuUc3YUtRmIG1-3PhuTA2NB935dD2kL69Ti-fYlzJi5TAWpncF3wW9Lw7CAPTdWea097z0-MuTI5-DitNgi2418kcE0zZBwU944fy-Mcr3sTsfWYVH3Uq3a1BZIOp44XBrPGsA6TeeO3Sof-DhbeSD1dSo~y8D6utYgoqO7R2yQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Loveland City Council voted to adopt a new technology fee to fund and operate a replacement permitting and planning system, approving Resolution R-21-2025 after more than an hour of discussion and public comment.

The technology fee will be calculated as 10 percent of building permit and plan‑check fees and 5 percent of planning process application fees; staff said the percentage is tied to the valuation‑based fee structure for building permits so larger projects contribute more to the ongoing operating cost. IT and Development Services staff told council the city has budgeted capital funds to purchase a modern hosted software‑as‑a‑service permitting platform, but annual subscription and support costs are expected to run between roughly $220,000 and $270,000 per year. The city currently pays about $58,000 annually to maintain the legacy system. Staff estimated implementation will take 12–18 months and emphasized the need for an additional analyst position to avoid a single‑person support risk.

Dan Calderon (Information Technology) and Bob Paulson (Development Services) described outreach to the construction community, Planning Commission, and the Construction Advisory Board; contractors who spoke at a city forum and in the council meeting told staff the new system would save time and reduce in‑office transactions. Calderon said, \"The new system will significantly enhance our service delivery,\" and noted examples from other jurisdictions where online permitting reduced in‑person counter time and sped plan issuance.

Council debated fee design and equity. Councilor Olsen offered an amendment to exempt individual single‑family homeowner permits; that amendment failed on roll call, 1 yes (Olsen) to 8 no. Opponents of the exemption said even small permits benefit from digital services and that capital and operating costs must be covered by users of the permitting system rather than general revenue.

Actions: Councilor Olsen moved adoption of Resolution R-21-2025; a second was recorded. The resolution passed by roll call, 8 yes to 1 no (Councilor Olsen voted no). Recorded yes votes: Kovach; Foley; McFaul; Sampson; Swanti; Mallow; Marsh; Black. No: Olsen.

The city will apply the technology fee administratively to applicable permits. Staff will monitor revenue collection and return to council if the fee requires adjustment. Implementation steps include finalizing the vendor contract, completing data migration and configuration, and hiring or allocating the recommended analyst position to support the system.

Why it matters: The fee pays for a multi‑year technology upgrade intended to improve speed and transparency of permitting and planning services; it shifts a portion of ongoing operational cost to users of the development review system rather than the general fund.","Council adopted Resolution R-21-2025 to add a technology fee (10% of building and plan‑check fees; 5% for planning application fees) to fund a replacement permitting, plan review and code‑compliance system. An amendment to exempt single‑family permits failed 8‑1.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6102848,"Loveland council approves first-reading UDC changes to allow accessory dwelling units",2032,6026000,8058000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef&start=6026&end=8058","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803213-4fe1fd5205eeb8c39ffd6d1e397e1eef/thumbnail_6026000.jpg","/articles/6102848/Loveland-City/Larimer-County/Colorado/Loveland-council-approves-first-reading-UDC-changes-to-allow-accessory-dwelling-units","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102848-e9d57ee82649323d1c9b19c96f6efd81/orig.mp4?Expires=1771121257&Signature=U2TOq8lvflINyGfpQZ5w7Swgxh9Wu7ATslTmIXcMFNTZrdccqqct9EW5d3IUX-gBYMyrJ0Jd8euWQQ4qWl0ULLKHoFe8XFJrwbSjYQGVqEWR07pGQuaOOWamL2AmFKYpuD3PFyduChMHb364Vfv-xavXydhHCa-84EAsx9R7hc8tCaGKWIsloYxYucFLQPSnJK25gAyHco16frQgku1D0C0Fgr5czNQcBVLoDNafNkz8sbSBQPVAOsal0qJ5InELajeoun4gvgFDUlX-LiHV0bTt6KFczOxl1FKIqinHbV4UQDtwcn-NVh5Bc1awFfgaNXGNS7knw5X0Votn70Ey5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Loveland City Council on first reading approved an ordinance to remove occupancy limits and reduce restrictions on accessory dwelling units, bringing the city code into alignment with recently enacted state legislation.

The ordinance (No. 67-62) amends portions of Title 18, the Unified Development Code (UDC), to eliminate local limits on unrelated occupants and to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as an administratively permitted use on single‑family detached lots. Carrie Burchette, Strategic Planning, told the council the changes \"align our Unified Development Code with recent state‑approved legislation,\" specifically House Bill 24-1007 (residential occupancy limits) and House Bill 24-1152 (ADU provisions).

Under the amendments approved on first reading, the city will remove its existing occupancy standards and the associated \"boarding house\" land‑use category. ADUs will be permitted without neighborhood meetings or Planning Commission approvals; design compatibility standards that would treat ADUs differently than principal houses were removed to match the state law. The draft also adds a staff‑recommended option allowing larger accessory units on larger lots so a homeowner may choose the standard 900 sq. ft. ADU or an ADU sized up to roughly 50% of the principal house, subject to setbacks, coverage limits and required fees. Detached ADUs would follow state minimum setbacks (five feet side and rear).

Planning Commission reviewed the proposal in February and recommended approval 7‑0. Burchette said the code changes are intended to be applied citywide, including in existing and new planned unit developments.

Council discussion focused largely on terminology. Some council members urged replacing the term \"family\" in the code with neutral language such as \"single‑dwelling\" or \"dwelling unit.\" Staff and members of the construction community cautioned that the word \"family\" appears throughout building and fire codes used by contractors and inspectors and warned that changing it could create confusion across multiple technical documents. Council debated an amendment to the ordinance to replace the word but that amendment failed; the council moved forward with the ordinance as drafted.

Action and votes: Councilor Olsen moved to approve Ordinance No. 67-62 on first reading; a second was made (not specified in the record). The motion passed by roll call, 9 yes, 0 no. Recorded yes votes: Foley; Samson; Kovach; Swanti; Olsen; Marsh; Mallow; McFaul; Black. No votes were recorded.

Why it matters: The changes remove a local occupancy standard and expand opportunities for homeowners to add rental or family housing on existing lots, a policy move intended to increase housing options in Loveland. Second reading and final adoption are scheduled at the next council meeting.","City council voted 9-0 on first reading to amend the Unified Development Code to remove occupancy limits and loosen restrictions on accessory dwelling units, aligning local rules with two recent state bills.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Loveland urges FAA to restore radar at Northern Colorado Regional Airport; council weighs traditional tower

Residents press council on homelessness and shelter siting; opinions clash over First Christian Church site

Council approves technology fee to fund new permitting system; exemption attempt for single‑family permits fails

Loveland council approves first-reading UDC changes to allow accessory dwelling units