Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/26/2004 - DISCUSSION REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF THE C DATE: October 26, 2004 STUDY SESSION ITEM STAFF: Tom Vosburg FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION The purpose of this study session is to discuss the appropriate role of the City's various policy advisory boards in the development review process, and to consider alternative administrative models for supporting that role. While this question has been framed as a general discussion applicable to most of the City's advisory boards,it is currently most applicable to the Natural Resources Advisory Board(NRAB). The NRAB has expressed interest in having the scope of its duties expanded to include the ability to comment on development review projects. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Should the role of the City's various policy advisory boards be expanded to include the ability to comment on development review projects? 2. If yes, which option for an administrative model should be used to support the boards involvement in the development review process? BACKGROUND Council directed staff to develop and bring forward for consideration measures that would allow the City's various policy advisory boards to participate in the development review process by commenting on projects and advising the decision maker (the Planning and Zoning Board or the Hearing Officer)regarding the approval of the project. Currently,the scope of official duties of the City's various boards are each separately defined in the City Code sections that establish each board. If aboard acts within the scope of its official duties, individual board members are protected by the City against legal actions. However, if boards act outside the scope of their official duties, individual boardmembers are not protected by the City against any legal actions that may arise from their actions. If Council desires policy advisory boards to have a role in the development review process,then the appropriate sections of the City Code that define the scope of duties for each appropriate board should be modified to include those duties. hi addition to this change to the board's charter, an appropriate administrative model needs to be adopted by the City to clearly define any changes to the review process or changes in staff support may be required to accommodate the board's involvement. The City of Fort Collins has 29 boards and commissions; it is not clear how many of these boards Council may wish to provide a role in the development review process. hi the past the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) and the Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) have express a desire to be able to comment on development review projects. October 26, 2004 Page 2 Some elements of the community strongly support expanding the role of the City's policy boards in development review, others strongly oppose it. Board and Public Involvement Staff has discussed this issue with the NRAB, the AQAB, and the Planning and Zoning Board. A focus group with members of the NRAB, Citizen Planners, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Realtors,and the Homebuilder's Association was held by staff to allow members of these diverse interest groups to express their interests and perspectives on the issue directly to each other. Both the NRAB and the AQAB have expressed an interest in having an expanded role in the development review process. It is possible that other City boards with a policy advisory focus related in some way to the physical development of the community (the Water Board, the Transportation Board,the Affordable Housing Board,and the Economic Vitality and Sustainability Action Group)may also have an interest in having a similar expanded role in development review. However, staff has not yet heard any other City board express such an interest. Issues Proponents of providing a development review role for policy advisory boards offer several reasons to support the change, including: • The Land Use Code includes provisions for granting modifications and variances to defined standards the policy boards helped develop;therefore they have a chance to comment if the standard is being modified; • Some members of policy boards have significant special expertise that may benefit the project and the review process; • Involvement of policy boards at an early stage of the project may identify and resolve issues that might otherwise result in greater costs and delays (such as having the project appealed to Council) if boardmembers are not aware of the project until much later in the review process; • Policyboard members represent important elements of the community and these values should be reflected in the review process; and • Policy board involvement could provide a means to help ensure the consistency and quality of staff review work. Opponents of providing a development review role for advisory boards offer several reasons to oppose the change, including: • Policy boards are appointed to advise Council on development ofpolicy and this function should be kept separate from the quasi-judicial development review process where regulations are applied to specific projects; October 26, 2004 Page 3 • Adding additional boards to the review process increases the complexity of the review process and has the potential to add increased staff support costs and project delays; • There is no assurance that policyboard members have the appropriate skills and expertise to provide consistent review comments on projects; and • Policy advisory boards are often perceived to be aligned with certain distinct values sets in the community,and their involvement has the potential to unduly politicize the review process. The significance of each of these arguments for and against providing policy boards an expanded role in the development review process may depend in part on the administrative model used to support such an expanded role. Administrative Options Staff identified four alternative administrative models that would provide support for providing policy boards an expanded role in development review. These options are outlined below: Option 1: Boards act like a neighborhood group 1. Boards would receive notice of new development projects and could attend neighborhood meetings. 2. Boardmembers could seek project information at the Current Planning counter, from the project planner or the applicant, like neighborhood residents can. 3. No additional staff support or project review activities would be provided to the board by City staff. 4. Boardmembers could testify on behalf of the board at the public hearing. Option 2: Boards act like a staff review agency 1. Staff would route appropriate project submittal material to the board to review based on criteria. 2. Boardmembers would submit specific comments in the same manner as staff, and require additional information or time to resolve issues. 3. Additional staff support time would be provided to the board to accommodate presentation of the project and facilitation of the commenting process. 4. Boardmembers would not testify at the public hearing. Option 3: Boards act like an advisory board to the decision maker(Planning and Zoning Board or the Hearing Officer) 1. No change to existing staff review process until project is ready to go to hearing. 2. Staff report would first be routed to the policy board for review prior to the hearing before the decision maker. October 26, 2004 Page 4 Option 4: Boards provide "complementary review"to staff and the applicant (LPC model). 1. Staff or applicant elects to bring specific project to the policy board for complementary review. 2. Review is informal. 3. Staff and/or applicant incorporate board advice at their discretion. 4. No formal communication by policy board directly to the decision maker. Option 5: No change from current practice;do not provide an expanded role for policy boards and commissions in development review process. 1. City development and capital projects are reviewed by the policy board,but no private development review projects are considered. 2. Boardmembers may participate in the development review process and testify at the hearing as citizens or neighborhood residents. These options are outlined in greater detail in the Options Matrix contained in Attachment A. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Option 5: No change from existing practices. Staff s primary reason for recommending no change is the importance of keeping a clear distinction between the City's legislative and quasi-judicial processes. It is standard practice by local governments to maintain this distinction by not involving policy advisory boards in the development review process. Staff further believes that Options 2 and 3 have the potential to significant increase development review staff support costs and add time to the process. Staff recognizes that Options 1 and 4 probably have little potential to directly impact the development review process, but have some concerns that these options could increase the politicalization of the City's development review process. This might be especially true if a large number of boards were empowered with an expanded development review role. It is clear that at times the members of various advisory policy boards have held significant expertise that was not available from staff, and that in these instances a practice of offering"complementary review" consistent with Option 4 would be potentially beneficial to the staff, the project and the community. It is also clear that in some cases applicants could have avoided costly delays and appeals if they had sought some means of engaging key interest groups earlier in the development review process. However,it is not clear to staff that these benefits outweigh the potential costs to the community of implementing these proposed changes. ATTACHMENTS A. Administrative Options Matrix Attachment A Expanded Duties of Boards and Commissions Administrative Options Matrix October 20,2004 FBoardswith Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Boards act Boards act like a Boards act like Boards Offer No change from like a staff review an advisory "Complementary existing practice neighborhood agency, board to the Review"to Staff group. Decision Maker. and Applicant f All Boards and Those boards with Those boards Those boards with Only the Planning commissions. clear relationship to with clear clear relationship to and Zoning Board pment land development, relationship to land development, would have a direct Review Duties and clear technical land and clear technical role. LPC could capability. development, capability. provide and clear "Complementary technical Review'to staff capability. and applicant. 2. Types of All applications Modifications and Modifications and All projects Only City capital projects and requiring public variances. variances. projects. reviewed by notice. boards. 3. Scope of All issues All issues with in All issues within All issues with in All issues within the issues the scope of the the scope of the the scope of the scope of the considered by board's expertise. board's expertise. board's expertise. board's expertise. Board Point in the At the public After submittal, After staff review, After submittal, Many points in the w process. hearing. during staff review. prior to public during staff review. project life cycle. hearin . 5. Determination Self selected =Pla=ingstaff Board chair in Administrative Staff discretion or of Board's by the board. consultation with decision by Agency board request. standing to Board staff review staff or review an ng liaison. Developer a lication 6.Application Electronic Multiple copies of Copy of staff Extract of submittal Material prepared Routing routing of all submittal packet to report to Board packet and other by staff. Procedures standard public Board. materials, as and determined by neighborhood actor seeking the notices to review. Board members. 7. Staff Support Little beyond Board liaisons and Project Planner, Agency review staff City project staff. to Board review. existing support support staff would agency staff and or developer would to support review, Board liaison present, board neighborhood record comments, involvement in support staff would groups. arrange review project provide normal meetings. presentation and board support. review. Other City staff at their discretion. 8. Applicant Would allow May be possible, Applicant would Applicant City project team Involvement in informal, but not required. be involved to involvement would would be involved. Board review flexible present their be allowed but not • applicant/ project. required. board involvement. 9. Board's ability to No formal As with any review No authority No formal authority. This depends on request additional authority, but agency, Boards But staff may chose the nature of the information and may be could request to accommodate project. time. persuasive in additional such requests. raising information or unresolved project revisions. issues that result in Decision Maker delaying their decision. 10. Transmittal of Verbal or Written comments Formal written The board advise Formal written Board's written would be entered position staff and the position recommendations comments at into the DMS and transcribed and applicant, not the transcribed and to decision maker. the public integrated into the delivered by decision maker. delivered by hearing. staff report; not Board liaison and Board liaison and clear that there agency support The board's agency support would be an staff. comments to staff staff. independent would be reflected recommendation. in the regular board meeting minutes. Staff comments may indirectly reflect the board's comments, at the staffs discretion. 11. Board's Would have No review agencies Boards could be None. Not Applicable standing to appeal standing to now have the ability explicitly provided decision maker's appeal if to appeal the or denied decision to Council. testimony was decision maker's standing, provided at the decision. depending on hearing. Council's intent. 12. Overall Little additional Incremental staff Inclusion of board Little potential to Not Applicable potential to add time or cost, costs, routing review after create additional time and staff except for costs, and completion of direct costs or costs. some increased staff review delays to the increased risk complexity of the would add at review process. of appeal. review process. least 1 month delay to process, plus additional staff support costs.