HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/05/1999 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 234, 1998, AMENDIN .�.g 7q7-�-' 77777777 _ xvvgy.l9a¢T' ^5' _
fa i F
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 8
DATE: January 5, 1999
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF-
' Roy/Krajicek
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of Ordinance No.234, 1998,Amending the City Code Pertaining to the Procedure
for Hearing Appeals to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
i
I
I
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Ordinance No. 234, 1998 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 15, 1998 and
amends the Appeals Procedure by repealing the prohibition against actions being taken until all
appeal rights are exhausted and replacing that prohibition with a statement that such actions are
permissible but, if taken, shall be totally at the risk of the person taking the action. The Ordinance
also reconciles conflicting provisions regarding the time period in which an appellant may file an
amended notice of appeal and adjusts other time-sensitive provisions accordingly.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 22
DATE: December 15, 1998
. FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Roy/Krajicek
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No.234, 1998,Amending the City Code Pertaining to the Procedure for
Hearing Appeals to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption ofxhe Ordinance on'Fi' Reading`
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Ordinance amends the Appeals Procedure by repealing the prohibition against actions being
taken until all appeal rights are exhausted and replacing thatrohibition with a statement that such
actions are permissible but,if taken, shallbe to'tallyfat the risk of the person taking the action. The
Ordinance also reconciles conflicting provisions rregazding the iime period in which an appellant may
file an amended notice of appeal and adjusts other tame-sensitiprovisions accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
Section 2-48 of the City Code currently prohibits persons from taking any action in reliance on any
decision that can be appealed to the Council until all appeal rights related to such decision have been
exhausted. The Land Use Code treats similar situations differently. It provides in Section 2.10.1(b)
that action may be taken in reliance on an appealed administrative decision during the pendency of
the appeal but that any such action shall be totally at the risk of the person taking the action,and the
City shall not be liable for any damages. Consequently,one Category of persons affected by appeals
can proceed with their proposals "at their own risk"-while an appeal is pending (those affected by
administrative decisions).while others cannot take any action if the decision is subject to appeal to
the Citv Council. In some cases this creates a situation which might be seen as inequitable. For
example.when the Landmark Preservation Commission approves a construction project on ahistoric
landmark.the owner cannot commence construction until all appeal rights have been exhausted since
the Landmark Preservation Commission decisions are subject to appeal to the City Council.
However. building permit decisions made administratively can be acted upon immediately, at the
risk of the applicant for the building permit. In fairness, it would seem best to amend the Appeals
Procedure to establish a single rule in this situation,that is, if any action is taken in reliance upon
any City decision that is subject to appeal,then such action will be taken at the actor's own risk.
The other amendments proposed by this Ordinance are more procedural in nature. Section 2-50 of
the City Code currently requires the City Clerk to notifj- an appellant,in writing, of any defects in
the appellant's notice of appeal. The appellant then has seven (7) calendar days from the date of
mailing of the City Clerk's notice within which to file an amended notice of appeal. Section 2-51
DATE: December 15, 1998 2 ITEM NUMBER: 22
of the Code provides that an amended notice of appeal may be filed by the appellant at any time prior
to the date that the City Clerk must mail notice of the appeal to parties-in-interest. These two
sections of the City Code are difficult to reconcile,interpret and apply. One deals with an amended
notice of appeal filed in response to notification that the original notice of appeal is defective, and
the other deals with a notice of appeal filed on the appellant's own initiative. To reconcile these
provisions, the Ordinance would make the following additional amendments to the Appeals
Procedure:
• All amended notices of appeal would have to be filed within fourteen (14)
working days after the ;date filinglbf iYe original notice of appeal,
irrespective of the date that the C' Clerklmail!tie appeal notices to parties
in interest.
• The date that the City Clerk would be required to mail notice of the Council's
consideration of the appeal would be no less than ten(10) days prior to the
date of the hearing. [Current language requires the notice to be mailed
fourteen(14) days prior to the date of the hearing.] This would allow more
time for the filing of amended notices of appeal.
• The City Council would be permitted to identify in writing any additional
issues no later th�anseven(7)days prior tto the date f the hearing. [Current
language requires the Council% identi tional issues ten (10) days
before the date 'f the heating.]
If adopted,this Ordinance will apply to all appeals filed on or after January 15, 1999.
�
4�