Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/20/2011 - POSTPONEMENT OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 13DATE: December 20, 2011 STAFF: Steve Roy, Karen Cumbo Steve Dush, Ginny Sawyer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council to February 21, 2012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its meeting of October 4, 2011, City Council considered Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure. It was adopted on First Reading, but Council asked that staff conduct some outreach on the proposed changes, and Second Reading was scheduled for December 20. A public meeting was held on November 30, and approximately fourteen people attended. Several concerns about the appeals process were raised that are not addressed by the proposed changes, and there was considerable discussion of the impact of the proposed amendments. A summary of the meeting is attached. Staff would like to request that Second Reading of this Ordinance be postponed until February 21, 2012. This will permit further discussion of the issues raised at the meeting, and refinement of the proposed amendments to address concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the postponement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary of November 30, 2011, public meeting Ordinance 131‐Changes to the Appeals Process Public Outreach Meeting Wednesday, November 30 from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 14 people in attendance Comments related to the Ordinance: Allows Council members who file an appeal to participate in hearing the appeal.  What is the rationale for this?  Seems strange (and concerning) that someone could appeal and then be a decision making on same appeal. Allows parties‐in‐interest to file a response or statement.  Is this reactionary and maybe unnecessary?  Responses need legal review and need to be redacted prior to the hearing.  Who would know in a timely manner at a hearing if new information was being presented?  Does this add too many days to the process?  Does this improve any legal standing of the appeal or the findings?  Who determines if a response is from a Party‐in‐Interest?  By inviting all Parties‐in‐Interest into the appeal process does it mislead people to think it will be a “re‐ hearing” as opposed to an “appeal hearing?”  If Parties‐in‐Interest can write a response will that limit the speaking time at the hearing? Expands the time within which an appeal hearing must be scheduled. (Changes from 60 to 120 days.)  120 days is excessive.  75 to 90 days is more acceptable.  120 days could require a new appraisal or re‐submittal of all financial information.  120 days is punitive and is equivalent to an entire construction season.  The timing of this is bad considering the incredibly difficult financing climate.  What is the standard in other communities? Clarifies the extent to which new information may be presented to Council prior to and during the hearing.  Concerned about what is considered new or reconfigured. Referred to past case where applicant claimed they did not have time to review documents.  Define reconfigured. Clarifies the purpose and procedure for conducting site inspections.  Why is this needed? General Ord. 131 Comments  Timing isn’t good. Public should have been involved prior to First Reading.  It would be good to have a problem statement (backed up with data) showing what the problem is we’re trying to fix.  This ordinance may not help the process. General Appeal Process Comments  Since we do so few appeals maybe training for Council ahead of time to ensure the process is followed and runs smoothly.  Need a handout or materials outlining the appeal process and objective.  Have a neighborhood meeting prior to an appeal hearing.  The applicant should always be held to a higher standard than the neighbors (they know the process.)  Need a forum for people to voice non LUC related issues and concerns.  Appeal vs. Re‐hearing. Need to be clear and careful in messaging.  Will there be any change to the exparte rule to allow greater dialogue between residents and neighbors?  Need to create assurance amongst public tat the process is good and fair.  Need process changes to limit the length of hearings. No one should be expected to perform well and think clearly at a 6‐8 hour meeting late into the night.  Before anything can move forward we must address the failure of the process and must uphold the LUC.  Verbal arguments at hearing should only address specific elements of the LUC. Can Council control this?