Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/26/2015 - CITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTSDATE: STAFF: May 26, 2015 Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION City Development Projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discuss a possible amendment to the Land Use Code to require any development review project in which the City is an applicant to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (P & Z) and eliminate formal appeals to the City Council while allowing a Council override of a P & Z decision. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Should staff prepare amendments which would eliminate procedural issues raised (ex parte communications) when City Projects are part of the current development review process? 2. If so, what options for Councilmembers should be incorporated in order for Council to ask for an appeal of the development review? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Currently, City development projects are subject to the same development review process as any private sector development project. As such, the project is required to meet all Land Use Code (LUC) requirements and be subject to a Type 1 or Type 2 hearing as outlined in the LUC. Any resulting decision may be appealed to the City Council. Therefore the Council has been prevented from participating in ex parte discussions in order to avoid procedural issues in the event an appeal of the decision is sought. In many cases the City Council has authorized a City project to advance through the development review process through a strategic planning and budgeting process. Since the Council has input at the beginning of the project it has been confusing to the public when the Council is not allowed to participate during the development review process except in deciding appeals that are brought to Council. In order to develop a legislative review process which would then allow Council, staff and members of the public to engage in conversations related to City development projects, staff recommends the following changes to the LUC. The changes recommended are similar to those allowed under Colorado Revised Statues (CRS) Section 31-23-209 which describes what currently occurs for Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) processes. SPAR reviews are currently conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board (P & Z) for most public projects such as those of the Poudre School District or some Colorado State University projects. The SPAR process is limited to a review of location, character and extent. If a review is disapproved by the P & Z, the governing board of the public entity which is funding the project, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership may overrule the decision and approve the project. Since City projects are currently subject to the same process as other development projects staff recommends the following: 1. Require full development review and not limit the review to location, character and extent (SPAR) for any City project. 2. Require all City projects to be reviewed as a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) hearing rather than a Type 1 (Hearing Officer) hearing. Holding Type 2 hearings may increase the transparency of the hearings by May 26, 2015 Page 2 having them televised and by having an appointed board review the project. CRS requires all SPAR reviews under its jurisdiction to be reviewed by the P & Z. 3. Require a majority vote to overturn any P & Z decision (whether approval or disapproval) made regarding a city project. Concerning how an elected official would request a review, Council could implement a method similar to the way the Code allows for a Councilmember appeal. Under that approach, any individual Council member could request that the City project in question be presented to the Council for review of whether the project should go forward. Alternatively, the process would be written to allow a Council member to request that the project be scheduled for Council consideration and a Council vote as to whether the Council will review the project. Staff provided Council with a memorandum on January 2, outlining these recommendations as well as using the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing for public outreach. (Attachment 1) Staff was asked to move forward with the recommendations contained in the memorandum. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its February 12, 2015 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing and voted 5-0 (Boardmembers Heinz and Hobbs absent) to recommend the LUC amendments. (Attachment 2). ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo to Council, January 15, 2015 (PDF) 2. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, February 12, 2015 (PDF) 3. Proposed Ordinance (draft) (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: January 2, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development & Transportation Director FROM: Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director RE: Review of City Projects SUMMARY Currently City development projects are subject to the same development review process as any private sector development project. As such, the project is required to meet all Land Use Code (LUC) requirements and be subject to a Type 1 or Type 2 hearing as outlined in the LUC. Any resulting decision may be appealed to the City Council. Therefore, the Council has been prevented from participating in ex parte discussions in order to avoid procedural issues in the event an appeal of the decision is sought. In most cases, the City Council has authorized a city project to advance through the development review process through a strategic planning and budgeting process. Since the Council has input at the beginning of the project, it has been confusing to the public when the Council is not allowed to participate during the development review process, except in deciding appeals that are brought to Council. OPTION TO CONSIDER Council may want to consider changing the appeal process for City projects to one similar to what occurs in a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process. SPAR reviews are currently conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board (P & Z) for most public projects, such as those of the Poudre School District or some CSU projects. The SPAR process is limited to a review of location, character and extent. If a review is disapproved by the P & Z, the governing board of ATTACHMENT 1 Reviewof City Projects January 2, 2015 the public entity that is funding the project, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership, may overrule the decision and approve the project (Section 31-23-209 Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS)). Staff would recommend that, if Council desires staff to prepare Code amendments to change the process for City projects, Council could consider using a modified version of the SPAR process consisting of the following: 1. Require a majority vote to overturn any P & Z decision (whether approval or disapproval) made regarding a city project. 2. Require full development review and not limit the review to location, character and extent (SPAR) for any City project. 3. Require all City projects to be reviewed as a Type 2 (P & Z Board) hearing rather than a Type 1 (Hearing Officer) hearing. Holding Type 2 hearings may increase the transparency of the hearings by having them televised and by having an appointed board review the project. CRS requires all SPAR reviews under its jurisdiction to be reviewed by the P & Z. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Staff suggests holding a public hearing at a Planning and Zoning Board (P & Z) meeting and seeking a recommendation from the P & Z prior to Council consideration of this potential change. ATTACHMENT 2 - 1 - ORDINANCE NO.___, 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE WITH REGARD TO CITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, currently the Land Use Code provides that City development projects must go through the same process and analysis as any other project subject to the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that although such City projects should be reviewed under the full terms and conditions of the Land Use Code, all such reviews should be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board, and there should be no right of quasi-judicial appeal to the City Council of any final decision regarding such City projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that in substitution of right of quasi- judicial appeal, the City Council in its legislative function should, by majority vote, have the power to overturn or modify any final decision regarding such City project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the Land Use Code be amended accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2.12 Step 12: Appeals Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 of this Code. Despite the foregoing, if the City is the applicant for a development project, there shall be no appeal of any final decision regarding such development project to the City Council. In substitution of an appeal of a development project for which the City is the applicant, the City Council may, by majority vote, as an exercise of its legislative power and in its sole discretion, overturn or modify any final decision regarding such project. Any Councilmember may request that the City Council initiate this exercise of legislative power but only if such request is made in writing to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of the final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 2. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 2.17 which reads in its entirety as follows: Division 2.17 City Projects ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT - 2 - Development projects for which the City is the applicant shall comply with this Land Use Code but shall be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board in all instances, despite the fact that certain uses would otherwise have been subject to administrative review. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of May, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of June, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of June, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk DRAFT Laurie Kadrich May 26, 2015 Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Amending Land Use Code City Projects ATTACHMENT 4 1. Should staff prepare amendments which would eliminate procedural issues raised (ex parte communications) when City Projects are part of development review? 2. If so, what options for Council members should be incorporate in order for Council to ask for an appeal? 2 Direction Sought • Land Use Code (LUC) adopted in 1997 • Designated various processes under which City Projects were to be reviewed • Processes are subject to Appeal: ⎯ Appeals to City Council ⎯ Procedural concern with citizen communications 3 Background • Projects in which the City is an applicant • Planning and Zoning Board (P & Z) review • Majority vote by Council to overturn P & Z decision ⎯ Approval or ⎯ Disapproval 4 Board Review Appeal Criteria 1. One-member, or 2. One-member with support of other Council members • What number should be considered? Majority? 3 total? 5 1. Should staff prepare amendments which would eliminate procedural issues raised (ex parte communications) when City Projects are part of development review? 2. If so, what options for Council members should be incorporate in order for Council to ask for an appeal? 6 Direction Sought