HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - (31)Citizen Request For May 19, 2011 P&Z Meeting
Citizen Request For May 19, 2011 Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Hearing
To: Mr. Steve Roy, Fort Collins City Attorney
Mr. Paul Eckman, Fort Collins Deputy City Attorney
Ms. Karen Weitkunat, Fort Collins Mayor and City Council Member
Mr. Ben Manvel, Fort Collins City Council Member
Ms. Lisa Poppaw, Fort Collins City Council Member
Ms. Aislinn Kottwitz, Fort Collins City Council Member
Mr. Kelly Ohlson, Fort Collins City Council Member and Mayor Pro Tern
Mr. Gerry Horak, Fort Collins City Council Member
From: Fort Collins Citizens
Date: April 25, 2011
Re: P&Z Topic Separation and Public Input
On May 19, 2011, the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board will review and decide upon an amended
CSURF Centre For Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan and a Project Development Plan for
"The Grove At Fort Collins." The purpose of this letter is to request the following:
1) That the ODP and the PDP be heard as individual agenda items, with separate opportunities for public
input.
2) That in addition to the customary three minutes allotted per person for public comment, a 30-minute
period be allocated for each of the above agenda items for an organized presentation of relevant material
by a group of concerned citizens. These issues are complex and cannot be comprehensively conveyed in
-three-minute sound bites. Precedence for this procedure was established at the Planning and Zoning
meeting of January 20, 2000 during consideration of another controversial development project. It can be
found on page 8 of the printed minutes for that meeting.
Page 2 of 2
In your request, you indicated that a precedent had been set at the Board hearing of January 20, 2000,
during which hearing I was quoted as saying that there was an opportunity for public surrebuttal under
some Board rules apparently approved in 1997. I have been unable to locate a copy of those Board
rules. However, that hearing had to do with the Walmart project known as "Mulberry/Lemay Crossing
Lot 1, Filing 1, Final PUD". The hearing on that project was held under the Land Development
Guidance System which did not expressly establish a hearing procedure. The Land Use Code does
establish such a procedure, and this project is being processed under the Land Use Code, not the Land
Development Guidance System. Under the rules of the Land Use Code, surrebuttal is not included in the
hearing procedure. Therefore, surrebuttal will not be allowed.
Paul
5/9/2011
Pagel of 2
Steve Olt
From: Patty Clarkin
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:33 PM
To: 'armstickle@gmail.com'
Cc: CCSL; Paul Eckman; Karen Cumbo; Steve Olt
Subject: Citizen Request for May 19, 2011 Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Hearing
Sensitivity: Confidential
Attachments: Citizen Request.pdf
Per Paul Eckman:
On April 25, 2011, our office received a "Citizen Request" containing three requests. The document
submitting those requests is attached. The purpose of this communication is to respond to the requests.
Separate consideration of ODP and PDP.
Steve Olt, City Planner, to whom The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan has been
assigned, informs me that he will ask the Planning and Zoning Board (the `Board") to consider the ODP
separately from the PDP. I see no legal reason why that approach would be problematic. Therefore,
although it is likely that both the ODP and the PDP will be considered on the same evening, the Board
will take up the matter of the ODP first, separately from the PDP, and will take a vote on the ODP first.
Then, most likely following a break, the PDP will be considered and voted upon.
2. Time allowed for citizen presentations.
The second request pertains to whether representatives of organized groups of citizens may have 30
minutes to make their presentation. The Board is governed by Robert's Rules of Order which provides,
in the Tenth Edition, on page 94, that when nonmembers are invited by the Board to express their views,
as is the case of public hearings such as this, it is done under the control of the presiding officer (the
Chair of the Board) subject to any relevant rules adopted by the Board, such as the Board's by-laws.
Robert's Rules also provides that time limits may be placed on speakers, and relevance is closely
monitored. The Board's by-laws are silent on this subject. Therefore, it will be up to the Chair of the
Board to determine the time limit that will be allocated to representatives of groups, and the Chair will
impose time limits as he deems reasonable.
Opportunity for Surrebuttal.
The third request was that citizens be given a reasonable time for surrebuttal following the applicant's
opportunity for rebuttal to public comment. Section 2.2.7(C) of the Land Use Code sets out the
procedure for conducting a public hearing, and though it does allow for public testimony and applicant
response to public testimony, it does not allow for public response to the applicant's response
(surrebuttal). Therefore, only if the applicant were to consent to such surrebuttal, could it be properly
allowed. I have been informed by Ms. Liley, attorney for the applicant, that the applicant will not
consent.
5/9/2011