Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - (52)When the neighbors asked the Planner (Steve Olt) questions (e.g., about Larimer Canal #2), they felt their questions got pushed aside and not addressed. They would like an opportunity to submit questions to the City staff (planner) and have a response: the questions that staff can answer, do so. If there are questions that staff cannot answer (either they are information that the applicant/developer or another agency has), then note that and who/how to contact to get the information. NEXT STEPS/ACTION ITEMS 1. Proposed Land Use Code Changes —Steve Dush indicated three changes that are being reviewed and proposed for the (June) LUC changes that will go to Council. 2. Creation of a "Development Review Overview (DRO) for Citizens Series" —to educate and help coach neighbors in how the Development Review process works and how they can effectively participate and influence decisions. This will necessitate additional resources. The current thinking for how this would work would be a meeting with staff and the neighbors that would precede the traditional neighborhood meeting that is viewed by some as simply the developers' meeting. 3. Provide a contact list (property owner, developer; lessee, neighborhood group; etc.) of key players related to an application/project—so the neighbors know who to contact to address their questions/concerns for particular elements of the proposed development. 4. Develop a way to better access staff for the purpose of the neighbors asking questions and reviewing their concerns. This would be outlined during the Development Review Overview (DRO) 5. Review the ex-parte rules/procedures related to contacting City Councilmembers—this may be a conversation among the City Attorney, the City Manager and City Council as to whether or not they want to consider amending how the Council conducts and quasi- judicial hearing. Timing Item 1, changes to the Land Use Code regarding cooling off periods and other application procedures, are scheduled for Council first reading at the June 7 meeting of City Council. The other items in the list are part of a larger conversation that is underway with this neighborhood group, Council, and various City staff. We are exploring ways of improving neighborhood participation in the development review process, and expect to have formal changes made by the end of the summer. In the meantime, we will continue to be sensitive to the increasing concern of the City's residents about the process as we address individual issues and problems. Meeting Summary April 20, 2011. Subject: Development Review Process Participants: Richard Thomas, Kevin Barrier, Colleen Hoffman (neighbors of Campus Crest project), Steve Roy, Diane Jones, Paul Eckman, Karen Cumbo; Steve Dush CITIZENs/NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS a. While Steve Roy clearly explained our quasi-judicial process and rules and the rationale for those, Richard and others continue to desire to provide information to the City Council before an appeal hearing. Also, I think they understood that they, as can anyone interested in the application/project, provide and submit information to the P&Z Board that becomes part of the official record. However, they want the opportunity to provide Council with additional information, particularly if new information is discovered after the P&Z Hearing and before the Council hears an appeal. One option is to have the Council reconsider the rules and procedures for conducting a land use hearing/appeal (e.g. consider a de novo approach). b. Neighbors are not given a means to be an "equal player" —they don't have the resources an applicant typically has (e.g., a good working knowledge/experience with the Development Review Process; professional resources to assist and guide them through the process such as an attorney, an engineer, an architect, etc.). Staff is currently exploring methods to address this by developing a "Development Review Overview (DRO)" meeting that would precede a neighborhood meeting. The DRO would consist of neighborhood services staff as well as the project planner and perhaps another staff member that would serve as the initial point of contact for a project while explaing ing the process, tips and methods for organizing and understanding the upcoming development application. c. Residents also feel very restricted in what is considered "relevant" for neighbors to submit to P & Z, when an applicant can provide anything. d. It feels overwhelming to the neighbors as they must deal with so many entities that are a part of the Development Review Process (e.g., property owner; lessee; developer), yet don't know or can't find a representative to talk with. And, in the case of The Grove, they were never able to talk with the property owner (C-SURF) or a representative who could give them any details or answer their questions —someone was at meetings representing C-SURF but consistently stated they didn't have the knowledge to answer the neighbors' questions. This was very frustrating. When there are so many entities involved who does the City hold responsible (who is the one responsible for the overall development application or project)? The neighbors want to be able to contact the major players and have a dialogue/ask questions. e. Neighbors also believe that past performance should be a criteria in approving variances and incentives. Page 4 of 4 5. Review the ex-parte rules/procedures related to contacting City Councilmembers—this may be a conversation among the City Attorney, the City Manager and City Council as to whether or not they want to consider amending how the Council conducts and quasi-judicial hearing. It would be helpful in the summary that goes to Darin, Council and the neighbors to include information about the timeline for the action items. Please amend if I missed something. Thanks again to all for the meeting w/Richard, Colleen and Kevin. I think they found it very useful to sit down with the cadre of staff and talk through their concerns. Pia.».e Diane Jones Deputy City Manager City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6508 djones@fcgov.com 4/27/2011 Page 3 of 4 concerns, and reiterate the next steps we discussed at the meeting); and (3) we need to keep the communication fresh and timely with Darin, the Council and the citizens. CITIZENS/NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS a. While Steve Roy clearly explained our quasi-judicial process and rules and the rationale for those, Richard and others continue to desire to provide information to the City Council before an appeal hearing. Also, I think they understood that they, as can anyone interested in the application/project, provide and submit information to the P&Z Board that becomes part of the official record. However, they want the opportunity to provide Council with additional information, particularly if new information is discovered after the P&Z Hearing and before the Council hears an appeal. One option is to have the Council reconsider the rules and procedures for conducting a land use hearing/appeal (e.g. consider a de novo approach). b. Neighbors are not given a means to be an "equal player" —they don't have the resources an applicant typically has (e.g., a good working knowledge/experience with the Development Review Process; professional resources to assist and guide them through the process such as an attorney, an engineer, an architect, etc.). c. It feels overwhelming to the neighbors as they must deal with so many entities that are a part of the Development Review Process (e.g., property owner; leasee; developer), yet don't know or can't find a representative to talk with. And, in the case of The Grove, they were never able to talk with the property owner (C-SURF) or a representative who could give them any details or answer their questions —someone was their representing C-SURF but consistently stated they didn't have the knowledge to answer the neighbors' questions. This was very frustrating. When there are so many entities involved who does the City hold responsible (who is the one responsible for the overall development application or project)? The neighbors want to be able to contact the major players and have a dialogue/ask questions. d. When the neighbors asked the Planner (Steve Olt) questions (e.g., about Larimer Canal #2), they felt their questions got pushed aside and not addressed. They would like an opportunity to submit questions to the City staff (planner) and have a response: the questions that staff can answer, do so. If there are questions that staff cannot answer (either they are information that the applicant/developer or another agency has), then note that and who/how to contact to get the information. NEXT STEPS/ACTION ITEMS Proposed Land Use Code Changes —Steve Dush indicated three changes that are being reviewed and proposed for the (July) LUC changes that will go to Council. 2. Creation of a "Development Review for Citizens Series" —to educate and help coach neighbors in how the Development Review process works and how they can effectively participate and influence decisions. 3. Provide a contact list (property owner, developer; leasee; neighborhood group; etc.) of key players related to an application/projects—so the neighbors know who to contact to address their questions/concerns for particular elements of the proposed development. 4. Develop a way to better access staff for the purpose of the neighbors asking questions and reviewing their concerns. 4/27/2011 Page 2 oi'3 City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (o) 970/416-2463 (c) 970/219-6426 (f) 970/221-6327 cdaggett(a)fcgov.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain confidential attorney -client information intended for city use only. Disclosure of the contents of this email to unauthorized persons is prohibited. Do not forward this email or any attachments to persons outside the city organization or to officers or employees of the City whose duties are unrelated to the subject matter of this email. From: Karen Cumbo Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:13 PM To: Diane ]ones; Steve Dush; Steve Roy; Paul Eckman Cc: Darin Atteberry Subject: RE: Meeting w/Richard Thomas and Neighbors re Development Review Process Diane, There is one, and possibly two, pending Council (Manvel and Horak) SAR's that grew out of Mr. Thomas' comments at Council last week. They are related to the continuing conversations we have had over the last several months with Mr. Thomas and his neighbors, other nieghborhood groups, and other staff members (Steve Olt, Ginny Sawyer, etc). The comments/concerns of Kelly Ohlson and others about the number of variances, reasons for variances, and other concerns about the Development Review process are also a part of this picture. It might be useful to fold all of these interests and efforts together, perhaps in a work session setting. We could use the February (and now current) memo on Development Review as the background for the proposed changes. Steve is Fleshing out some additional ideas that he has for neighborhood assistance. I will draft a meeting summary that we can provide to these neighbors, and append to the Dev Review memo for Darin. I will also respond to the SAR's with the information about this current effort to evaluate and improve our development review process, particularly as it affects neighbors of development. I would propose that we include a discussion of how we address all of the pending concerns in our meeting with Darin on Thursday. What do you think? Karen From: Diane ]ones Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:07 PM To: Karen Cumbo; Steve Dush; Steve Roy; Paul Eckman Cc: Darin Atteberry Subject: Meeting w/Richard Thomas and Neighbors re Development Review Process All — As promised, here are my notes of the major points discussed and next steps from our meeting with Richard Thomas, Colleen, and Kevin on April 20, 2011. I would recommend that Karen or Steve prepare a summary (and add anything that I may have missed) that we can send to Darin (and he could send to Council) as: (1) several Council members share a similar concern about the process and are expecting process improvements; same summary should go to the three neighbors we talked with (so they can see we heard them, test if we captured their 4/27/2011 Page 1 of 4 Steve Olt From: Karen Cumbo Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:22 PM To: Carrie Daggett; Diane Jones; Steve Dush; Steve Roy; Paul Eckman Cc: Darin Atteberry; Steve Olt Subject: RE: DND RE: Meeting w/Richard Thomas and Neighbors re Development Review Process Attachments: Meeting Summary 4 20 1l(revised).doc Carrie, It is really astonishing how much energy and effort is going into this subject. It encompasses both modifications to the general development review process and staff time devoted to the specifics of the pending application for The Grove. It involves (at least) staff from CDNS, Utilities, Economic Health, the City Manager's office, and the City Attorney's office, and several Council members. Oh, I forgot to mention representatives from other communities who have been contacted by Mr. Thomas. Since Steve Dush has a conflict in this case, I would be happy to serve as a central point for communication with Mr. Thomas and the neighbors to the degree that is comfortable for the City Attorney's office. This would mitigate the problem of the City Attorney's office providing legal advice to citizens, and make sure that the staff is all on the same page. I assume that the City Attorney's office, or Diane or Darin, would be in the Council member loop rather than me. I have not yet provided a meeting summary from last week (4/20) when Steve Roy, Steve Dush, Paul Eckman, Diane and I met with Mr. Thomas and two other neighbors about quasi-judicial and other matters, although it has been sent to Diane and Steve D for comments, and appended to a memo for Darin in anticipation of a meeting tomorrow about the development review process. The draft is attached. Any additional guidance from the legal arena that you can provide would be helpful. Karen Karen Cumbo Director, Planning Development and Transportation City of Fort Collins 970-221-6287 From: Carrie Daggett Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:58 AM To: Karen Cumbo; Diane Jones; Steve Dush; Steve Roy; Paul Eckman Cc: Darin Atteberry Subject: DND RE: Meeting w/Richard Thomas and Neighbors re Development Review Process CONFIDENTIAL ATTY-CLIIENT COMMUNICATION Richard Thomas has also asked Kelly Ohlson to provide to him City policy related to the ex parte communications and quasi judicial proceedings. We are preparing a confidential packet memo for City Council for tomorrow that will include some Code and related language that would be responsive to Mr. Thomas' request. Would it make sense for you, Karen, to incorporate that into your further communications with Mr. Thomas as a way to provide a response to him? —C Carrie Mineart Daggett Deputy City Attorney 4/27/2011