Referral of Aggrieved Person & Procedural Appeal Ordinance Amendments

[Paul Roberts]

Colleagues,

I’ve requested that Council consider referring two proposed ordinance amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission (and, for courtesy input, the Building Standards Commission) for their review and recommendation. These changes are aimed at strengthening the City’s ability to uphold its own procedural requirements prior to the approval or vesting of development-related decisions.

Why This Matters
Currently, our definition of “aggrieved person” in Chapter 14 limits the ability to appeal or flag procedural violations to those who live or own property within 200 feet of a proposed development. In cases where required steps—such as a concept plan, detail plan, or public notice—are missed, and no one within that radius is eligible or aware enough to object, those omissions may go uncorrected. I’m proposing to revise the ordinance to allow broader procedural standing before approvals become final.

What’s Proposed

1. Amend Chapter 14, Section 2.10 (Definitions):
   • Preserve the 200-foot rule for Board of Adjustment appeals (as required by state law),
   • Create a second, narrower definition of “aggrieved person” for procedural complaints—open to any resident or civic group able to allege a credible ordinance violation, but only prior to final approval or vesting.

1. Add a New Article 3.5.200 (Site Development Regulations):
   • Establish a clear, internal process where these pre-approval procedural concerns can be reviewed by the City Manager or referred to the appropriate body—without triggering litigation, post-approval delay, or conflicts with state vesting laws.

Next Steps
The draft language is included in the packet. The request before Council is simply to refer the item to P&Z for formal consideration and invite BSC to provide input on the procedural review mechanism proposed for Chapter 3.5.

This initiative is about ensuring that our own ordinances are meaningfully enforced and that we have a way to address process issues before they become finalized and irreversible. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or feedback before the meeting.

— Paul

 

[Paul Roberts]

Colleagues,

As a follow-up to my prior message regarding a proposed referral to the Planning & Zoning Commission, I wanted to share an updated version of the referral packet that will appear on our June 27 Council agenda.

This update reflects important feedback from our City Secretary, Susie, who correctly noted that several procedural appeal pathways exist in Chapter 14 beyond those initially identified—particularly within the zoning application and PDD sections. Her insight helped uncover a few oversights that prompted a more focused and accurate rewrite.

What’s changed?

• The proposal now targets only Chapter 14 (Zoning), removing references to other Chapters that don't presently include the term “aggrieved person.”
• The revised language includes:
  
  • A proposed amendment to Section 2.10 (Definitions) to broaden standing for pre-approval procedural appeals;
  • A proposed new Section 11.80, creating a mechanism for residents to raise procedural violations (e.g., missing notices or incomplete filings) before a zoning change, plat, or development application is finalized.

This is not about empowering post-approval challenges or injecting delay into development timelines. It’s about ensuring procedural integrity—before any rights vest or approvals are granted.

The Planning & Zoning Commission (and potentially the Building & Standards Commission, depending on future scope) will review the draft language and advise on proper structure, placement, and safeguards. The attached “Proposed Ordinance Concept Language” and excerpts from relevant sections of Chapter 14 will help guide that review.

As always, I welcome your questions or thoughts ahead of the meeting.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Dear Colleagues,

I received the attached email from Commissioner Frank Robbins regarding the “Aggrieved Person / Procedural Compliance” referral. The item appeared on P&Z’s October 9 agenda after four months passed since Council referred it to P&Z, it was tabled along with several other items.

I’m sharing my response here (since others may have similar questions. Commissioner Robbins’ comments were based on an earlier draft that mistakenly referenced Chapter 3.5 (Site Development). That version was included in the P&Z packet before the corrected Chapter 14 (Zoning) version was finalized.

----------

[Adding P&Z chair, Staff and Council Liaisons, Brad-please read and respond, and Adam/BSC liaison because BSC was mentioned and since he seconded.]

Hi Frank,

Thanks for flagging this. You’re right about what you saw in the P&Z packet—that version still reflects an early draft that referenced Chapter 3.5 (Site Development). After legal review with City Attorney Brad Bullock, the referral was narrowed and corrected to apply only to Chapter 14 (Zoning). I didn’t get the Chapter-14-only version to staff before the packet went out, so the confusion is on me.

To clarify the current scope:

• No changes are being proposed to Chapter 3.5 (multifamily/commercial site development).
• The referral is exclusively for Chapter 14 and asks P&Z to consider two concepts:
  1. Amending §2.10 (Definitions) to broaden who qualifies as an “aggrieved person” for procedural (not merits-based) appeals; and
  2. Adding a new §11.80 to create a narrowly tailored pre-approval procedural compliance appeal mechanism (so errors can be fixed before rights vest).

A few direct answers to the questions in your email:

• “What problem does this solve?”
  The gap today is that if a mandatory procedural step under Chapter 14 (e.g., required notice, concept/detail plan prerequisite in a PDD, or a completeness/processing step in §§6.10/6.20) is inadvertently skipped, there may be no one with standing to flag it unless they’re within 200 feet. The goal is a limited way to raise procedural issues early—not to challenge the merits or slow projects after they vest.

• “What would a procedural flaw look like?”
  Examples (under Chapter 14):
  • Required public notice not given or given incorrectly for a zoning action;
  • PDD prerequisite (e.g., concept/detail plan) omitted before a related action proceeds;
  • A zoning/development application processed as “complete” without items Chapter 14 requires (§§6.10/6.20).
  These are about process compliance, not whether the project is a good idea.

• “Vesting occurs at application under Ch. 245—no process.”
  Right—that’s exactly why the draft is framed as pre-approval / pre-vesting in Chapter 14. Brad’s guidance was to avoid conflict with Ch. 245 and shot-clock statutes; limiting this to pre-approval procedural errors under zoning keeps it clear of permit-level administration and post-approval disputes.

• “What is ‘final approval’ here?”
  For Chapter 14 items, think of Council adoption of a zoning ordinance, final plat approval, or other final action that confers rights (or triggers vesting under state law). The mechanism would not apply after that point.

• “Anyone can already complain to the City Manager.”
  Agreed—and that remains. The concept here is to add clear, codified criteria and timing for procedural complaints tied to Chapter 14 decisions, so staff has an explicit pre-approval pathway to correct errors (or dismiss if unfounded), with P&Z review only if appropriate. It’s meant to formalize what’s now ad hoc, not replace staff oversight or create new post-approval challenges.

Finally, this version reflects Brad’s input—his concerns about Chapter 245/shot clocks are why I pulled the idea out of Chapter 3.5 entirely and limited it to Chapter 14 pre-approval procedure.

If helpful, I can circulate the corrected Chapter-14-only referral memo and concept language so P&Z and BSC are all looking at the same thing. Alternatively, staff could include this response in your next packet. I can also include this response on the CC Discussion Board. I’ll defer to Brad or Jordan. I appreciate the careful read and the chance to clear up the packet mismatch.

Thank you,

Paul Roberts