2011_0718_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B 1 PROJECT FILE 0017 2 Request by Roseville Planning Division for approval of a zoning text amendment to ensure ' that variance requests are handles in conformance with the revisions MN Stat. 462.357, subd. 6 5 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7.-54 p.m. 6 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed the requested amendments to comply with 7' recent legislation and modified statutory language, as detailed in the Request for Planning 8 Commission Action dated July 6, 2011. 9 Mr. Paschke noted that this modified language had been reviewed and vetted by the City lo Attorney to be consistent with state statute. 11 Member Boguszewski noted language in the Purpose Statement (1009.04 Variances.- Purpose 12 Statement), that referred to "special or extraordinary circumstances), being struck, and replaced :� N 1' ) with "Practical difficulties-"' and other similar references and whether they were consistent,, or 14 should all be changed from "special circumstances or conditions"' to "practical difficulties."' 15 Mr. Lloyd opined that the list did include some useful instruction about the types of practical 16 difficulties that were being addressed; but the purpose of the proposed language was to suggest 1 7' that variances were not to be used as a convenience,, but that "special circumstances" were 18 required. Mr. Lloyd further opined that using "practical difficulties"' would serve the same 19 purpose as suggested by Member Boguszewski. 20 Chair Boers ter questioned whether simply using "characteristics"' and "circumstances"' was 21 sufficient,, and eliminating the word "special."' 22 Member Strohmeier questioned if the intent of these revisions was basically intended to put the 2'3 City language into compliance with State law; with Mr. Lloyd responding affirmatively,, that it 24 took into account relaxed state standards based on the most recent legislation. 25 Chair Boerigter asked if Section C (Approval), was new language 26 Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively; noting that the C city has always been able to impose 2 7' conditions,, even if language in previous versions of the code left out that implication in favor of 28 the common knowledge that conditions could be imposed on any land use item. Mr. Lloyd 29 advised that the newly added language as proposed was directed by state statute and at the '30 recommendation of the City Attorney to cover all bases. '31 Chair Boers ter questioned if Section CA related to "unique circumstances"' to the property was '32 pulled from the new statute. '3'3 Mr. Lloyd was unsure if it was from state statute or not; but noted that all three were provided as 1 - d model language from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC 7 ) s General Counsel, an what the '35 state statute provisions would mean. Page 1 of 2