CC_Minutes_2007_0212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 12, 2007 Page 23 of 30 8. Discuss Public Policy Issues Related to Variance Board Appeal Process Community Development Director John Stark reviewed proposed staff and Planning Commission considerations and recommendations for amendment to Chapter l014.04(C) regarding appeals of Variance Board actions. Mr. Stark noted that Planning Comlnission Chair Bakeman was present should the City Council have any questions of her. Staff recommended amendment to Roseville City Code, Chapter l014.04(C)(2) to read: "The written appeal shall state the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made, and shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council. A hearing public meetinq regarding the matter shall be held before the Board of Adjustment and Appeal at its next f! regular meeting held within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the required written appeal. consistent ',,^lith the notice requirements and other procedures contained in Chapter 108 of this Code. A mailed notice of the public meeting at which the appeal is to be considered shall be sent to members of the Variance Board (if applicable) and to all of those property owners within 350 feet of the subject property." and amendment to Chapter l014.04(C), adding subparagraph (3) stating: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals will reconsider onlv the evidence that had previouslv been considered as part of the formal action that is the subject of the appeal. New or additional information from the appeals applicant may be considered by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at its sole discretion, if that information serves to c1arifv information previouslv considered bv the Variance Board and/or staff." Mr. Stark reviewed State Statute requirements for this type of appeal (i.e., no Public Hearing required); undue legal implications; use of the term "appeal" and any legal implied ramifications; role and authority of the Variance Board and the City Council respectively; fairness of the current process; consideration and review of additional evidence by the Variance Board and/or City Council at its discretion; and possible language such as "a public meeting at which time testimony is taken from the applicant and any inter- ested parties." Councilmember Ihlan requested additional time to review the information from staff prior to taking action at tonight's meeting; and opined that she didn't support delegating City Council authority to the Variance Board. Councilmember Kough concurred with not delegating City Council author- ity or not allowing the public to come forward with pertinent information.