My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0319
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0319
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:45:24 AM
Creation date
3/28/2007 11:26:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/19/2007
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Study Session <br />Monday, March 19,2007 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />Discussion included procedure for noticing and attempting to find owners; <br />lack of resale value at auction; value to the school's program; and potential <br />donation of other confiscated items. <br /> <br />Staff was directed to include consideration of an ordinance amendment, as <br />discussed, on the next regular meeting agenda. <br /> <br />8. Discussion of the Variance Appeal Process <br />Community Development Director John Stark; former Variance Board Chair <br />Mary Bakeman; and Variance Board Commissioners Jim Doherty and <br />Daniel Boerigter were present to discuss modifications to the appeal process <br />for decisions of the Variance Board or for "Administrative Rulings" by City <br />staff. <br /> <br />At the February 12, 2007 City Council meeting, when modifications were <br />originally discussed, discussion included implications of delegating deci- <br />sion-making on the issuance of variances to the Variance Board; the need to <br />officially designate a "Public Hearing" for the Council's consideration of an <br />appeal; whether to not to accept new information as part of the appeal proc- <br />ess; statutory requirements for consideration of variances, statutory authority <br />for the City Council to delegate its decision-making regarding variances; the <br />statutory regulation of hearing variance appeals; and a desire to further re- <br />view the existing City Code regarding variances, variance appeals and ad- <br />ministrative ruling appeals. <br /> <br />Subsequent to that meeting, City Attorney Scott Anderson provided a re- <br />sponse to many of those questions and discussion items related to statutory <br />requirements and City Code, Chapter 1014, in his letter dated March 5, <br />2007. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined her concerns about not allowing for additional <br />information to be heard at the appeal level; and expressed interest in the City <br />Council to sit as the Variance Board to keep tabs on how many variances are <br />being requested, and whether policy decision and ordinance revisions are <br />more applicable to achieve compliance. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing clarified that the only changes staff was recommending <br />were those listed in the staff report dated February 12, 2007 and related to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.