Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Study Session <br />Monday, March 19, 2007 <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />public hearing and notification requirements; and what items are to be con- <br />sidered in the appeal process. <br /> <br />Discussion included time constraints in land use cases with publication and <br />notice requirements; Variance Board discussion of the two appeals for Vari- <br />ance Board denials brought to the City Council and differences in what was <br />presented to the Variance Board and that brought forward for City Council <br />consideration; and original intent in establishing a Variance Board to allevi- <br />ate the workload of the City Council and Planning Commission on adminis- <br />trative-type issues. <br /> <br />Further discussion included the lack of policy issues related to variances; <br />small percentages of appeals heard beyond the Variance Board; and the <br />Variance Board's ability to bring policy issues before the City Councilor <br />other related issues in a Study Session format for discussion and/or direc- <br />tion. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined the need to make it clear to applicants that they <br />make their best case initially to avoid the appeal process, and not attempt to <br />try a different method if their preferred result wasn't approved, but to reap- <br />ply with another proposal to the Variance Board. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included the 60/120 day rule for land use cases and <br />case by case considerations with staff monitoring the timeline. <br /> <br />Staff was directed to return to the City Council at the next regular meeting <br />with an action item to schedule a hearing for April 14, 2007 for considera- <br />tion of an ordinance amendment as discussed and outlined by staff. <br /> <br />7. Consideration of an Audit Committee <br />Finance Director Chris Miller provided a summary of meetings held be- <br />tween staff and a Subcommittee of Councilmembers Kough and Ihlan earlier <br />in the year to discuss recent outside audit findings that identified several op- <br />erating practices that were in conflict by State Statute. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller advised that, with the exception of the City's employee recogni- <br />tion luncheon, the audit findings had been addressed and should no longer <br />appear in the future. Mr. Miller advised that the auditors had opined that the <br />City didn't have authority to spend public monies on employee recognition <br />