Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />7 <br />8 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Department Approval: <br />D�TE: 4/23/07 <br />ITEM NO: 9.a <br />r�genda Section: <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />Item Description: Consideration of mo ifications to the Variance Board appeals process <br />(PF3800). <br />1.0 BACKGROUND: <br />13 1.1 In 2004, an Ordinance was adopted providing for an appeal to the City Council (acting as <br />14 a Board of Adjustments and Appeals) of Variance Board decisions or of administrative <br />15 rulings made by planning and zoning staff. <br />16 1.2 In the past several months there have been three Variance Board or administrative ruling <br />17 appeals filed with the City Council. As a result of these appeals, several issues have <br />18 arisen with the process. Among these issues are: <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />o Whether the consideration of an appeal is, or should be, required as a"Public Hearing;" <br />o Proper notification that a Variance Board or Administrative Ruling appeal is to be heard <br />by the City Council; <br />o Whether the intent of the appeal process is for the City Council to examine the exiting <br />record of the Variance Board's or staffs' decision or whether the City Council is to <br />reconsider the issue anew; <br />25 1.3 The Planning Commission (including all three members of the Variance Board) discussed <br />26 these proposed amendments to the process at their December 6, 2006 meeting and voted <br />27 unanimously to recommend approval of such by the Roseville City Council. <br />28 1.4 The City Council initially considered this request on January 29, 2007 and had questions <br />29 about the statutory requirements of appeals hearings as well as some procedural questions <br />30 (see attached minutes). <br />31 1.5 On March 5, 2007 City Attorney Scott Anderson provided a letter outlining the legal <br />32 basis for hearing an appeal of a Variance Board ruling or an administrative ruling <br />33 (attached). <br />34 1.6 At the March 19 City Council Study Session, the Council further discussed the proposed <br />35 changes to the ordinance (see attached excerpt of minutes) and directed staff to bring the <br />36 recommended ordinance changes forward to a City Council Public Hearing for action to <br />37 be taken. <br />38 2.0 STAFF CONSIDERATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />PF3800_RCA_Variance_Appeal_042307_042307 Page 1 of 3 <br />