Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />7 <br />8 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />D�TE: 2/ 12/07 <br />ITEI�1 NO: <br />Department l�pproval: �genda Section: <br />JS REPORTS <br />Item Description: Consideration of modifications 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 2.0 STAFF CONSIDERATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />29 2.1 Requirement to hold a Public Hearing: The City's ordinance states that an appeal <br />30 hearing be held by the City Council (acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals) <br />31 consistent with the requirements and procedures of a Public Hearing (as defined in <br />32 Chapter 108 of the City Code). <br />33 The City Code reference to public hearings, however, seems to address Public Hearings <br />34 as required by State Statute. State Statute strictly regulates the circumstances and <br />35 process under which a Public Hearing must be held. An appeal of a land-use decision <br />36 (such as a variance) is not required by Minnesota Statutes. Staff's suggestion is that <br />37 while the intent may be to emulate the Public Hearing process, so naming the <br />38 consideration of an appeal may put undue legal burden and risk of litigation on the City. <br />39 Staff is recommending that the term "hearing" be replaced with "public meeting" and that <br />40 the reference to Chapter 108 be eliminated. <br />PF3800_RCA_Variance_Appeal_021207 Page 1 of 3 <br />