Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br />DATE: 12/6/O6 <br />ITEM NO: 5c <br />Department Approval: Agenda Section: <br />JS PUBLIC HEARING <br />Item Description: Consideration of modifications to the Variance Board appeals process <br />(PF3800). <br />1.0 BACKGROUND: <br />1.1 In 2004, an Ordinance providing for an appeal of Variance Board decisions by the City <br />Council (acting as a Board of Adjustments and Appeals) was adopted by the Roseville <br />City Council. <br />1.2 In the past two months, there have been two Variance Board appeals filed with the City <br />Council. As a result of these appeals, several issues have arisen with the process. <br />Among these issues are: <br />o Whether the consideration of an appeal is, or should be, required as a"Public Hearing;" <br />o Proper notification of neighboring properties that an appeal of a Variance Board decision <br />is to be heard 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 decision or whether the City Council is to reconsider the <br />variance anew, and; <br />o What, if any application fee should be charged for a variance appeal. <br />2.0 STAFF CONSIDERATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />2.1 Requirement to hold a Public Hearing: The City's ordinance states that a variance <br />appeal hearing be held by the City Council (acting as the Board of Adjustments and <br />Appeals) consistent with the requirements and procedures of a Public Hearing (as defined <br />in Chapter 108 of the City Code). <br />The City Code reference to public hearings, however, seems to address Public Hearings <br />as required by State Statute. State Statute strictly regulates the circumstances and <br />process under which a Public Hearing must be held. An appeal of a land-use decision <br />(such as a variance) is not required by Minnesota Statutes. Staff's suggestion is that <br />while the intent may be to emulate the Public Hearing process, so naming the <br />consideration of an appeal may put undue legal burden and risk of litigation on the City. <br />Staff is recommending that the term "hearing" be replaced with "public meeting" and that <br />the reference to Chapter 108 be eliminated. <br />PF3800_RPCA_Variance_Appeal.doc Page 1 of 1 <br />