pf_03800 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpt from Minutes of the Roseville City Council Study Session March 20, 2007 Discussion of the Variance Appeal Process Community Development Director John Stark; former Variance Board Chair Mary Bakeman; and Variance Board Commissioners Jim Doherty and Daniel Boerigter were present to discuss modifications to the appeal process for decisions of the Variance Board or for "Administrative Rulings" by City staff. At the February 12, 2007 City Council meeting, when modifications were originally discussed, discussion included implications of delegating decision-making on the issuance of variances to the Variance Board; the need to officially designate a"Public Hearing" for the Council's consideration of an appeal; whether to not to accept new information as part of the appeal process; statutory requirements for consideration of variances, statutory authority for the City Council to delegate its decision-making regarding variances; the statutory regulation of hearing variance appeals; and a desire to further review the existing City Code regarding variances, variance appeals and administrative ruling appeals. Subsequent to that meeting, City Attorney Scott Anderson provided a response to many of those questions and discussion items related to statutory requirements and City Code, Chapter 1014, in his letter dated March 5, 2007. Councilmember Ihlan opined her concerns about not allowing for additional information to be heard at the appeal level; and expressed interest in the City Council to sit as the Variance Board to keep tabs on how many variances are being requested, and whether policy decision and ordinance revisions are more applicable to achieve compliance. Mayor Klausing clarified that the only changes staff was recommending were those listed in the staff report dated February 12, 2007 and related to public hearing and notification requirements; and what items are to be considered in the appeal process. Discussion included time constraints in land use cases with publication and notice requirements; Variance Board discussion of the two appeals for Variance Board denials brought to the City Council and differences in what was presented to the Variance Board and that brought forward for City Council consideration; and original intent in establishing a Variance Board to alleviate the workload of the City Council and Planning Commission on administrative-type issues. Further discussion included the lack of policy issues related to variances; small percentages of appeals heard beyond the Variance Board; and the Variance Board's ability to bring policy issues before the City Council or other related issues in a Study Session format for discussion and/or direction. Mayor Klausing opined the need to make it clear to applicants that they make their best case initially to avoid the appeal process, and not attempt to try a different method if their preferred result wasn't approved, but to reapply with another proposal to the Variance Board.