My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_061206
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
pm_061206
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:40:25 PM
Creation date
2/6/2007 11:20:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/6/2006
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, December 06, 2006 <br />Page 5 <br />Chair Traynor advised that the case would come before the City Council at their January 8, <br />2007 meeting. <br /> c. PLANNING FILE 3800 <br />AMEND Roseville City Code, §1013.01 (Board of Adjustment <br />City of Roseville request to <br />and Appeals), <br />specific to the VARIANCE appeal process. <br />Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 3800. <br />Community Development Director John Stark reviewed the request for modification to the <br />Variance Board appeals process: <br /> Whether the consideration of an appeal is, or should be, required as a ‘Public Hearing;” <br /> Notification of neighboring property owners that an appeal of a Variance Board decision <br />is to be heard by the City Council; <br /> Whether the intent of the appeal process is for the City Council to examine the existing <br />record of the Variance Board’s decision or whether the City Council is to reconsider the <br />variance anew; and <br /> What, if any, application fee should be charged for a variance appeal. <br />Mr. Stark reviewed in detail public hearing requirements; notification considerations; items to <br />be considered in the appeal process; and application fees. <br />Commissioner Gasongo sought ways to encourage the public’s use of the City’s <br />website for public notices; and Mr. Stark volunteered to pass along the discussion to <br />City staff currently working on the process of redesigning the City’s website for easy <br />linkage on the front page directing the public to public hearing and meeting notices. <br />Staff recommended two (2) amendments to the City Council, in addition to including fees for <br />Variance Appeal Filing Fee respective to residential and commercial properties. <br />Discussion included specific and appropriate language; notice criteria and methods; State <br />Statute requirements; cost considerations for noting the appeal process; and staff discretion <br />to provide extended mailed notice as evidenced by interested parties. <br />Public Comment <br />No one appeared for or against. <br />MOTION: <br />Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Boerigter, RECOMMEND APPROVAL <br />of an AMENDMENT to Roseville City Code, §1013.01 (Board of Adjustment and <br />Appeals), specific to the VARIANCE appeal process, as detailed in Section 3.2, 3.3 and <br />3.4 of the staff report dated December 6, 2006; <br />modified to amend Section 3.2 to <br />exclude the word, “regular” as it related to public meeting held within thirty (30) days; <br />excluding in its entirety Section 3.4, as already addressed in the 2007 Fee Schedule, <br />recently adopted by the City Council; and when the appeal is filed, it is to be <br />accompanied by a 60-day extension waiver to the original variance request to <br />accommodate the land use schedule. <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Chair Traynor noted that anticipated City Council Action would be at their January 8, 2007 <br />City Council meeting. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.