2007_0226_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.� � 4 5 � � � Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 12,2007 Page 23 8. Discuss Public Policy Issues Related to Variance Board Appeal Process Community Development Director John Stark reviewed proposed staff and Planning Commission considerations and recommendations for amendment to Chapter 1014.04(C} regarding appeals of Variance Board actions. Mr. Stark noted that Planning Commission Chair B�eman was present should the City Council have any questions of her. Staff recommended amendment to Roseville City Code, Chapter {� � 014.04(C){2) to read: 1 i� "The written appeal shall state the specific grounds upon which the appeal is 1 l made, and shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City ]� Council. A�� public meetina regarding the matter shall be held before the 1:� Board of Adjustment and Appeal at i� �� a regular meeting held within thirtv 1� E��) davs of the receipt of the required written appeal. �r��t�t�rtt wi�ht 4�+� rr�li� 15 . A 1� mailed notice of the public meeting at which the appeal is to be considered shall l� be sent to members of the Variance Board (if applicable) and to all of those 2 s property owners within 350 feet of the subject property." and ?�� amendment to Chapter � 0� 4.04(C), adding subparagraph (3) stating: �.c� "The Board of Adiustments and A�peals will reconsider onlv the evidence that �1 had nreviouslv been considered as part of the formal action that is the subiect of �� the a�peal. New or additional information from the a�peals a�plicant mav be �� considered bv the Board of Adiustments and A�peals at its sole discretion, if that �� information serves to clarify information previously considered bv the Variance �:a Board and/or staff." �� �� �� �� ��? �1 :��z �3 �4 �5 Mr. Stark reviewed State Statute requirements for this type of appeal (i.e., no Public Hearing required); undue legal implications; use of the term "appeal" and any legal implied ramifications; role and authority of the Variance Board and the City Council respectively; fairness of the current process; consideration and review of additional evidence by the Variance Board andlQr City Council at its discretion; and possible language such as "a public meeting at which time testimony is taken �om the applicant and any inter- ested parties." �� CouncilmemberIhlan requested additional time to review the information �� from staff prior to taking action at tonight's meeting; and opined that she 3� didn't support delegating City Council authority to the Variance Board. �� �� Councilmember Kough concurred with not delegating City Council author- � � ity or not allowing the public to come forward with pertinent information.