My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0319_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0319_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:38:43 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:20:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
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
��� <br />��{_ � . r..r... �_ � � <br />Community Development Department <br />2 <br />� �e111[� <br />4 To: Roseville City Council � f� <br />5 From: John Stark, Community Development D�rector <br />6 Date: March 14,2007 <br />7 Re: Variance and Administrative Ruling Appeals Process <br />Date: 3/19/07 <br />Item: 8. <br />Discussion of <br />Variance Appeal Process <br />� On February 12, the City Council consideredmodifications to the process for appealing <br />'� decisions of the Variance Board or "Administrative Rulings" of City Staff pertaining to <br />I[� land use decisions. The modifications suggestedby staff are outlined in the attached <br />]] Request for Council Action (dated February 12,2007). <br />� �. <br />l� <br />l� <br />l� <br />L �{ <br />]� <br />.I !� <br />At the City Council meeting (see attached Extract of Minutes), members of the Council <br />discussed: <br />o Implications of delegating decision-making on the issuance of variances to the <br />Variance Board; <br />o The need to officially designate a"Public Hearing" for the Council's <br />consideration of an appeal; <br />o Whether or not to accept "new information" as part of the Appeal process; <br />� C� o The statutory requirements for consideration of variances, the statutory authority <br />�? 1 for the City Council to delegate its decision-mal�ingregardingvariances to the <br />�� Variance Board and the statutory regulation of hearing variance appeals, and; <br />�3 o A desire to further review the existing City Code regarding variances, variance <br />�u appeals and administrative rulings appeals. <br />�� <br />f� City Attorney Scott Anderson responded to many of the questions related to statutory <br />i�' requirements in a letter dated March 5, 2007 (attached). In this letter, Mr. �idcrsan <br />? S opines that a municipality is required to have a Variance Board which may be a distinct <br />=`� body or may be the Planning Commission or the City Council as a whole. Further, Mr. <br />�� Anderson states that cities can choose whether appeals of the Variance Board are to be <br />�: heard by the City Council or are to go directly to the district court. If a City Council <br />.}? chooses to hold an appeal hearing, there is no defiined process and a city can use its own <br />.i.i discretion in establishing such a process. <br />Council Variance Appeal Memo Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.