Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />5 <br />� <br />R <br />I� <br />ll <br />�� <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: 2/ 12/07 <br />IT��i NO: <br />Department Approval: Agenda Section: <br />,� REPORTS <br />Item Description: Consideration of modifications to the Variance Board appeals process <br />PF3�frU . <br />1.0 BACKGROUND: <br />I� 1.1 In 2004, an Ordinance was adopted providing for an appeal to the City Council (acting as <br />1� a Board of Adjustments and Appeals) of Variance Board decisions or of administrative <br />]� rulings made by planning and zoning staff. <br />]�a 1.2 In the past several months there have been three Variance Board or administrativeruling <br />1� appeals filed with the City Council. As a result of these appeals, several issues have <br />l� arisen with the process. Among these issues are: <br />l� <br />�� <br />?i <br />�� <br />2� <br />�� <br />o Whether the consideration of an appeal is, or should be, required as a"Public Hearing;" <br />o Proper notificationthat a Variance Board or Administrative Ruling appeal is to be heard <br />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 or'staffs' decision or whether the City Council is to <br />reconsider the �ssue anew; <br />�� 13 The Planning Commission (including all three members of the Variance Board) discussed <br />�� these proposed amendments to the process at their December 6,2006 meeting and voted <br />�� unanimously to recommend approval of such by the Roseville City Council. <br />�#� 2.0 STAFF CONSIDERATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />�!� 2.1 Requirement to hold a Public Hearing: The City's ordinance states that an appeal <br />3{h hearing be held by the City Council (acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals) <br />� � consistent with the requirements and procedures of a Public Hearing (as defined in <br />�� Chapter 108 of the City Code). <br />3� The City Code reference to public hearings, however, seems to address Public Hearings <br />3� 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 />3� while the intent may be to emulate the Public Hearing process, so naming the <br />3� 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 />PF3$00_RCA_Variance�Appeal_021207 Page 1 of 3 <br />