Laserfiche WebLink
] <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />��' Notification: Currently, the language in the City Code related to a variance appeal states <br />that the notice requirements shall be consistent with the notice requirements for public <br />hearings. In addition to staff's conclusion that the consideration �t the appeal should not <br />be required as a Public Hearing, another problem results from the language related to the <br />timing of consideration of the appeal being in conflict with noticing requirements legally <br />required of public hearings. <br />� The Code requires that an appeal he filed within ten (10) days of the Variance Board's <br />$ ruling and subsequently heard by the City Council at its "next regular meeting." This <br />'� results in a case where the elapsed time between the filing of the appeal and the <br />l ii designated City Council meeting can he as few as five business days. The public hearing <br />I I notice requirements, however, state that notice of the hearing be published in the <br />I� newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing— which would he an impossibility <br />L�� under current requirements. Additionally, it would be difficult for staff to create, print <br />1� and mail a mailed notice i;n a manner that would provide neighbors with sufficient notice <br />�1 �� in the time between the filing of an appeal and the City Council consideration. <br />!�� Based on the discussions held by members of the Variance Board, Planning Commission <br />1'� and City Council, staff has concluded that the desired policy would provide for <br />I#� notificationof a City Council considerationof an appeal in a manner that is not in conflict <br />1{� with either the appeal process or with notification requirements. Based on this <br />y� conclusion, staff is recommending that two amendments be made to the process: first, <br />� 1 that the City Council consider an appeal within 30 days of the filing of an appeal (rather <br />�� than at its "next meeting") and; secondly, that mailed notification be provided to <br />� 3 members of the Variance Board (if applicable) and to those adjacent property owners <br />�� within 350 feet of the property. <br />�� <br />�C� <br />�r <br />�� <br />�9 <br />�� <br />3l <br />3� <br />�3 <br />�� <br />'_ � Items to be considered in the appeal process: The ordinance regarding the appeal <br />process is silent as to whether the intent of the appeal process is for the City Council to <br />reexamine the exiting record of the Variance Board's or staff decision or whether the City <br />Council is to consider new evidence. Based on sta��'s discussions with City Council <br />members, there is some desire among the City Council that they only consider evidence <br />that was previously considered as part of the original decision-making process. Staff <br />concurs with this pos�tion and is recommendin� that the appeal process be amended to <br />state that the �iiy Cou�nci� (acting as the Board of Adjustments arid Appeals) will <br />reconsider azxlv the evidence that had previously been considered as part of the original <br />decision (whether at a Variance Board meeting or in discussions with staf�. <br />�� 3.� <br />�6 3. � <br />�� <br />SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION: <br />BY MOTION, RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT CONSIDER THE <br />FOLLOWING ACTIONS: <br />�� �, �. AMEND CHAPTER 1014.04(C)(2) of the City Code to read: "The written appeal shall <br />3� state the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made, and shall be accompanied by a <br />�3} fee established by resolution of the city council. A��i� public meetin� regarding the <br />� k matter shall be held before the Board of Adjustment and Appeal at �� � regular <br />P�'380Q_RCA_Variance�Appeal_022207 Page 2 of 3 <br />