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
Extract of the Minutes from the Februaw 12.2007 Roseville C➢fiv Council Meetina <br />7. Discuss Public Policy Issues Related to Variance Board Appeal Process <br />Community Development Director John Stark reviewed proposed staff and Planning <br />Commission considerations and recommendationsfor amendment to Chapter 1014.bA�(G} <br />regarding appeals of Variance Board actions. Mr. Stark noted that Planning Commission <br />Chair E3akeman was present should the City Council have any questions of her. <br />Staff recommended amendmentto Roseville City Code, Chapter 1014.04(C}{2} to read: <br />"The written appeal shall state the specific grounds upon which the appeal is <br />made, and shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the <br />City Council. A I�ea�ir� public meeting regarding the matter shall be held <br />before the Board of Adjustment and Appeal at a�� a regular meeting held <br />within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the required written appeal. �a�s�e�l <br />.�".. +w.t ...,��., .,� ,t�+� .,.,a r,�4,ar .,,,�,�.a�,��8•�Fi�i'� � �c.`-f'.J.`.i� <br />�f tF�i��, A mailed notice of the public meeting at which the appeal is to <br />be considered shall be sent to members of the Variance Board (if applicable) <br />and to all of those property owners within 350 feet of the subject property." <br />and amendment to Chapter 10�4.q4(C), adding subparagraph (3) stating: <br />"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals will reconsider only the evidence <br />that had previously been considered as part of the formal action that is the <br />subject of the appeal. New or additional information from the appeals <br />applicant may be considered by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at its <br />sole discretion, if that information serves to clarify information previously <br />considered by the Variance Board and/or staff." <br />Mr. Stark reviewed State Statute requirements for this type of appeal (i.e., no Public <br />Hearing required); undue legal implications; use of the term "appeal" and any legal <br />implied ramifications; role and authority of the Variance Board and the City Council <br />r�s�ectively; fairness of the current process; consideration and review of additional <br />evidence by ihe Variance Board andlor City Council at its discretion; and possible <br />language such as "a public meeting at which time testimony is taken from the applicant <br />andar�y interested parties." <br />� s nc �� �� Ihlan ��.►e�ed add'r��� t�� zu ��r �� ar���rrr��i�r� �r�m staff prior <br />t � �ki� _:ti� at k�ni��'� me�n� �n� �lr�� t�a� sfi� didn't support ���� City <br />�oun�if a�thoril� to the Variance Board. <br />Councilmember Kough concurred with not delegating City Council authority or not <br />allowing the public to come forward with pertinent information. <br />Mayor Klausing observed that no one was suggesting that an appeal process was not <br />followed; and noted the need to avoid legal ramificationsthat a"public hearing" may <br />indicate, rather than just a public meeting to receive public input. Mayor Klausing opined <br />that he didn't know how to prevent people from bringing additional evidence before the <br />City Council. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.