2007_0319_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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