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
March 5,2007 <br />Page 4 <br />interpreting your zoning and subdivision ordinances, and making recommendations thereunder. <br />Their experience in this area may be h�lpful to the City Council in the area of appeals of <br />decisions of the Community Development Department. It is another opportunity to gain input. <br />Proposed amendments to I� ��_��c��� includes striking the requirement for a public <br />hearing and requiring only a public meeting before the City Council, acting as the Board of <br />Appeal and Adjustment, on the appeal. And, instead of a reference to the notice requirements <br />and procedures contained in Chapter 108 of ihe Code, holding the meeting within 30 days of <br />receipt of the required written appeal. An addition to that section would require mailed notice <br />of the meeting to members of the Variance Board and to property owners within 350 feet of the <br />subj ect property. That is consistent with Section 108.01(B} of Chapter 108, which sets forth <br />the 350 feet boundary for mailed notice. <br />As stated earlier, there is no requirement in the law that the City Council hold another <br />public hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Variance Board. Whether to do so is <br />entirely in the discretion of the Council, and is a policy decision for the Council to make. <br />However, we do need to be cognizant of the 60-day rule, set forth in Minn. Stat. <br />� 15.99, in this appeal procedure. More�v v. Citv of Minr�ea�olis, 676 N, W.2d 1(Minn. App. <br />2004) dealt wit an issue arising from an internal appeal procedure. The basic holding of the <br />case is that in order to ca�nply with the 60-day rule, when there is an allowance for an internal <br />appeal within the municipality of a decision made by one body, the final decision within the <br />meaning of the 60-day rule is not made until the appeal is fmally decided. Thus the entire <br />process has to be completed within 60 days from the original application heard by the Variance <br />Board, to the conclusion of any potential appeal. This can of course be extended once by up to <br />60 days, for a total of 120 days. <br />However, the City Council needs to keep in mind that currently only the Council by a <br />vote at a public meeting extends the 60-day rule. Timing issues could come up if a Variance <br />Board decision is not made within the first 30 days after the completed application is <br />submitted, with then the uncertainty as to whether or not there may be an appeal. It is possible <br />that an appeal could come in, and due to a Council meeting schedule, there would be no action <br />that could be taken before the expiration of the original 60 days. The Council needs to provide <br />some type of procedures to ensure that it does not get caught in these situations. <br />The proposed amendment to add a subparagraph3 to Section 101.�.04(C) proposes <br />language to indicate that the City Council will reconsider only the evidence that had previously <br />been considered as part of the formal action taken by the Variance Board. There is discretion <br />written into the proposed amendment to allow the Council to deviate under certain <br />circumstances. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.