2007_0326_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

March 5,2007 Page 4 interpreting your zoning and subdivision ordinances, and making recommendations thereunder. Their experience in this area inay be h�lpfial to the City Council in the area of appeals of decisions of the Cam�nunity Development Department. It is another opportunity to gain input. Proposed amendments to E� 1�.�� ) includes striking the requirement for a public hearing and requiring only a public meeting before the City Council, acting as the Board of Appeal and Adjustment, on the appeal. And, instead of a reference to the notice requirements and procedures contained in Chapter 108 of the Code, holding the meeting within 30 days of receipt of the required written appeal. An addition to that section would require mailed notice of the meeting to members of the Variance Board and to property owners within 350 feet of the subj ect property. That is consistent with Section 108.01 {B} of Chapter 108, which sets forth the 350 feet boundary for mailed notice. As stated earlier, there is no requirement in the law that the City Council hold another public hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Variance Board. Whether to do so is entirely in the discretion of the Council, and is a policy decision for the Council to ��a�ce. However, we do need to be cognizant of the 60-day rule, set forth in Minn. Stat. � 15.99, in this appeal procedure. �Vioxe�a v. City of Minneapolis, 676 N.W.2d 1(Minn. App. 2004) dealt wit an issue arising from an internal appeal procedure. The basic holding of the case is that in order to comply with the 60-day rule, when there is an allowance for an internal appeal within the municipality of a decision made by one body, the final decision within the meaning of the 60-day rule is not zaaade until the appeal is finally decided. Thus the entire process has to be completed within 60 days from the original application heard by the Variance Board, to the conclusion of any potential appeaL This can of course be extended once by up to 60 days, for a total af 120 days. HQVVever, the City Council needs to keep in mind that currently only the Council by a vote at a public meeting extends the 60-day rule. Timing issues could come up if a Variance Board decision is not made within the first 30 days after the completed application is submitted, with then the uncertainty as to whether or not there may be an appeal. It is possible that an appeal could come in, and due to a Council m�eti��g schedule, there would be no action that could be taken before the expiration of the original 60 days. The Council needs to provide some type of procedures to ensure that it does not get caught in these situations. The proposed amendment to add a subparagraph 3 to Section 1014.��(C) proposes language to indicate that the City Council will reconsider only the evidence that had previously been considered as part of the fonnal action taken by the Variance Board. There is discretion written into the proposed amendment to allow the Council to deviate under certain circumstances.