Laserfiche WebLink
.� <br />5 <br />� <br />� <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: 4/23/07 <br />ITEM NO: 9.a <br />- ��� <br />1 }c�,;.:si7:cr.s ;�}��r�,vaL: ' : ���,7 �� ti etii� ��3: <br />� � � PL: BLIG 1FE�iI�1� <br />Ttc� :_ ���=� iy�tic�r_: �: or� id er,�tio� of m o ca�or����� �� �f ��i�n�r. �a�rd .�p�r-als �rr+c�r.�a <br />1[� �1�_��O�i�. -- - <br />.�.. <br />11 <br />I � 1.0 BACKGROUND: <br />l� 1.1 In 2004, an Ordinance was adopted providing for an appeal to the City Council (acting as <br />L� a Board of Adjustments and Appeals) of Variance Board decisions or of administrative <br />1� rulings made by planning and zoning staff. <br />1 G 1.2 In the past several months there have been three Variance Board or administrative ruling <br />0� appeals filed with the City Council. As a result of these appeals, several issues have <br />!� arisen with the process. Among these issues are: <br />1� <br />���! <br />�l <br />o Whether the consideration of an appeal is, or should be, required as a"Public Hearing;" <br />o Proper notificationthat a Variance Board or Administrative Ruling appeal is to be heard <br />by the City Council; <br />�2 o Whether the intent of the appeal process is for the City Council to examine the exiting <br />�.� record of the Variance Board's or staffs' decision or whether the City Council is to <br />�� reconsider the issue anew; <br />�a 1.3 The Planning Commission (including all three members of the Variance Board) discussed <br />�G these proposed amendments to the process at their December 6,2006 meeting and voted <br />�� unanimously to recommend approval of such by the Roseville City Council. <br />�2� 1.4 The City Council initially considered this request on January 29, 2007 and had questions <br />�{� about the statutory requirements of appeals hearings as well as some procedural questions <br />3E� (see attached minutes). <br />� f 1.5 On March 5,2007 City Attorney Scott Anderson provided a letter outlining the legal <br />3� basis for hearing an appeal of a Variance Board ruling or an administrativeruling <br />3 � (attached). <br />3� 1.6 At the March 19 City Council Study Session, the Council ftutkaer discussed the proposed <br />�� changes to the ordinance (see attached excerpt of minutes) and directed staff to bring the <br />�6 recflm�nended. ordinance changes forward to a City Council Public Hearing for action to <br />�� be taken. <br />3�3 2.0 STAFF CONSIDERATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />P'E ry8�4_1�CA_T�a�ri�_r'��1_��� ���_�d �3 G? Page 1 of 3 <br />