2007_0423_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

j � 1 Requirement to hold a Public Hearing: The City's ordinance states that an appeal ? hearing be held by the City Council (acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals) .� consistent with the re�uirements and orocedures of a Public �earin� (as defined in � Chapter 108 of the �'i i x� Code). � The City Code reference to public hearings, however, seems to address Public Hearings �i as required by State Statute. State Statute strictly regulates the circumstancesand r process under which a Public Hearing must be held. An appeal of a land-use decision � (such as a variance) is not required by Minnesota Statutes. Staffs suggestion is that !� while the intent may be to emulate the Public Hearing process, so naming the � f� consideration of an-appeal may put undue legal burden ar�c� risk of litigatio� on the City. �] Staff is recommending that the term "hearing" be replaced with "public meeting" and that ]� the reference to C�apier 108 be eliminated. ] a �.� Notification: Currently, the language in the City Code related to a variance appeal states 1� that the notice requirements shall be consistent with the notice requirements for public I 5 hearings. In addition to staffs conclusion that the consideration of the appeal should not I�i be required as a Public Hearing, another problem results from the language related to the L� timing of consideration of the appeal being in conflict with noticing requirements legally i� required of public hearings. L 9 The Code requires that an appeal be filed within ten (10) days of the Variance Board's �� ruling and subsequently heard by the City Council at its "ne�t regular meeting." This � I results in a case where the elapsed time between the filing of the appeal and the �.� designated City Council meeting can be as few as five business days. The public hearing �.:� notice requirements, however, state that notice of the hearing be published in the �.� newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing — which would be an impossibility �� under current requirements. Additionally, it would be difficult for staff to create, print �t� and mail a mailed notice in a manner that would provide neighbors with sufficient notice �? in the time between the filing of an appeal and the City Council consideration. �� Based on the discussions held by members of the Variance Board, Planning Commission �� and City Council, staff has concluded that the desired policy would provide for 3�1 notification of a City Council consideration of an appeal in a manner that is not in conflict 3 f with either the appeal process or with notification requirements. Based on this 3? conclusion, staff is recommending that two amendments he made to the process: first, 3 � that the City Council consider an appeal within 30 days of the filing of an appeal (rather 3<� than at its "ne�t meeting") and; secondly, that mailed notification be provided to 3� members of the Variance Board (if applicable) and to those adj acent property owners 36 within 350 feet of the property. ;? ?_.'� Items to be considered in the appeal process: The ordinance regarding the appeal �� process is silent as to whether the intent of the appeal process is for the City Council to 39 reexamine the exiting record of the Variance Board's or staff decision or whether the City ��] Council is to consider new evidence. Staff is of the opinion that the presence of � I significant new information should result in the applicant submitting a new application PT'3800_RCA_Varianee Appea1�042307_042347 Page 2 of 3