CC_Minutes_2011_0110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 10, 2011 Page 2 of the Roseville City Council regarding zoning of 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 and Petition of Surrounding Property Owners (Attachment A) outlining the basis of the appeal. The City Attorney's responses for recommendation to the City to reject the appeal were outlined in two memorandums from their office dated Jan- uary 5, 2011 and provided in the agenda packet materials attached to the staff re- port, identified as Attachments B and C). At the request of Chair Roe, City Attorney Charles Bartholdi verbally reviewed background of laws related to the appeal process and the recommendation of his office; and clarifying that the law in pace at the time of the decision by the deci- sion-making body was applicable, even though in this regard there was no differ- ence in the old and new City Codes. Mr. Bartholdi reviewed the process for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to refer this appeal to the Planning Commis- sion for their review and report on the Appeal prior to any decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, in accordance with Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462.354, Subd. 2. Regarding the next two (2) appeals to be heard by the Board, Mr. Bartholdi ad- vised that City Council decisions were handled differently between the old and new City Codes; and that under the new Code, no City Council action was ap- pealable to the Board; while under the old Code, certain actions were appealable, specific to approval or denial of applications under the Zoning Code. Mr. Bar- tholdi noted that the remaining two appeals were related to land use decisions of the City Council, not initiated by applications, but initiated by the City Council it- self on behalf of the City of Roseville and were therefore not appealable under the old zoning code or the new zoning code. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that City Attorney Bartholdi's analysis addressed all three (3) appeals. Chair Roe briefly reviewed the timing of the appeal and whether the proper pro- cedure was followed. City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the appeal had been received and staff re- sponse provided in an appropriate timeframe, based on ten (10) business days, not ten (10) calendar days. Mr. Bartholdi further noted that staff's reply was to one (1) party, not all the petitioners, since addresses were unavailable to staff, as Ms. Mix was serving as the representative. Member McGehee reviewed an additional portion of State Statute, Chapter 462.357, sub. 6, addressing appeals; and requested additional information on the remedies available to citizens under the new City Code. Mr. Trudgeon and City Attorney Bartholdi reviewed the processes available, in- cluding a petition to rezone the property versus their previous petition for Com-