Laserfiche WebLink
xl~"7 <br />Supplemental Memo to Items 5.1. & 5.2. <br />MEMORANDUM <br />ver <br />TO: City Council <br />FROM: Jeremy Barnhart <br />DATE: August 15, 2011 <br />SUBJECT: Variance Ordinance and Hendricloc Application -Items 5.1. & <br />5.2. <br />The Council's review of the draft variance ordinance (5.1 on the agenda) and the appeal of <br />the Hendricks variance (5.2) requires some clarification. <br />Because the City Council had not amended the Ordinance, the Boatrd of Appeals on August <br />9 reviewed the Hendrickx variance based on the existing standards outlined in Section 30- <br />635. The Board denied the application because they felt it did not meet all the variance <br />criteria. <br />It is expected that the City Council will approve the variance ordinance amendment (5.1). <br />If this occurs, the Council should either review the variance based on the new criteria, or <br />remand the decision back to the Board of Appeals to allow them to review it based on the <br />new ordinance. <br />If the Council does not approve the variance ordinance amendment, the Council should <br />review the Hendrickx variance based on section 30-635 (found on page three of the staff <br />memo.) <br />N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\08-15-2011\JB Variance cocer.docx <br />