CC_Minutes_2006_0123 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session - 01/23/06 Minutes - Page 20 misinterpretations of the proposed IPMC; additional comments as Part of the from Don Munson as a bench handout/memo dated January 23, Roseville City Code 2006 addressing concerns raised about overzealous enforcement; and other concerns from residents during previous public comment; and ongoing issues raised by residents related to better code enforcement needed, that could be addressed by staff with adoption of the IPMC (i.e., overcrowded living conditions and parking). Mr. Welsch again reviewed those items identified as Roseville exemptions to State Code, and areas where City Code was silent or needing clarification. Mr. Welsch noted that Roseville was one of few communities that didn't use the uniform IPMC. Councilmember Pust reviewed several areas of concern in language related to "strict liability" as outlined by Councilmember Ihlan and requesting City Attorney comment. City Attorney Anderson addressed the "strict liability" concern, opining that the provisions were already present, and that if you violated the code, you were guilty. Councilmembers Pust and Maschka noted that the amount of square footage for a bedroom unit created another tension in group home use. City Attorney Anderson noted that by operation of State Statute, it didn't apply to group homes. Further discussion included concerns raised in Councilmember Ihlan's memo dated January 17, 2006 and staff responses via memo dated January 17, 2006 by Building Official Don Munson. Mr. Welsch cautioned that Councilmembers not confuse rental licensing provisions with the IPMC. City Attorney Anderson opined that the proposed IPMC provided additional authority for the City Council to enhance their present authority regarding issues that may create complaints within the community; noting that the Code Enforcement Department basically operated by responding to citizen complaints, and that adoption of the IPMC provisions would provide more clarity and