My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0123
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0123
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:29:52 AM
Creation date
1/31/2006 1:21:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/23/2006
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Study Session - 01/23/06 <br />Minutes - Page 8 <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust suggested staff include the various <br />types of uses in single-family zoning districts as part of the <br />community visioning process (i.e., student, group, and other <br />housing creating traffic congestion). <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with the dichotomy raised <br />by City Manager Beets, in looking at the zoning code and <br />obvious intent of the state statute regarding unrelated people <br />- up to six adults in one unit; and determine where the <br />tensions existed between City Code and State Statute; and <br />the primacy of State Statute. City Attorney Anderson <br />suggested defining "dwelling units;" if staff stays overnight <br />in a group home, and there is a locked door between the <br />units, or a separate kitchen facility and door, that is defined <br />as two units. Mr. Anderson noted that, when a new buyer <br />became involved, it looked like a duplex, and thus the zoning <br />quagmire between what the unit is sold as and what its use <br />was. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that, the perception is that if <br />it's used that way now, it can be used that way forever; and <br />even with a declaration signed by an operator for a <br />residential facility permitted by Minnesota Statute under <br />Section 462.357, Subd. 6a - 8, the uncertainty of the manner <br />in which the business or use is being conducted under City <br />Code becomes an issue. <br /> <br />Further discussion included the sales process for single- <br />family homes; stipulations and state regulations for group <br />homes; and the desire for disbursement of group homes <br />throughout a community to provide a better lifestyle for <br />group home occupants. <br /> <br />Rep. Greiling suggested that, rather than changing the <br />ordinance and/or statute, perhaps better education of the <br />public was preferable via the city newsletter or local <br />newspaper, advising them of their right to complain about a <br />group home in their neighborhood if it wasn't meeting <br />ordinance requirements. Rep. Greiling also suggested better <br />education of code enforcement personnel of city and state <br />law, examples of the federal Fair Housing Act; applicable <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.