My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03708
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3700
>
pf_03708
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 4:35:21 PM
Creation date
7/3/2013 10:42:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3708
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
287
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
a. Beginning in 1995 and continuing through spring of 1998, the Planning Commission and <br />staff attempted to create a level of understanding of housing maintenance issues. <br />Representatives from other units of government were invited to discuss their city's <br />approach to Housing Maintenance. The City of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Coon <br />Rapids, New Brighton, Shoreview, Winona, White Bear Lake and Mankato Housing <br />Maintenance ordinances were reviewed, as well as models from conferences that staff <br />attended. <br />b. In 1997-98 the staff worked with the 35W Corridor Coalition to develop a model housing <br />ordinance based on the Shoreview City Code. Any city could adopt it. Codes and <br />Inspection staff from the 7 cities reviewed the draft ordinance and recommended more <br />uniformity — adopt the International Property Maintenance Code with amendments <br />to concur with existing city codes and the state building code. <br />Five of the 10 bordering communities (St. Paul, Minneapolis, New Brighton, <br />Maplewood, and Shoreview) have adopted property maintenance codes as well <br />as rental licensing programs. Of the remaining bordering communities, Falcon <br />Heights and Little Canada are reviewing the need for and adoption of rental <br />licensing programs. This could make Roseville more vulnerable to absentee <br />property owners to invest in communities where the codes and inspections <br />are not monitored. <br />In 2001-2002 Roseville studied and later created a Housing and Redevelopment <br />Authority (HRA) to focus on housing issues. <br />d. In 2003-2004 the HRA and the Community Development Department completed the <br />Roseville Multi-Family Housing Study that provided insight into multi-family housing, <br />where it is located, who lives there, how affordable it is, the tax value and physical <br />condition. <br />e. In 2005, the HRA completed a process to review neighborhood housing issues through a <br />series of educational meetings as well as neighborhood meetings. Through the <br />nei�hborhood meetings the most common issue that was heard was the increase in <br />the number of single familv rental properties and their deferred maintenance. <br />Residents were lookin� to the City to resolve these issues and protect their <br />nei�hborhood and Aropertv investment. This has helped the HRA understand the <br />issues and deternune the best, most effective approach to maintenance and rental housing <br />issues. <br />3.2 What are the Numbers? � <br />a. Based on Ramsey County Assessor's tax records and Roseville utility billing records the <br />following are estimates of Roseville 1 to 4 unit rental housing structures: <br />• In June 2002 — there were 154 non-homestead single family properties. <br />RHRA_ Rental Licensing & Property Maintenance Public Hearing (01-17-06) - Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.