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
1 must be provided for renters and building heat must be provided Sept 30'h <br />2 to May 15' - a common complaint we now receive. They would not be required <br />3 unless it was a life\safety issues. Smoke detectors (even battery opernted) <br />4 in bedrooms are a Stute law provide (at a minimal cost) a huge safety <br />5 benefit. Each issue would be evaluated based upon cost verse benefit and <br />6 safety issue. <br />7 I would end by restating that because Roseville is aging, property <br />8 maintenance will be nn increasingly important issue for maintaining property <br />9 values and tax base. The IPMC is a nationally recognized stnndard that does <br />10 not require upgrades to existing housing stock (except for rental property) <br />11 and would be a very useful tool addressing those inevitable sporadic <br />12 properties that are not properly maintained and would otherwise end up <br />13 depressing surrounding property values. <br />14 <br />15 Rental Licensing Comments: <br />16 <br />17 Councilmember Kouqh - Why are we not looking at larger complexes? We are <br />18 not denying that there are some issues within Roseville's large aging <br />19 complexes. However, these typicnlly have easily attainable on-site <br />20 professional contacts and most have on-site or contracted maintennnce nnd <br />21 lawns services, and there is more monitoring of public spaces within those <br />22 complexes currently through fire inspections and Section 8 inspections. <br />23 Through the HRA neighborhood meetings, no complaints were heard <br />24 regarding the designuted apartment complexes. When nsked whut chnnges <br />25 residents were observing in their neighborhoods the most common concern <br />26 wns how single family homes were being turned into rental properties and <br />27 frustration with the city's lack of regulation of these homes. With <br />28 Roseville's apartment buildings aging, inspection of these types of buildings <br />29 will likely be necessary in the future in-order to ensure they stay well <br />30 maintained nnd that they do not deteriorate, generate crime and depress <br />31 property values of surrounding neighborhoods. All cities face this possibility <br />32 and most cities nround Roseville have already tuken steps to address this <br />33 possibility. If Roseville does not remain current with other surrounding <br />34 cities in its regulutions, it could act as a magnet und drnw the wrong <br />35 elements who feel they would not have to maintain buildings as well here <br />36 <br />37 907.22: Tenant Identificntion - What is the purpose of identification of <br />38 the number of adults and children in licensed rental properties? Is this a <br />39 data privacy issue? Identification of tenants is important for public sufety <br />40 as well as to help in the calculation of occupancy limits. A suggested revision <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.