My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0209
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0209
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2015 2:49:36 PM
Creation date
3/2/2015 2:49:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/9/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,February 9, 2015 <br /> Page 36 <br /> around the city in general; and asked that staff report back if that was a possibil- <br /> ity. <br /> Councilmember McGehee sought further incentives to create smoke-free build- <br /> ings that could provide additional extensions for review, since fire was a big issue <br /> in many of these buildings and would address the desire to reduce that liability. <br /> Mr. Munson advised that he would look into those suggestions as part of staff's <br /> follow-up. <br /> Councilmember Willmus referenced Attachment A (pages 2 and 3) and the in- <br /> spection of units. <br /> Mr. Munson clarified the inspection cycle, whether new or as part of the renewal <br /> cycle, with 25% of 100% of the units initially inspected, and then 25% of those <br /> first units re-inspected as part of the next inspection cycle; with the inspector hav- <br /> ing a list of those previous inspected units. <br /> Councilmember Etten suggested additional language at the end of the statement to <br /> provide greater clarity, such as "previously inspected units." <br /> City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would work with staff on wordsmithing <br /> language before the February 23, 2015 meeting to further clarify that provision. <br /> In terms of the appeal process, Mayor Roe noted the difference in the response <br /> from the property owner from 10 days for land use appeals to 30 days for this ap- <br /> peal, and questioned the difference. <br /> Mr. Munson responded that this language was similar to that used in the City's <br /> Repeat Nuisance Ordinance, allowing time for a building manager to consult with <br /> a supervisor if necessary, fund the needed improvements as applicable, and then <br /> complete the work. Mr. Munson opined that staff found only 10 days to be to <br /> short of a time for them to accomplish this process. <br /> Community Development Director Bilotta responded to Mayor Roe's concerns, <br /> noting that variances for land use issues were of a limited appeal nature; but with <br /> this application potentially affecting numerous units, and whether or not covered <br /> by code or not, staff required more time to work with the property owners, and <br /> perhaps even perform another inspection or walk through the building with them <br /> to address various issues. <br /> Mayor Roe noted the need for staff to work with the City Attorney on language <br /> clarification as noted, in addition to their other recommended changes and as dis- <br /> cussed tonight. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.