My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0406
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0406
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2015 2:55:39 PM
Creation date
5/4/2015 1:24:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/6/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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,April 6, 2015 <br /> Page 17 <br /> nections) they were not counted separately as a violation. However, Mr. Englund noted <br /> that the building had 5 of the 17 units inspected on that one property, and needed three or <br /> less violations to receive an A license, but actually had twenty violations, which was sev- <br /> en times the number allowed. Mr. Englund further reiterated that the building would <br /> have been categorized at other than a"D"building if there had been fewer than eight vio- <br /> lations noted. <br /> At the request of Chair Roe for that specific building, Mr. Englund clarified that five <br /> units were inspected plus the common area for that building and calculations were based <br /> on that number of units. <br /> Motion <br /> Member Willmus moved, Member Etten seconded, DENIAL of the appeal by G & G <br /> Management LLC dated February 9, 2015, and require renewal inspections and payment <br /> of fees remaining at the six month interval as required in the ordinance based on the li- <br /> cense type assigned to each of the 12 buildings based on the following findings: <br /> • Member Willmus noted that owners were notified in advance of the inspection, with <br /> most issues pointed out in advance of the inspection; and each building was evaluated <br /> on its own merits and within the merits of the law and ordinance <br /> • Member Etten noted that even removing smaller items, there were clear code viola- <br /> tions. s <br /> • Member Etten, as a resident in this neighborhood, noted his observation of trash fre- <br /> quently and repeatedly blowing along the frontage road from dumpsters on these <br /> properties, and trash remaining on site long-term, as well as having it addressed dur- <br /> ing past NEP inspections. Member Etten stated that clean-up efforts are not occurring <br /> right away or are not happening at all. Member Etten opined that this is a clear op- <br /> portunity for management to make improvements, and thereby improving their rat- <br /> ings and subsequent fees. <br /> Member McGehee expressed her ambivalence to the motion, opining there were some <br /> things, like acknowledging water and energy savings efforts that could be taken ad- <br /> vantage of in the rental licensing inspection program. Member McGehee expressed <br /> appreciation to the property owner for implementing those efforts. <br /> Member McGehee stated that this was a unique property and population served in <br /> Roseville, learning to make its way through a unique set of problems, as recognized <br /> by staff in a variety of areas with attempts made to address those issues. Member <br /> McGehee recognized the large number of children, and the need to provide an appro- <br /> priate and adequate space for them to play; and if not available, something to be con- <br /> sidered by the City in setting its own regulations in providing affordable, reasonable <br /> housing in Roseville. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.