My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0509
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/27/2016 9:09:00 AM
Creation date
5/24/2016 2:55:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/9/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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, May 9, 2016 <br />Page 8 <br />that time had been made by Councilmember Willmus, and seconded by Coun- <br />cilmember Laliberte. <br />Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11319 (RCA <br />Exhibit A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the Denial of an Amendment to <br />the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map form Low Density Residential to High <br />Density Residential, and a Corresponding Rezoning from Low density Residen- <br />tial-1 to High Density Resitential-1 at 2025 County Road B(PF16-001)." <br />Mayor Roe noted that he had voted "nay" against the original motion, and would <br />do so for this motion as well for the reasons stated at that time. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Laliberte. <br />Nays: Roe. <br />Motion carried. <br />10. General Ordinances for Adoption <br />a. Community Development Department Requests Approval of Proposed Text <br />Ordinance Amendments of Roseville City Code, Title 9, Chapter 908, to <br />Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwellings of 5 or more <br />Units <br />Codes Coordinator Dave Englund briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the <br />RCA and related attachments, May 9, 2016. Mr. Englund highlighted two sec- <br />tions of the revised ordinance, the Licensing Section (Line 105) and Criminal <br />Background Checic Section (Line 111). <br />Councilmember McGehee expressed concern with Page 3, Section B(Line 111) <br />related to criminal background checks and the actual intent, whether the building <br />owner, local agents, and who was included and who was excluded. <br />Mr. Englund noted the intent was to be broad-ranged, but address individuals who <br />may have access to buildings frequently, as well as keys to access buildings <br />and/or units for those repairs, but not intended for infrequent visitors or repair <br />people (e.g. local plumbers, cable television installers, etc.). Mr. Englund sought <br />Councilrnember feedback as to revised language in this case. <br />Councilmember Willmus and Mayor Roe agreed that language needed reworked <br />to provide better clarity. <br />Councilmember McGehee agreed that those having keys and able to access units <br />should be required to have criminal background checks. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.