CC_Minutes_2016_0808 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�YI C � �� Y� 1��1�` Addendum to 8/8/2016 City Council Agenda Item 10.a. C��v'�� -6(6 �( 4 � �►�'� . EXCERPT of Auqust 3. 2016 Planninq Commission Meetinq �.,�� v � Planning Commission Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes — Wednesday, August 3, 2016 — 6:30 p.m. t 5. Public Hearings ? c. PROJECT FILE 0017, Amendment 29 _ Request by the City of Roseville to amend City Code Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) � to opt out of the requirements of MN Statute Chapter 462.3593 pertaining to temporary u family health care dwellings. � Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at 8:44 p.m. Mr. Lloyd referenced the details in of this new state mandate, and information provided by the 3 League of Minnesota Cities included in meeting materials. As noted in lines 41 — 44 of the staff � report of today's date, Mr. Lloyd advised that a deeper discussion and public was desired to ,_ accommodate this option. However, Mr. Lloyd noted with the September 1, 2016 deadline from '': the state, the first step would be to opt out of the state's regulations and allow time to develop '� regulations reflecting the needs and preferences of Roseville residents. '? Mr. Lloyd noted this area would be addressed in the city's large zoning chapter, 1011.12, and '-' within additional standards as noted in the staff report; essentially adding a section to that broad '� chapter to address this type of housing option. '� Chair Boguszewski noted this legislation came up at the recent joint meeting of the City Council i' and Planning Commission, and while the city may be interested in putting in place a policy that '� may even exceed the state mandate, given the short timeframe between when the legislation ' J came forward and the September 1, 2016 date to opt out or comply with state requirements, this �� was the first step. Chair Boguszewski noted this would allow time to deliberate in a more ?' thorough manner how to facilitate this idea. Chair Boguszewski noted many on the City Council ?2 and Commission agreed it was a good short-term housing option, but required more thought than �3 currently allowed by the state. �-' Mr. Lloyd agreed with Chair Boguszewski's statement; noting various issues needed review, �- including but not limited to setback requirements for single-family residences and placement of %� such a temporary housing unit. Mr. Lloyd noted that the state setback requirements do not allow %' the units in front yards, and only side or back yards. However, Mr. Lloyd noted there were many �:a place in Roseville that would be unable to fit a unit between two existing homes to locate it into 2'u their rear yard, effectively ruling them out of consideration. � In his review over the last year, Chair Boguszewski noted amazing technological developments in �' small housing units designed to be temporary and of varying materiats. Since many of them 32 would not be easily categorized under current city code language, Chair Boguszewski noted the 3:3 need for further and more thoughtful review. 3Y Member Murphy agreed with the comments of Chair Boguszewski and time constraints with �� September 1, 2016 and need for City Council action before then. While in favor of the goal of the '% state statute, Member Murphy opined there was a need to grab more flexibility while possible for 3' Roseville. Even if materials change, Member Murphy opined the City of Roseville could still move ?3 at a faster pace in changing city ordinance than state statute. Member Murphy reiterated that he �'? was not against the intent of the state statute, but thought it best for Roseville to opt out at this �= time and proceed toward the same goal at its own pace and under its own parameters. �' Member Kimble asked the intended process for community engagement on this topic. �"? While not yet decided, Mr. Lloyd noted it would at a minimum involve a public hearing on any �} proposed zoning amendment. However, Mr. Lloyd stated he anticipated engaging the public more �� before that point, especially given the level of interest and need for this option and what was �� important to residents specific to what could and should be allowed or what standard -� � requirements should or should not apply. While not sure of the particular strategy going forward at -�' this point, Mr. Lloyd noted the topic was of vital importance to staff as well as the community.