My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0808
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0808
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2016 2:32:14 PM
Creation date
8/23/2016 9:26:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/8/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
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
�YI C � ��� Y� 1����1�` <br />Addendum to 8/8/2016 City Council Agenda Item 10.a. C��v'��� �-6(6 <br />�( 4 � �►�'� . <br />EXCERPT of Auqust 3. 2016 Planninq Commission Meetinq �.,�� �v � <br />Planning Commission Regular Meeting <br />City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Draft Minutes — Wednesday, August 3, 2016 — 6:30 p.m. <br />t 5. Public Hearings <br />? c. PROJECT FILE 0017, Amendment 29 <br />_ Request by the City of Roseville to amend City Code Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) <br />� to opt out of the requirements of MN Statute Chapter 462.3593 pertaining to temporary <br />u family health care dwellings. <br />� Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at 8:44 p.m. <br />Mr. Lloyd referenced the details in of this new state mandate, and information provided by the <br />3 League of Minnesota Cities included in meeting materials. As noted in lines 41 — 44 of the staff <br />� report of today's date, Mr. Lloyd advised that a deeper discussion and public was desired to <br />,_ accommodate this option. However, Mr. Lloyd noted with the September 1, 2016 deadline from <br />'': the state, the first step would be to opt out of the state's regulations and allow time to develop <br />'� regulations reflecting the needs and preferences of Roseville residents. <br />'? Mr. Lloyd noted this area would be addressed in the city's large zoning chapter, 1011.12, and <br />'-' within additional standards as noted in the staff report; essentially adding a section to that broad <br />'� chapter to address this type of housing option. <br />'� Chair Boguszewski noted this legislation came up at the recent joint meeting of the City Council <br />i' and Planning Commission, and while the city may be interested in putting in place a policy that <br />'� may even exceed the state mandate, given the short timeframe between when the legislation <br />' J came forward and the September 1, 2016 date to opt out or comply with state requirements, this <br />�� was the first step. Chair Boguszewski noted this would allow time to deliberate in a more <br />?' thorough manner how to facilitate this idea. Chair Boguszewski noted many on the City Council <br />?2 and Commission agreed it was a good short-term housing option, but required more thought than <br />�3 currently allowed by the state. <br />�-' Mr. Lloyd agreed with Chair Boguszewski's statement; noting various issues needed review, <br />�- including but not limited to setback requirements for single-family residences and placement of <br />%� such a temporary housing unit. Mr. Lloyd noted that the state setback requirements do not allow <br />%' the units in front yards, and only side or back yards. However, Mr. Lloyd noted there were many <br />�:a place in Roseville that would be unable to fit a unit between two existing homes to locate it into <br />2'u their rear yard, effectively ruling them out of consideration. <br />� In his review over the last year, Chair Boguszewski noted amazing technological developments in <br />�' small housing units designed to be temporary and of varying materiats. Since many of them <br />32 would not be easily categorized under current city code language, Chair Boguszewski noted the <br />3:3 need for further and more thoughtful review. <br />3Y Member Murphy agreed with the comments of Chair Boguszewski and time constraints with <br />�� September 1, 2016 and need for City Council action before then. While in favor of the goal of the <br />'% state statute, Member Murphy opined there was a need to grab more flexibility while possible for <br />3' Roseville. Even if materials change, Member Murphy opined the City of Roseville could still move <br />?3 at a faster pace in changing city ordinance than state statute. Member Murphy reiterated that he <br />�'? was not against the intent of the state statute, but thought it best for Roseville to opt out at this <br />�= time and proceed toward the same goal at its own pace and under its own parameters. <br />�' Member Kimble asked the intended process for community engagement on this topic. <br />�"? While not yet decided, Mr. Lloyd noted it would at a minimum involve a public hearing on any <br />�} proposed zoning amendment. However, Mr. Lloyd stated he anticipated engaging the public more <br />�� before that point, especially given the level of interest and need for this option and what was <br />�� important to residents specific to what could and should be allowed or what standard <br />-� � requirements should or should not apply. While not sure of the particular strategy going forward at <br />-�' this point, Mr. Lloyd noted the topic was of vital importance to staff as well as the community. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.