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
Addendum to 8/8/2016 City Council Agenda Item 10.a. <br />µ' Chair Boguszewski suggested putting this topic up on "Speak Up! Roseville.° <br />�=` Member Daire reviewed his understanding of the opt out provision for Roseville; and clarified that <br />.� it didn't serve to make any statement that the city didn't care about temporary care for those <br />� needing care in the home and many unable to afford other arrangements outside the home in <br />�? other facilities. Member Daire noted there was a definite need to have that capability either <br />�� through an auxiliary dwelling unit or some home care addressed in city code. In his reading of the <br />�-� maximum of 30 square foot for this type of temporary facility, the minimum of where an auxiliary <br />�� unit could take off, Member Daire stated provisions were being sought for people to receive short- <br />�� term care at home, but the city was seeking more flexibility to respond in an appropriate way <br />. without being forced to rush into it by the state. Member Daire stated that Chair Boguszewski had <br />=� expressed his thoughts as well with new technologies coming in the future that may not be <br />" 1 available if the city adopts the state ordinance at this point. <br />_. If the City Council takes the opt out option, and based on staff's current work load, Member <br />� Murphy asked the anticipated timeframe and process for the Planning Commission to make a <br />=- recommendation to them and considering community engagement through that process as well to <br />avoid this goal getting lost in the shuffle. <br />�= Mr. Lloyd responded that depended on the City Council's direction to staff on how to proceed. As <br />�- a worst case scenario from his perspective, Mr. Lloyd noted that could be as part of the overall <br />- � comprehensive plan update. While that may be the wrong level to consider regulations, Mr. Lloyd <br />=' noted it may be a good opportunity to include that discussion as part of the community <br />- engagement process for the comprehensive plan update, allowing citizens to provide feedback on <br />y how they felt about temporary housing options or health care dwellings, that would subsequently <br />'`� inform the process in writing those regulations. With the early stages of the comprehensive plan <br />%? update and community engagement process starting later this fall, Mr. Lloyd advised that the <br />'� soonest staff could be prepared with draft language would be a minimum of two months. <br />�� Chair Boguszewski suggested, if the timing for inviting public comment could be parallel to the <br />�- comprehensive plan update process that would be fine. However, Chair Boguszewski questioned <br />� whether this may become lost within that larger discussion. Therefore, Chair Boguszewski <br />'� suggested this topic run parallel to the comprehensive plan process, but not part of it. Chair <br />Boguszewski suggested a task force advising this particular topic may be the most useful, such <br />'3 as the task force currently advising about the golf course and clubhouse. Chair Boguszewski <br />'�� noted this would provide a broader spectrum for the Planning Commission and City Council to <br />8U receive that feedback. <br />� Member Murphy stated his preference to have this underway sooner than the comprehensive <br />'_,2 plan due date; opining the commission should be able to gather public comment and draft <br />°' language for consideration and bring a recommendation forward before the twelve months <br />�� allowed for the comprehensive plan update prodcess. <br />3� Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. <br />� � MOTION <br />_ Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to the City <br />�� Council APPROVAL of an amendment to City Code, Chapter 1011.12 (Additional Standards <br />3 � for Specific Uses in All Districts), Item H(Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings) <br />�- pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, Subdivision 9, the <br />3 a City of Roseville opts-out of the requirements of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 362.3593, <br />�% which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. <br />�� Ayes: 7 <br />�=� Nays: 0 <br />; � Motion carried <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.