2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 3, 2016 Page 9 Council and Commission agreed it was a good short-term housing option, but 410 required more thought than currently allowed by the state. 411 Mr. Lloyd agreed with Chair Boguszewski’s statement; noting various issues 412 needed review, including but not limited to setback requirements for single-family 413 residences and placement of such a temporary housing unit. Mr. Lloyd noted that 414 the state setback requirements do not allow the units in front yards, and only side 415 or back yards. However, Mr. Lloyd noted there were many place in Roseville that 416 would be unable to fit a unit between two existing homes to locate it into their rear 417 yard, effectively ruling them out of consideration. 418 In his review over the last year, Chair Boguszewski noted amazing technological 419 developments in small housing units designed to be temporary and of varying 420 materials. Since many of them would not be easily categorized under current city 421 code language, Chair Boguszewski noted the need for further and more thoughtful 422 review. 423 Member Murphy agreed with the comments of Chair Boguszewski and time 424 constraints with September 1, 2016 and need for City Council action before then. 425 While in favor of the goal of the state statute, Member Murphy opined there was a 426 need to grab more flexibility while possible for Roseville. Even if materials change, 427 Member Murphy opined the City of Roseville could still move at a faster pace in 428 changing city ordinance than state statute. Member Murphy reiterated that he was 429 not against the intent of the state statute, but thought it best for Roseville to opt 430 out at this time and proceed toward the same goal at its own pace and under its 431 own parameters. 432 Member Kimble asked the intended process for community engagement around 433 this topic. 434 While not yet decided, Mr. Lloyd noted it would at a minimum involve a public 435 hearing on any proposed zoning amendment. However, Mr. Lloyd stated he 436 anticipated engaging the public more before that point, especially given the level 437 of interest and need for this option and what was important to residents specific to 438 what could and should be allowed or what standard requirements should or 439 should not apply. While not sure of the particular strategy going forward at this 440 point, Mr. Lloyd noted the topic was of vital importance to staff as well as the 441 community. 442 Chair Boguszewski suggested putting this topic up on “Speak Up! Roseville.” 443 Member Daire reviewed his understanding of the opt out provision for Roseville; 444 and clarified that it didn’t serve to make any statement that the city didn’t care 445 about temporary care for those needing care in the home and many unable to 446 afford other arrangements outside the home in other facilities. Member Daire 447 noted there was a definite need to have that capability either through an auxiliary 448 dwelling unit or some home care addressed in city code. In his reading of the 449 maximum of 30 square foot for this type of temporary facility, the minimum of 450 where an auxiliary unit could take off, Member Daire stated provisions were being 451 sought for people to receive short-term care at home, but the city was seeking 452 more flexibility to respond in an appropriate way without being forced to rush into 453 it by the state. Member Daire stated that Chair Boguszewski had expressed his 454 thoughts as well with new technologies coming in the future that may not be 455 available if the city adopts the state ordinance at this point. 456 If the City Council takes the opt out option, and based on staff’s current work load, 457 Member Murphy asked the anticipated timeframe and process for the Planning 458 Commission to make a recommendation to them and considering community 459 engagement through that process as well to avoid this goal getting lost in the 460 shuffle. 461