Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, March 13, 2017 <br />Page 10 <br />■ Section 3: Effective Date and Duration (lines 46 — 52) "This ordinance shall <br />tal�e effect and be in full force froin Ma�ch 19, 2017 ancl after its publica- <br />tio�c. It shall Nemain in effect through May 31, 2017 or until an o�dinance is <br />aclopted, updating Title Il of the city code, whichever is sooner <br />With additional issues recently brought up related to boundaries, drainage and tree <br />preservation, Councilmember McGhee stated her interest in the broader review <br />indicated in the first place. <br />Councilmember Etten addressed the concerns expressed by Councilmember <br />Willmus and concurred with his frustration with this review lasting so long. From <br />their administrative perspective, Councilmember Etten asked if staff was seeing <br />interest in lot splits with having to advise residents to wait. <br />Ms. Collins responded that staff had advised some applicants that there was a <br />moratorium in place until spring, deferring to City Planner Paschke and Senior <br />Planner Lloyd, she advised that she wasn't aware of a nurnber of pending applica- <br />tions. <br />Mr. Paschke concurred with that statement, clarifying that having a moratorium in <br />place didn't preclude an applicant from pursuing the subdivision process, just not <br />available under the minor subdivision ordinance. <br />Councihnember Willmus reiterated that enactment of this new moratorium would <br />back applicants up to the end of August if subject to a sixty-day land use approval <br />process. Councilmember Willmus noted that the intent wasn't to put the word out <br />that the City of Roseville was closed for business, but to simply halt things for the <br />city to review rapidly without further delay. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus <br />stated that he could not support the motion as presented. <br />Councilmember Etten agreed with those concerns, but stated that he would sup- <br />port the motion since the original issues had yet to be addressed. <br />Councilmember Laliberte agreed with her colleagues expressing her disappoint- <br />ment with the current status; but offered her support of the motion to avoid receipt <br />of any applications with issues remaining unresolved. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe. <br />Nays: Willmus. <br />Motion carried. <br />e. Consider Amendments to City Code, Chapter 314.05: 2017 Fee Schedule <br />