CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15, 2017 Page 30 Further discussion ensued,with City Attorney Gaughan clarifying that all park ded- ication decisions required a determination that there was a need created by a par- ticular project. In the scenario of a minor plat, Mr. Gaughan noted that the City Council could,in its approval process,determine that there was no need created for park dedication and part of the submission from staff when the project came before the City Council would preserve some City Council discretion for the project that may create a need based on geography of a particular project and therefore an ar- gument to consider park dedication. Councilmember Willmus continued to support his language that "park dedication is not applicable unless subdividing one acre or larger." Mr. Lloyd clarified that this involved the starting parcel and not what is created; with Mayor Roe noting that this still provided for discretion if there is a need, but otherwise that it wasn't on the table if less than one acre and no Parks &Recreation Commission involvement if based on that need as stated. L Discuss Proposed Text Amendments to Roseville City Code,Chapter 407(Nui- sances) Codes Coordinator Dave Englund provided suggested revisions to Chapter 407, in- cluding Mayor Roe's suggested revisions to Section 407.02.G (Attachment A) and resident feedback to-ate (Attachment C, with one additional comment provided as a bench handout tonight). Mr. Roe—suggested combined discussion with next item—aspects addressing farm animals—specifically pet pigs and goats Revised Chapter 407 (Attachment B) Section 407.01: Definitions (lines 26-28) Mr. Englund noted revisions to this section based on other city code. Section 407.02 —line 128 Mayor Roe noted his suggestion to move "non-domestic"in front of"animals." Councilmember McGehee questioned if 300' was sufficient for lots with bees and chickens, and while it may be common it may not be realistic. While in existing language, Mayor Roe agreed that may be an issue with bees in that 300' may require an exception as he addressed in his proposed language (At- tachment A). Mayor Roe clarified that city code had been silent as to whether bees could be kept,but was now being addressed, stating that they would not be allowed within 300' of an adjacent lot.