My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2019_0909
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2019
>
CC_Minutes_2019_0909
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2019 4:35:06 PM
Creation date
9/26/2019 4:35:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/9/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
Publication Newspaper
Pioneer Press
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 9, 2019 <br /> Page 10 <br /> Mayor Roe thought that after four days are measured, as four days gets defined, <br /> then the enforcement process is initiated and gives people a timeframe before any- <br /> thing starts. <br /> Councilmember Etten thought a notice of violation is not something that will <br /> count against a resident or organization. In general, the city does not want people <br /> to store things in the middle of their front yard. He would not be in favor of add- <br /> ing back in that language because he thought the process is in place to protect <br /> people doing good and legitimate things and makes sure it is easier for code en- <br /> forcement to take action. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte liked the idea of giving someone four days to rectify the <br /> problem and take care of it, which she thought the four days allows for. She did <br /> not think people set out intentionally to break city ordinances and sometimes the <br /> resident does not know. <br /> Mayor Roe noted in the enforcement, the resident will still get more than four <br /> days once notified. The question is when it becomes a nuisance. <br /> Councilmember Etten agreed with that and explained this does not take away <br /> people time, it just means that someone from Community Development has to go <br /> to the property four days in a row to show the nuisance has been on the property <br /> for four days before notice of violation. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte asked if Councilmember Etten was okay with leaving it <br /> in the other situation the city has put it in previously. <br /> Councilmember Etten agreed and saw that as a different need. <br /> Mayor Roe thought he could go either way on the four days and what it really <br /> comes down to is if it is going to require staff to make four different visits to the <br /> site to confirm that it is there for four days. He thought it was simpler from an en- <br /> forcement point of view to say it is a nuisance when it exists, not when it is there <br /> for four days. <br /> Councilmember Willmus indicated he was still in favor of the actual enforcement <br /> action beginning on day five versus day one. <br /> Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, accepting the changes to code language in <br /> Chapter 407 adding in language from the Council packet, page seven, lines 303- <br /> 304, dealing with 407.06, which adds language to that section and in accordance <br /> with Community Development Department Enforcement Policy. <br /> Council Discussion <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.