My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2023_0130
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2023
>
CC_Minutes_2023_0130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2023 2:45:20 PM
Creation date
2/28/2023 2:45:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/30/2023
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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,January 30, 2023 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Mr. Trudgeon did not believe the City currently does background checks on the <br /> applications but insurance and other things needed to be submitted. <br /> Councilmember Strahan thought it was important to mention that since this has <br /> been in effect the City has, in addition to the limits, or the minimum requirement <br /> stays, it is four unrelated adults or less or one family. She indicated the potentially <br /> unlicensed property is something the City has just learned about and will be inves- <br /> tigating that situation. <br /> Mayor Roe stated in terms of certain types of applications that the Council consid- <br /> ers, he was thinking about land use which has statutory time limits for considera- <br /> tion, where if no action is taken within a certain amount of time it is automatically <br /> approved by State law. He did not think anything like that applied here as it is not <br /> written into City Code but there is some notion that because the applications have <br /> been received in house,the City has to act on them under the City's current system. <br /> He wondered if it was possible to table action on these applications if the City <br /> wishes to consider changes to its system before taking up these applications. He <br /> also wondered if that was a legitimate course the Council could take or does the <br /> Council need to take action up or down on these applications before more discus- <br /> sion can be had. <br /> City Attorney Tierney advised the Council they can delay consideration of these <br /> applications if more is needed to be known about them. She explained that given <br /> the applications have been received by the City,unless the City has a policy, these <br /> are not land use applications and there is no statutory time frame and no time frame <br /> with the City's Ordinances. But laying on top of everything the Council does is <br /> general concepts of fairness and due process so unless it is common for the Council <br /> to delay consideration of an application pending rewriting an Ordinance, she would <br /> encourage the Council not to do that here. <br /> Mayor Roe indicated sometimes the City does an interim ordinance in order for the <br /> Council to consider something. If that was something the Council wanted to take <br /> up, he presumed an interim ordinance would still require the ten-day publication <br /> notice of any ordinance so the City could not act on an interim ordinance this even- <br /> ing,for instance. But if the Council wanted to do that,it would need to be scheduled <br /> for a subsequent meeting and proper notice provided. <br /> City Attorney Tierney indicated that was correct. <br /> Mayor Roe thought that good questions had been brought up by the neighbors and <br /> maybe there were more things the Council could look at in terms of how the City <br /> Code works, which will probably take some time to figure it all out. He indicated <br /> the Council has the three items to take up and then the Council has to figure out <br /> where it wants to go in addition to that. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.