CC_Minutes_2008_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008 Page 23 Councilmember Roe noted that if additional information was available, adjust- ments could also be made prior to Preliminary Levy and Budget adoption on Sep- tember 15, 2008. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; Willmus; and Klausing. Nays: None. a. Discussion of Non-Conforming Use Policy Councilmember Pust provided preliminary thoughts on whether the City Council was interested in language changes to City ordinance since action in June of 2008 when the City Council adopted language revisions required by changes to State Statute related to non-conforming uses. Councilmember Pust noted that there had been no policy discussion on the implications of those language revisions, or spe- cific definitions or exceptions. Councilmember Pust noted that Roseville already had some exceptions in City Code, and at the time language was revised in June, there were other language inconsistencies that were implemented. Councilmember Pust noted that policy discussions may be called for in determin- ing better parameters for those non-conformities. Councilmember Pust opined that her position was that the City should seek to encourage people to eventually conform to City Code, to do less with non-conforming uses and achieve confor- mity. However, Councilmember Pust advised that she didn't want to draft pro- posed changes without seeking interest from other Councilmembers. Mayor Klausing opined that it was hard to consider the proposal in abstract; and issues driving his concerns would be that while he wanted to move people toward compliance, based on the requirements, he didn't want to impede residents from investing in their housing stock; so that the City, as a first-ring suburb faded into deterioration. Councilmember Roe opined that, in setting up the City's definitions if they were going to be narrower, and if they didn't follow state statute definitions, he didn't want to define non-conformities more narrowly and create liability issues for the City. Councilmember Pust addressed terms added for "pre-existing non-conformities" that included repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement; but that those terms needed to be defined in code, rather than done on a case by case or ad hoc basis; and noted that other communities had adopted similar policies. Councilmember Roe concurred that, similar to the recent correction regarding lot lines "substantially perpendicular to the roadway," definitions needed to be more explicit and less open to interpretation and to prevent outcomes contrary to the spirit of the law.