1981_0713_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

0- if PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 13o4-81 Page 2 4. With the exception of traffic signs placed by government jurisdictions, utilities similarly controlled, federal mail boxes required by law, and certain fencings allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, no structures are allowed in the required front yard setbacks in the City of Roseville.- Even signs are similarly restricted, exempted only when a variance is applied for, reviewed, and in some cases authorized under unique circumstances. Consistent with this policy and philosophy, it would seem appropriate to also control the indiscriminate placing of posts, boxes, tuhos , or other paraphenalia on the public right -of -way or the required front yards of properties in Roseville. In other words, specifically disallowing the placement of such devices simply for the convenience of anyone trying to deliver anything would appear to be consistent with policies and regulations throughout the history of land use controls, exercised by the City of Roseville and other communities in the Metropolitan Area. The city of Roseville f s Zoning ordinance and that of most ccmmunities in the Metropolitan Area -are written on a positive basis , that is only those lard uses, structures, and services as listed to be permitted are sued in the Ordinance. Unless so stated, other uses are not permitted. Thus, the placing of posts, tubes, or boxes on the public right -of --way or in the required front yards has gradually occurred in parts of the City without being specifically allowed. The mere fact that it has occurred does not mean that it is right or appropriate. 5. Based on the testimony provided by the newspaper representatives, it is obvious that the practice is anticipated to increase at a rapid rate. our real concern is that when every hame has such a device in the front, we will have achieved a very iandesirable land use impact. Trying to deal with the question after the fact will obviously he more difficult and costly to remedy. We suggest therefore, that if controls are to be enacted, it is appropriate to do so now. 6. The newspaper representatives have raised the question of the constitution- ality of controlling r ec eptical s for newspapers. Our legal counsel has advised us that in his opinion the city has such rights. we should remember that we are not restricting the right to deliver a paper or anything else, we are simply restricting the right to indiscriminately place a past and a box on the public right-of-way way or required front yard. It has, for instance, never been argued that the disallowance of the placement of a sign in a required front yard has violated an owner's right to identify or advertise his place of business. Similarly, it would appear that the City could allow the placement of a newspaper or advertising circular in a ]pox to be located so as to intrude say a distance of two f eet into the required front yard. In this way, the placement of newspaper tubes or recepticals for other deliveries would be treated the same as signs. The method by which any delivery system places the article to be delivered in such a container is of no consequence to the City (hopefully no one would drive a vehicle through the front yard) .