Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3.3 A strict interpretation of the ordinance would identifY these large commercial <br />compactors as a dumpster and require each to meet all requirements of Section <br />1010.11. <br /> <br />4.0 STAFF COMMENTS <br /> <br />4.1 Over the past year staff has interpreted this ordinance to exclude large commercial <br />compactors given the specific use of these containers. <br /> <br />4.2 In cases where these large commercial containers were unable to be housed inside a <br />particular structure, placement and screening of the container was reviewed and approved <br />by Development Review Committee, prior to the issuance of a building permit for <br />allowance of the container. <br /> <br />4.3 Changes in the way that businesses accounts for and handles recyclables and trash has had <br />a profound impact on the size and distribution of the containers that store such materials. <br /> <br />5.0 STAFF FINDINGS <br /> <br />5.1 Because of the different ways trash "streams" are handled, it is important to offer options <br />that meet the specific needs of Roseville's residential, business, and industrial users. It <br />may be desirable to separate containers/compactors by size, location, and visual impact. <br /> <br />5.2 Because oftheir unique location and R-1, Single Family zoning, uses such as government <br />buildings, libraries, and churches, should be required to provide containers and/or <br />dumpsters that are properly located and screened from view. <br /> <br />5.3 When offices, services, and retail establishments are located adjacent to residentially <br />developed property, large compactor containers should not be permitted in these districts <br />unless completely enclosed within the principal structure. <br /> <br />5.4 Low volume generators of business trash and recyclables should be accommodated with <br />more complementary means of storage and screening. <br /> <br />5.5 Large compactor containers should be allowed in all industrial districts, given proper <br />location and adequate screening. <br /> <br />6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />Based on the comments (Section 4) and findings (Section 5) of this report, and with a <br />first reading on November 22, 1999, staff recommends approval of an amendment to <br />Section 1010.11 ofthe Roseville Zoning Ordinance, as described in the attachment <br />draft ordinance. <br /> <br />PF3143 - RCA (12/13/99) - Page 2 of 3 <br />