pf_03193 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Community Development Department Memo TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: CC: ZONING COMMITTEE DENNIS WELSCH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (651-490~ JULY 5,2000 AGENDA AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 06/23/2000 STEVE SARKOZY, CITY MANAGER Attached is background on two items: Trash Container Screening Regulations (discussion requested by Mayor) and Parking Requirements - an issue that has been discussed in the past. The original agenda items were to be the rearranged priorities for the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning compliance issues. Staff has not been able to complete this work due to the holidays and vacation schedules. At the August meeting a full presentation will be made on this issue. Trash Container Screenin2: In 1999 the City Council adopted new regulations on trash cans and trash screening devices in all districts. It clarified previous language which was difficult to administer and did not take into account new mechanized methods of trash and recycling pick- ups. Nothing changed in the R-l zones. However, some residents have complained that screening or in-garage storage of residential trash/recycling containers is a burden and unnecessary. Staff prepared a comparison of previous language with currently adopted language. In addition, staff asked surrounding communities to respond to the question: "Do you require residential trash containers to be screened?" See the attachments. Discussion is sought. P:!rking Requirements: In the past the staff had begun a comparative study of Rosev!lle parking requirements versus other communities in the Metro area. Roseville's parking requirements are outdates and vague. The issue again came become a discussion item when reviewing the Bar-Mar case (was there enough space?) and the Roseville Lutheran Parking Variance (why do we need so much pavement?). In the packet are copies of the typical outline of a parking ordinance and then the listing of parking requirements in Roseville - there are over 206 listings of "parking" strewn throughout the code. This makes administration of consistent standards difficult. Staff then compared Roseville space requirements to those of Lakeville (see attachment) which has just adopted a new Land Use Code. Because the entire Roseville Land Use Code is scheduled to be written in year 2001, it is likely that ~b~ City will be _operating with the existing code for at least 18 months. Are there some philosophical issues that should included in the eventual redrafting of this portion of the code, i.e. how do we determine when there is enough or too much parking. As an example, Olympia, Washington has found that the city required 20 to 30% too much parking and created a surface water management problem. Discussion is sought on parking philosophy before we rewrite this portion of the code. \ \ Victoria \CommDev\Zoning Committee\ T rash&Parkingmemo(070500).doc