pf_03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

afforded a larger garage under certain circumstances and that the CUP process would be the mechanism for determining the validity/appropriateness of such a request. The Zoning Committee further concluded that language could be included that explained how to determine a lot's allowable rear yard area. Line 41 through 43, page 1, attempts to clarify the 40% requirement. A modification to Section 1004.01A12 has been proposed that provides for an increase of the 40% rear yard area allowance. 3.4 In the case of Section 1004.0 I A8, it is not clear whether recreational yehicles seasonally stored or seasonally stored vehicles or "collectibles" require a paved surface. The city policy and operating procedure has been to not require the additional paved surface if the accessory building is used primarily to store these vehicles versus having a detached garage with regular vehicle use during the non-winter months. Line 37 through 39, page 4, attempts to provide clarity on this issue. 3.5 In the case of Section 1004.01A11, main floor living area is calculated by determining the liying space occupying the main level of a home. However, staff has found that computerized records are not always accurate, nor typically identify main floor living area. The issue, in this instance, is to regulate overall accessory building square footage by limiting it to main floor living area of the principal structure (home) as a means to limit or differentiate between the massing of all the structures on the site. Thus, using the exterior dimensional footprint of the home (excludes attached garages and covered porches) would be more effective in determining living area. Line 38 and 39, page 2, attempts to clarify this issue. 3.6 In the case of Section 1004.01AI2, the code is clear as to what is a permitted process and what requires a conditional use permit process. However, it is unclear whether additional conditions need to be developed other than those in Section 1013.01 of the Roseville City Code. The Zoning Committee determined that the current conditional use permit process should remain and that no new conditions be created. The Committee also suggested including the conditional use permit criteria stipulated in Section 1013.01D as a means to clarify what is necessary to support a conditional use permit application. Line 8 through 23, page 2, attempts to provide clarity to a number of issues surrounding the requirements for maximum size of accessory structures. 3.7 In addition to the clarifying the sections listed above, staff also recommends that the ordinance be renumbered to provide a clear format. 4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Staff recommends that the Roseville Planning Commission consider the proposed modifications as identified in the attached "DRAFT" ordinance. 4.2 Staffhas included the proposed ordinance with underlining for your review consideration. Also included for reference is a copy of the existing code and a copy of the working document that indicates language removed in strikeout and language included in underline. PF3270 - RPCA (110800) Page 3 of 4