Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, August 22, 2016 <br />Page 13 <br />Since this discussion and motion appeared to be more related to the definition of a <br />deck and not the specific language of lines 51-53 of the RCA, Councilmember <br />Laliberte stated her support of further discussion and investigation of this topic. <br />After further discussion, and with agreement by the makers of the motion, Mayor <br />Roe clarified the motion on the table, restated as follows for clarity: <br />McGehee moved, Willrrtus seconded, directing staff to investigate the code clas- <br />sification of decks specific to their consideration as pervious or impervious sur- <br />faces based on the understructure materials. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and McGehee. <br />Nays: Roe. <br />Motion carried. <br />Willmus �noved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1508 (RCA Ex- <br />hibit B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Improvement Area Regulations of <br />Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) of Roseville City Code, Title 10 `Zoning <br />Code'• "' <br />� <br />amending draft ordinance language to limit maximum impervious area at 35% <br />coverage for LDR-2 designated parcels per the previously passed motion. <br />Councilmembers Willmus and Etten agreed this motion reflected the City Coun- <br />cil's May 23, 2016 discussion and intended impervious surface coverage moving <br />forward from today. Councilmember Willmus qualified that the footprint discus- <br />sion would be returning to the Planning Commission for review before subse- <br />quent City Council action. <br />Councilmember McGehee asked the makers of the motion if they would include <br />revisiting definitions as a friendly amendment to their motion. <br />Councilmembers Willmus and Etten clarified that the previous motion directed <br />staff accordingly, and required no further changes to ordinance amendments at <br />this time. <br />Mayor Roe stated his support for this motion, and it serving to remove specific <br />language related to ReSWP and twenty-year age limits on parcels; allowing any <br />property exceeding the maximum improvement area at 35% to be considered. <br />At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that properties <br />already exceeding that maximum improvement area would qualify as pre-existing, <br />non-conforming uses; but could not expand that non-conformity any further and <br />retain that legal, non-conforming status. <br />Roll Call <br />