pm_980909 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Cunningham asked what is the enforcement procedure? (Observation, complaints and inspections will be the enforcement procedure, similar to other permitted uses.) MemberWilke asked for clarification on the uses that would be permitted. MemberMulder asked for details on the sign size, color, message. He also asked if the business vehicles could be more than a residential vehicle (No). There was no public questions or comments. Chair Rhody closed the hearing. Motion: Motion by Mulder, second by Klausing, to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment in accordance with staff recommendations, as amended to include in Section 2a “resident”, and in item 2b, the ordinance should read no more than one non-resident at a time. Motion carried 6 – 0. Ayes:Rhody, Olson, Wilke, Cunningham, Mulder,Klausing Nays: None The Planning Commission thanked Kim Lee for her work on this issue. 6d. Planning File 3023. City of Roseville is proposing a text amendment to Section 1004.01A of the City Code (Accessory Buildings). ChairRhody opened the public hearing and requested Dennis Welsch present a summary of the staff report, and draft ordinance dated September 8, 1998. Member Olson requested details on setbacks for tool sheds (5 feet side and rear). She explained that a 5’ setback from rear yard may be too small to provide screening. Because we are considering even larger structures, more setback from houses and property lines may be necessary. MemberWilke asked if on lots where a utility easement is located, could a building be set adjacent to the easement. (Yes) MemberRhody asked if screening was possible with less than 10’ of setback. MemberMulder expressed concern about roof height and drainage and variance for larger sizes. He would eliminate #12 and require a variance over 864 sq ft; 1008 sq. ft is too large for normal city lots. MemberWilke asked what materials would be requqired for accessory buildings. 6