Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 28, 2008 <br />Page 10 <br />and Section 2.11. c (business and industrial property)) regarding size of real es- <br />tate signs. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br />Pust moved, Klausing seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1371 entitled, "An <br />Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Roseville City Code, Specifically Sections <br />1010.03 Pertaining to Temporary Signs -Permits Required; Temporary Signs - <br />Permits Not Required; and Master Sign Plans;" including specific detailed <br />amendments to Section 1010.03. b and c. (referenced in lines 185 - 200 of the <br />staff report dated July 28, 2008, and subsequent notations in the draft ordinance <br />language. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; and Klausing. <br />Nays: Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br />Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1371 entitled, <br />"An Ordinance for Amendments to Title 10 (Zoning Regulations) of the Roseville <br />City Code;" as amended. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br />d. Consider Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment of Sections 1014 (Variances) <br />and 1015 (Administration) of the City Code to Clarify and Expand the Proc- <br />ess of Administratively approving Minor Deviations from Code Require- <br />ments (PROJ-0015) <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff's request, as detailed in the staff <br />report dated July 28, 2008, for zoning ordinance text amendments. Mr. Lloyd <br />noted that this would resolve outstanding issues with existing Setback Permit or- <br />dinance language and broaden the process to include other land use issues. <br />Associate Planner Lloyd reviewed current provisions, since 1999, of the Zoning <br />Ordinance, allowing the Community Development Director review and approve, <br />(based on certain conditions and criteria) limited encroachments into required set- <br />backs without requiring the homeowner to prove undue hardships if provisions of <br />the City Code were strictly enforced. Staff noted inconsistencies in the current <br />language regarding similar provisions for older properties and principal structure <br />encroachments, accessory structure setbacks, and driveway/parking area en- <br />croachments. Staff also sought administrative approval for excess impervious <br />coverage within certain confines and percentage ratios based on mitigation of <br />stormwater on the subject property, and impacts to adjacent properties and collec- <br />