CC_Minutes_2011_0613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 13,2011 Page 8 Councilmember Pust questioned the status of the tree inventory/survey; with Mr. Brokke responding that the data had been entered into the software program, and would be presented in one to two months. c. Consider an Ordinance Amending Zoning Text in Chapter 1004 and 1006 of the Roseville City Code Pertaining to Front Porch and Covered Entries in the LDR-1 District; and Parking Setbacks in Employment Districts City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the proposed zoning text amendments as detailed in the RCA dated June 13, 2011. Councilmember McGehee questioned zero setbacks for parking setbacks. Mr. Paschke advised that this related to shared parking areas; however, there would be sufficient rationale needed for such a request to be granted. Mayor Roe clarified, as detailed in the staff report that the standard didn't go to zero feet in every situation. Mr. Paschke concurred with Mayor Roe's clarification; noting that it depended on the type of development projects; but that the standard remained 5' or 40' as indi- cated. Councilmember McGehee questioned the courtyard situation, seeking a visual sketch or better description for her understanding; questioning if properties faced each other and with the new porch setback was applied, would there be only 8' separating the properties; and how that may impact drainage or impervious cover- age. Mr. Paschke advised that the illustration in code was just illustrative; and the re- duced setback may be possible, but not probable. Mr. Paschke noted that code requirements related to drainage would need to be addressed for any development, whether further encroachment was allowed or not. Councilmember McGehee opined that it seems that the City had reduced setbacks considerably, and now was doing so again, potentially having a porch located 4' from a property line, barely the width of a wide sidewalk; opining that it seemed like an odd thing to deal with in code. Mr. Paschke displayed a generic courtyard building arrangement illustration, not- ing the lot area, and courtyard area; and depending on size and design of struc- tures, he didn't see any further encroachment into the courtyard. Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1411 (Attach- ment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10 (Zoning Code) of the City Code;" and enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1411 (At-