Laserfiche WebLink
AttachmentA <br />REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br />2/11/2013 <br /> DATE: <br /> ITEM NO: <br />Department Approval: City Manager <br />Item Description: Update and discussion on proposed Zoning Ordinance Text <br />Amendments <br />PROJ-0017) <br />( <br />B <br />ACKGROUND <br />1 <br />The substantial update to Roseville’s Zoning Ordinance was approved by the City <br />2 <br />Council on December 13, 2010 and became effective on December 21, 2010. As <br />3 <br />the conclusion of this update process drew near, Planning Division staff noted <br />4 <br />that more amendments to the Zoning Code would be forthcoming, both to update <br />5 <br />chapters which were not rewritten during the recent effort and to correct and <br />6 <br />amend parts of the new ordinances as staff became more familiar with the new <br />7 <br />Zoning Code on a day-to-day basis. <br />8 <br />Over the past two years the Planning Division has sought and received approval <br />9 <br />of six various amendments to the Code, which range from the more textual <br />10 <br />variety that was approved as a part of Amendment 1 in February of 2011, to the <br />11 <br />complete rewrite of Chapter 1010, Sign Regulations in June of this year. <br />12 <br />Recently the City Council has asked for an update of the types and progress <br />13 <br />regarding future Ordinance and/or Zoning Ordinance amendments. In order to <br />14 <br />provide these details, the Planning Division has broken down the future <br />15 <br />amendments into broad categories and has provided some context to what is being <br />16 <br />sought. The Planning Division’s goal is to bring these amendments through the <br />17 <br />review and approval process within the next 18 months. <br />18 <br />It should be noted that the majority of the proposed amendments are to correct or <br />19 <br />clarify areas of the Zoning Ordinance that have presented the Planning Division <br />20 <br />with challenges. However, there are some policy amendments on the list under <br />21 <br />“process” that will require broader thought and discussion by staff and the City <br />22 <br />Council. <br />23 <br />“Design/ Performance Standards” <br />24 <br />There are a number of design standard like items that the Planning Division <br />25 <br />desires to clarify. <br />26 <br />The zoning code has a blanket prohibition of corrugated metal as a siding <br />27 <br />material, which is a carry-over from previous versions of the code. Planning <br />28 <br />Division staff believes the prohibition is meant to exclude typical bole-barn <br />29 <br />type buildings with just a thin metal skin, but there is not any language that <br />30 <br />allows for heavier architectural metal siding materials that may also feature <br />31 <br />ribs that bear resemblance to pole-barn siding. <br />32 <br />RCA_ZOAmendments_012813 <br />Page 1 of 4 <br /> <br />