Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Exhibit A <br />f� <br />Agenda Date: 11 /4/2015 <br />REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Agenda Item: 5 <br />D�A.}�pro� Agenda Section <br />� � � � PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />Item Description <br />Request by City of Roseville far approval of certain minor, clarifying teXt <br />amendments to Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of the City <br />Code (PROJ0017) <br />APPLICATION INFORMATION <br />Applicant: City of Roseville <br />Location: <br />Property Owner: <br />Open House Meeting: <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />none required <br />Application Submission: N/A <br />City Action Deadline: N/A <br />LEVEL OF CITY D[SCRETION [N DECISION-MAKING <br />Action taken on a code amendment request is <br />legislative in nature; the City has broad discretion in <br />making land use decisions based on advancing the <br />health, safety, and general welfare of the community <br />� PROPosa� <br />. . .- - <br />, �\ <br />i' P':,., <br />��;�J Conditional Use <br />.,�'�py Subdivision <br />�`~S`�' Zoning/5ubdivisian <br />"�.'� Ordinance <br />� � <br />�,� Comprehensive Plan <br />� As City codes are read, interpreted, and implemented in response to applications submitted by <br />� members of the community, minor errors and oddities, incidental omissions, accidentally vague <br />� passages are brought to light. Planning Division staff makes note of these instances and <br />� periodically brings them forward in small batches far correction or clarification from time to <br />c time. The proposed amendment is illustrated in Attachment A, with insertions represented with <br />7 underlined text and deletions represented with �+r;'��*'�r^„rt'� +��+, and a brief discussion of the <br />& reason for the proposed changes follows. <br />9 �1004.02: Residential Accessory Buildings <br />10 Table 1004-1 <br />��i • The rear yard setback for accessory structures was listed under the heading of side yard <br />�? setback requirements. The proposed change will relocate the rear yard setback <br />1� requirement to its own row. <br />� n • The existing corner side yard setback requirement does not differentiate between standard <br />�� corners and reverse corners. The proposed amendment makes this distinction; it uses the <br />�� existing standard for "reverse corner" lots, and specifies a 10-foot setback on standard <br />�� ? corners (equal to the principal structure setback requirement on standard corners) while <br />PROJOOI 7_Amdt25_RPCA l 104] 5 <br />Page 1 of 9 Page 1 of 3 <br />