2015_1130_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A PROJECT FILE 0017 Request by the City of Roseville for approval of certain minor, clarifying text amendments to Roseville City Code, Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at 6:37 p.m. '� Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief history of proposed minor, clarifying text 6 amendments to existing City Code, Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 9Subdivisions) as detailed in the ? staff report dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Lloyd advised that the proposed text amendments �; related to residential accessory buildings, additional standards for specific uses in all districts, and s plat procedures in the City's subdivision code to mirror state statute and as detailed in the report, �o and had come forward during practical application and staff reading/interpretation of existing text. � � Residential Uses - Accessory Dwellinq Units (ADU) ?�: Chair Boguszewski asked staff to illustrate the distinction between references to standard corner � � and reverse corners. ^� Mr. Lloyd displayed a typical lot type illustration from current code and reviewed related front and �� side streets; and distinctions with reverse corner lots that could have frontages on both the long � 6 and short streets related to setbacks based on the type of lot and position of the primary 17 structure; and reviewed various orientations of those lots in conjunction with adjacent properties. o� As noted by Member Murphy, if a new property and/or structure, a reverse lot could be addressed ., at either corner provided no current address existed for a vacant lot, with the new owner of a ;�� structure able to determine which way to face their home depending on design particulars and 2i preferences. 2� In referencing the 1004.02 Accessory Building Table (1004.1) (page 1, RPCA Attachment A), <'':: Chair Boguszewski opined that compared with the text on page 4 of that same attachment, there 2� appeared to be some ambiguity related to established front or rear building lines, and sought 2:� staff's intent, if in fact to locate building lines further from either street. 2.e By again using the illustration, Mr. Lloyd responded that the principle structure's building line is 2? how setback requirements are established, and depending on the orientation of that principle 28 structure would determine the location as addressed in Table 1004-1. 29 Chair Boguszewski questioned the clarity of the text and/or table as currently proposed. 3� Based on staff's familiarity with interpretation, Mr. Lloyd opined that he didn't find the text or table 3 � ambiguous, suggesting there may be a need for clarifying questions no matter how they were 32 written. 33 At the request of Member Gitzen, and again referencing the diagram, Mr. Lloyd explained 3c accessory building placement in relation to adjacent property lines. 3.� Restaurants (RPCA, page 2, line 53� 3� Specific to the text and table, Chair Boguszewski sought further clarification related to the intent 3- to constrain multi-use buildings. 38 Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to remove the provision specific to restaurants in multi-use 3� buildings (e.g. office/business park and industrial park designations) to avoid stand-alone �ro restaurants. Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to remove that incorrect constrain of �' i restaurants only in multi-use buildings in Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designated districts; with �'�' that intent remaining relevant in the Employment designated district, as outlined in the RPCA �`s Attachment A(page 2), Section E.6. �4 Accessory Buildinq minimum setback from other buildinqs or structures on the lot �P, Reverting back to the previous discussion on residential accessory buildings, Member ��; Cunningham expressed her fascination, based on her personal experience living on a reverse �� corner lot and attempt to add an accessory building (shed) and its proposed placement found too �?� dose to the property line (5' versus 6'). Member Cunningham opined she had found that setback ., requirement ridiculous at the time and continued to do so, questioning why 3' wouldn't be 5t� sufficient unless based on maintenance requirements needing 5'. ��i Mr. Lloyd elaborated on the proposed 6' coming from building code thresholds applying to a 52 building wall and addressing whether or not a heightened fire wall existed adjacent neighboring Page 7 of 9