Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda Date:11/4/2015 <br />REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONACTION <br />Agenda Item:5 <br />Division ApprovalAgenda Section <br />PH <br />UBLIC EARINGS <br />Item Description:Request by City of Roseville for approval of certain minor, clarifying text <br />amendments to Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of the City <br />Code <br />(PROJ0017) <br />AI <br />PPLICATION NFORMATION <br />Applicant:City of Roseville <br />Location:N/A <br />Property Owner:N/A <br />Open House Meeting:none required <br />Application Submission:N/A <br />City Action Deadline:N/A <br />LCDD-M <br />EVEL OF ITY ISCRETIONIN ECISIONAKING <br />Action taken on a code amendmentrequest is <br />legislative <br />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 />P <br />ROPOSAL <br />1 <br />As City codes are read, interpreted, and implemented in response to applications submitted by <br />2 <br />members of the community, minor errors and oddities, incidental omissions, accidentally vague <br />3 <br />passages are brought to light. Planning Division staff makes note of these instances and <br />4 <br />periodically brings them forward in small batches for correction or clarification from time to <br />5 <br />time. The proposed amendment is illustrated in Attachment A, with insertions represented with <br />6 <br />underlined textand deletions represented with strikethrough text, and a brief discussion of the <br />7 <br />reason for the proposed changes follows. <br />8 <br />§ΔΓΓΗȁΓΕȀ R¤²¨£¤­³¨ « !¢¢¤²²®±¸ "´¨«£¨­¦² <br />9 <br />Table 1004-1 <br />10 <br />The rear yard setback for accessory structures was listed under the heading ofside yard <br />11 <br />setback requirements. Theproposed change will relocate therear yard setback <br />12 <br />requirement to its own row. <br />13 <br />The existing corner side yard setback requirement does not differentiate between standard <br />14 <br />corners and reverse corners. The proposed amendment makesthis distinction; it uses the <br />15 <br />existing standard for “reverse corner” lots, and specifies a 10-foot setback on standard <br />16 <br />corners (equal to the principal structure setback requirement on standard corners) while <br />17 <br />PROJ0017_Amdt25_RPCA_110415 <br />Page 1of 3 <br /> <br />