Laserfiche WebLink
115 and correcting the Shoreland Classification Table, which had somehow been corrupted <br />116 over time. <br />11 7' c. Although updates are presently proposed for this chapter, Planning Division staff <br />118 does not intend to format it (using Adobe InDesign) like the rest of the updated and re- <br />119 written chapters of the Zoning Code until the substance of the chapter is revised at some <br />120 point in the future. <br />121 4.9 Chapter 1018. This chapter, dealing with Erosion and Sedimentation Control, does not <br />122 belong in Title 10 of the City Code as it does not contain zoning requirements. Planning <br />123 Division staff had hoped to be able to remove Chapter 1018 to some other section of the <br />124, City Code at this time, but Public Works staff and the Public Works, Environment, and <br />125 Transportation Commission are still evaluating where such provisions are most <br />126 appropriate. Watch for this amendment proposal to return in the near future. <br />12 7, 4.10 Chapter 101 . Attachment G shows a solitary, clerical change to the newly-adopted <br />128 parking regulations chapter; editing the first section title so that it is phrased more like <br />129 the titles of the corresponding sections in other chapters. <br />1'30 4.11 Chapter 1020: Planning Division staff does not have any specific issues with how <br />1 '3 1 Sexually Oriented Uses are regulated in Roseville, but has been working with the City <br />1'32 Attorney to determine whether amendments should be made to ensure that the <br />1 '3'3 requirements continue to be effective, appropriate, and legally sound. As with the <br />1 '3 4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control chapter, staff was hoping to propose any such <br />1'35 amendments at this time,, but the item will have to wait until the conclusion of the present <br />1 <br />research and evaluation effort. <br />............ <br />N3 7' 500 PUBLic HEAIUNG <br />1'38 The duly noticed public hearing for the proposed Zoning Code TEXT AMENDMENTS was <br />1'39 held by the Planning Commission on February 2, 2011 - the draft minutes are included <br />14 0 with this report as Attachment H. The Planning Commission spent the greatest amount of <br />14 1 time trying to understand the proposed amendment pertaining to the development <br />14 2 agreements, discussed in Section 4.2 above, and to ensure that the ordinance would meet <br />14 the City's needs without being overly burdensome or clumsy. One member of the public <br />14­14, was present at the public hearing with some opinions and questions about the residential <br />14 5 garage design standards; although he was uncertain that the specific requirements were <br />14 6 the best way to achieve the goals for residential neighborhoods expressed in the <br />14 7' Comprehensive Plan, he didn't have a strong objection to the ordinance or the proposed <br />14 8 amendment. Pursuant to the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously <br />14 9 (i.e., 5-0), to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. <br />Amendments—RCA-02281 Ldoc <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />