Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.7020 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.7110 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.7605,9.7655 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />9.7805(map), <br />9.7885/. ,:;/"-;'\ <br />~l <br /> <br />9.8010 (table) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.8030(10) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.8030(10) <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />9.8055(1) <br />(j}; <br /> <br />9.8055(1) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />Wai ver of time lines <br /> <br />Type I decisions: Limits <br />decisions to approval or denials <br /> <br />Filing deadlines for appeals <br /> <br />Industrial Corridor Map <br /> <br />Reference to adopted plans <br />includes specific dates for each <br />plan <br /> <br />Traffic Demand Management <br />(TDM) Plans: Adjustments to <br />parking standards <br /> <br />Adjustment to parking <br />standards: Timing and <br />requirement for TDM plans <br /> <br />Cluster Subdivision Criteria <br /> <br />Cluster Subdivisions: <br />Relaxation of lot and <br />development standards <br /> <br />Language implies any time line <br />can be waived, however a <br />recently adopted state statute <br />limits time waivers for land use <br />applications <br /> <br />EC 9.8415 and 9.8715 allow <br />conditional approval of <br />property line adjustments and <br />unimproved easement vacations <br />which conflicts with language <br />under Type I process <br /> <br />Code requires filing of appeals <br />within 12 days of notice of <br />decision but does not specify <br />the time of day for this deadline <br />ICCO map doesn't precisely <br />match the boundaries in the <br />1991 Industrial Corridor <br />Agreement <br />Many dates listed in table are <br />not reflected on adopted plan or <br />do not correspond to date of <br />adoption. Ifplans are amended, <br />it would require a code <br />amendment to reflect new date <br />Code allows the city to require <br />an annual report for TDM's <br />involving a reduction in <br />minimum parking, but not for <br />TDM's involving excess <br />parking <br />Requires TDM approval before, <br />rather than a part of adjustment <br />review. Requires formal TDM <br />for all requests. Some <br />adjustment reviews can be <br />adequately addressed without a <br />formal TDM <br />Criteria redundant. Same <br />criteria already captured <br />through compliance with <br />standard subdivision criteria. <br />Reference to Ee 9.8015 <br />(relaxation of lot standards) <br />doesn't include intended range <br />of standards which can be <br />relaxed (i.e. Setbacks, lot <br />coverage etc) <br /> <br />Clarify limitation on timeline <br />waivers consistent with state <br />statutes <br /> <br />Correct conflicting language by <br />amending EC 9.7110 to allow <br />for conditional approvals <br /> <br />Specify that the deadline <br />expires at Spm or the close of <br />the regular business day <br /> <br />Revise geographic description <br />in 9.7885 and map to match <br />agreement <br /> <br />Eliminate dates from the table <br /> <br />Establish ability to require <br />annual reports for TDM plans <br />requesting adjustments to <br />maximum parking requirements <br /> <br />Revise language so that a TDM <br />plan is reviewed as part of <br />adjustment review. Allow <br />ability to waive formal TDM <br />plan if required adjustment <br />review criteria are otherwise <br />met <br />Strike BC 9.8055(1)(c), (d) and <br />(e). <br /> <br />Revise language and review <br />process to provide intended <br />range of standards available for <br />relaxation while better <br />integrating review into <br />subdivision process. <br />