Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.7110 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.7605,9.7655 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.7805(map), <br />9.78~. <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 /> <br />~ <br /> <br />9.8055(1) <br /> <br />@ <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 />Ouster Subdivisions: <br />Relaxation of lot and <br />development standards <br /> <br />EC 9.8415 and 9.8715 allow <br />conditional approval of <br />property line adjustments and <br />unimproved easement <br />vacations. This conflicts with <br />language under Type I process, <br />which implies projects can only <br />be approved or denied as is. <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 />(e.g. could allow after hours <br />submittals). <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. If plans are amended, <br />it would require a code <br />amendment simply to reflect <br />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 />parkin}:!. <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 reference redundant. <br />Lot dimensions, street and <br />public improvement standards <br />already addressed within <br />standard subdivision criteria. <br />Doesn't include intended range <br />of standards which can be <br />relaxed (i.e. Setbacks, lot <br />coverage etc). Also requires <br />separate adjustment review <br />process instead of integrating <br />within the subdivision nrocess. <br /> <br />Correct conflicting language by <br />amending Be 9.7110 to allow <br />for conditional approvals. <br /> <br />Specify that the deadline <br />expires at 5pm 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 />of applicable plans. <br /> <br />Establish ability to require <br />annual reports for TDM plans <br />requesting adjustments to <br />maximum parking <br />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 EC 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 integrating an <br />exceptions process (same <br />requirements) into subdivision <br />process. <br />