2008_0728_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1188 removes these applications from the formal public hearing that is integral to the variance 1189 process. On one hand, the Administrative Deviation process facilitates improvements 1190 better than variances for the following reasons: 11911 Administrative Deviation Variance 1192 Lower application fee $75 $250 1193 Less time between application and decision 10 days 30 days 1194 Minimum appeal period after decision 0 days 10 days 119 11,15 "Hardship" requirement no yes 1196 On the other hand, the variance process has the perceived advantage of increasing the 1197 scope of public notice and broad casting/re cording the review hearing. 1198 8.3 The suggestion was made that, instead of administratively reviewing the kinds of 1199 applications discussed in this report, these applications could be brought to a body 200 similar to the Variance Board: this body could convene meetings between Variance 2011 Board and Planning uommission meetings on the first Wednesday each month, perhaps 202 there would be a 500-foot public notification, and maybe the hearing would be recorded, 203 but "hardship" would not be considered as it would be for a variance. While this would 204 succeed in elevating the process to a public hearing level and lower the hurdle of 201") demonstrating hardship for small improvements, it would not achieve the goal of 206 providing prompt responses to the homeowners who are attempting to make the 207 improvements, nor would it draw a clear distinction between variances (which require 208 "hardships") and minor deviations which may be approved without "hardship". o u g 8.4 The Planning commission ultimately approved the TEXT AMENDMENT, but removed two 2110 factors for consideration of impervious coverage deviations: (1) the intended use of the 21111 proposed improvements, and (2) the aesthetic impact of the proposed project. These 2112 provisions have been removed from the impervious coverage section of the proposed 2113 ordinance. Planning Division staff believes that these factors for consideration are 2114 equally relevant for an impervious coverage deviation as they are for a driveway setback 2111") deviation and feels that it might be worthwhile for the Council to further discuss their 2116 inclusion or exclusion. While the "factors for consideration" don't carry the same weight 2117 as "criteria", their inclusion would assist the Development Review Committee and the 2118 Community Development Director in ensuring that improvements are in keeping with 2119 low-density residential areas. 220 9.0 RECOMMENDATION 2211 Planning Division staff concurs with the 5-1 recommendation of the Planning 222 Commission to approve the ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT. 223 10.0 SUGGESTED ACTIONS 224 10.1 Adopt an ordinance enacting, the proposed ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, 221") based on the comments and findings of Sections 5-8 and the recommendation of Section 226 9 of this report dated July 2, 2008. 227 10.2 Approve the Ordinance Summary included with this report as Attachment C. Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd B. Draft ordinance Attachments: A. Planning Commission minutes C. Draft ordinance summary F9ROJ0015_RCA_072808 F"age 6 of 6