HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/25/2018 Item 4, Rowley
April 25, 2018
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please consider the following comments regarding Attachments 4 and 5.
Attachment 4, Article 6: Permit Procedures.
A3. Our High Occupancy Ordinance is based on parking (4 cars in garage/driveway and 1 parked on
the street) yet there is no mention of parking requirements in this explanation. This is an important
distinction.
B4. Development Review - Tier II. It is my hope that one comprehensive, easy-to-find, easy to
understand list of Tier I, II and III items will be included as part of the update.
Staff and developers may know/understand the distinctions, but the general public does not. And
since appeals fees are different for the different tiers, a knowledge of exactly what is included in
each tier is of importance to the public.
In addition, it is my hope that a comprehensive list of those things considered Minor Use Permit
items is also included in order to inform the public regarding what exactly is categorized as "minor."
Attachment 5, Administration of Zoning Regulations.
Processing, Notice and Hearings.
A2. "Failure to post or notify by mail shall not invalidate any amendments duly adopted."
Recommendation/Rationale. Recommend the word "not" be omitted, leaving "shall invalidate."
Without consequences what would provide the incentive to ensure that posting/noticing is actually
accomplished? Without consequences, a "requirement" (in this case to provide posting/noticing) is
no longer a requirement.
Hearings and Notice.
A. Reference "the same notice that is required..." does this also mean there are no consequences if
notice is not given? If not, there are other instances where this phrase is used in subsequent parts
of this attachment.
B. Reference "unless the appellant agrees to a later date." In my experience in dealing with the
house that was proposed to be built at 48 Buena Vista it was the property owner, not the appellant,
who had to agree to a later date. If, in fact, the property owner is the one who decides whether a
later date is agreeable - even if he is not the appellant - then this statement is misleading.
General Comment regarding Noticing.
The time and distances required for noticing the various types of projects has always been a push-
pull between applicants and residents. The last iteration of times/distances incorporated into the
Noticing Ordinance was a good compromise between the two, i.e., neither one got what they
wanted but both got something. It would be a shame if anything done in this update altered the
current Noticing Requirements.
Sincere thanks for your consideration,
Sandra Rowley
SLO resident