07/15/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

it which were specifically addressed by the General Plan, Zoning and Site Development Codes, and Town policies adopted by the City Council. Pedro reviewed a list of 28 new residence projects that had been approved between January 1, 2009 and February 15, 2010 and tested on the proposed Fast Track Checklist. Findings: 21 projects qualified for Fast Track, 4 projects would have been given the option to revise their plans and 3 projects would have been forwarded to the Planning Commission. Pedro advised the City Council that adoption of the Fast Track Guide would require amendments to the Town's Municipal Code. If approved by the City Council, staff would return to the Planning Commission and City Council with the related code amendments at a future meeting. The Planning Commission had reviewed the Fast Track Guide at their June 3, 2010 meeting and voted 4-1 (Abrahams opposed) to recommend adoption of the Fast Track Guide with several changes. The changes were highlighted in the draft copy of the guide included in the City Council packet. Pedro noted that a Townwide postcard mailing advising residents of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings for the proposed Fast Track Guide for New Residences had been mailed on May 17, 2010. Council Discussion: Mayor Pro Tem Larsen requested clarification on what staff was proposing to ensure that the Fast Track Guide was not used to interpret the provisions of the Zoning and Site Development Code or used during the review process. Planning Director Pedro offered that she would be working closely with the City Attorney to add the clarifying language to the Town's Municipal Code that the Guide was to be used only to determine Fast Track eligibility and was not to be used as part of the Site Development review process. Councilmember Warshawsky questioned if the Guide could potentially allow personal basis to be injected into the review process. He noted that setbacks, MDA, height restrictions were all quantifiable characteristics but terms found in the Guide like "unobtrusive" and "visible lots" were highly subjective. He thanked the Ad Hoc Committee for their efforts but expressed his concern that implementation of the Guide could be used by residents that didn't want any change to their neighborhoods to oppose applications. Warshawsky noted that during his eight year tenure on the Council, the Council had only reviewed 4 or 5 development projects and questioned if there was a real need for the proposed Guide. Councilmember Summit offered that she believed the Guide would be an excellent educational tool for applicants that could potentially prevent them from spending money on designs that were inappropriate for their site. She noted that the Guide would direct the applicants to adjust their designs to the element specifics (constraints) of their lot. The Guide provided a visual definition of the Town's codes. • Council discussed the goals and checklist. 8 Approved City Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 15,2010