My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0666.018 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0666.018 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2008 12:37:24 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 6:37:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0666
Point
018
Author
Christoper J. Yuen, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Close file - 11/07/07
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2007/10/17 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
AGE COUNCIL 2007/11/07 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
BIL 176 Draft 02 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planners <br /> Page 9 <br /> Apri121, 2003 <br /> determined that it located all sites, we should generally ask the applicant to consent to a <br /> time extension, and if the applicant refuses, recommend disapproval. If the sites have <br /> been found, but there is disagreement between SHPD and the applicant over significance <br /> and/or mitigation, we should recommend mitigation per SHPD's recommendation. <br /> Sometimes it will be apparent from the correspondence between SHPD and the applicant <br /> that they have no real disagreement over what should finally be preserved, but there are <br /> technical problems that prevent the acceptance of the report. In those cases, we can go <br /> ahead with the standard conditions, and listing the applicant's preservation sites. <br /> We can recommend approval of the application on condition that the applicant conforms <br /> to a mitigation plan that will be approved in the future. At the stage of rezoning, we need <br /> to know what sites will be protected long-teen, and have some idea of the general <br /> buffers. The details of whether there will be interpretation of the site, or how data <br /> recovery will be done for those sites, does not have to be established at the time of <br /> rezoning. <br /> Special permits, SMA permits, and Use Permits. <br /> Same as rezonings, except that we will not require a "no effect" letter with the application <br /> if the project does not seem to call for any new land disturbance or activities that might <br /> negatively affect historic sites. The reason for this exception is that these permits often <br /> involve the conversion of existing land uses, such as B&B's in existing buildings, and <br /> hence should have "no effect". If we require the "no effect letter" with the application <br /> we will be delaying the application by at least a month. The applicant should at least <br /> request a "no effect" letter upon applying, so that we should.have one in hand by the time <br /> of making our recommendation. <br /> Subdivisions with Prior Historic Sites Review. <br /> If there has been a review of historic sites already, the final implementation of the <br /> protection of the sites must be done in the subdivision process, for those projects that <br /> result in subdivision. Naturally, if there is a "no effect" letter, nothing needs to happen <br /> during subdivision review, except for sites that may be discovered during construction. <br /> Subdivision section will have to review the rezoning ordinance, or SMA permit, if <br /> applicable, to determine whether there was a prior historic sites review and the conditions <br /> <br /> of approval. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.