My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/15/2005 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2005
>
03/15/2005 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2018 1:34:53 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 5:59:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
<br /> <br /> <br />with a minimum width of 25’, eliminate all C & D buffers in residential developments. He <br />continued that wherever 10’ buffers are allowed they should be increased to 25’ minimum and the <br />buffer must be a separate tract, not an easement. <br />Commissioner Wheeler had a question concerning buffer sizes on PD lots but it was <br />pointed out that this presentation was limited to subdivision standards. <br />Mr. Paladin <br /> continued concerning increased buffer standards. The GAC <br />recommended elimination of all Type B buffers even in commercial subdivisions and also all Type <br />C buffers in residential developments. Regarding the urban service area (USA) buffer, the GAC <br />recommended creation of a new buffer requirement for the projects adjacent to and inside the <br />USA. This buffer should be 50’ wide and include a Type B planting with a 6’ opaque feature. <br />Plantings would be required in front of any walls. <br />Mr. Paladin <br /> advised that the GAC recommended requiring subdivisions to have not <br />less than 7.5% of the gross project dedicated to green or recreation space. The only areas that <br />would count would be wetlands and uplands; buffers, lakes, dry retention pools, and clubhouses <br />would not. Projects with density less than or equal to 1.5 units/acre would be exempt. As to <br />drainage, swales could not be used for storage of water runoff. <br />Mr. Paladin <br /> proposed varying building designs; homes of the similar color or <br />design could not be located within 8 homes of each other on the same side of the street or within <br />two homes of each other across the street and other restrictions to eliminate a “cookie-cutter” look. <br />Mr. Paladin <br />On payment of impact fees, recommended no discounts, no <br />step-downs, no step increases, and payment of impact fees at the time of lot purchase. In order to <br />keep track of fee payment and, after consulting various offices involved in sales of real estate, it <br />was determined that the best and most significant way to keep track would be to 1) pay at the time <br />of recording the final plat or 2) to record a voluntary lien on each lot for the amount of the impact <br />fee. <br />Mr. Paladin <br />On the next item, “bonding-out”, recommended cash bond or letter of <br />credit only, no bonds, and equal to 125% of the infrastructure costs. There would be a one time <br />March 15, 2005 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.