My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/26/2006
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
09/26/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2022 11:56:09 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:11:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/26/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3125
Book and Page
131, 458-469
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
3020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />Mr. DeYoung <br /> continued the presentation stating that the other half of the process <br />would be implementing this into the Land Development Code. He discussed the School <br />Concurrency Components, Public School Facilities Element, Capital Improvements and <br />Inter-governmental Coordination Elements and the Interlocal Agreement (ILA), which he thought <br />was probably the most important document, because it will define the codes by which they will <br />operate. He noted that the School District does not have a Comprehensive Plan or a Land <br />Development Code so all the provisions of school concurrency needed to be laid out in a document <br />where they could rely on it and the ILA would serve as their code. <br /> <br />Mr. DeYoung <br /> also addressed the residential review process, service area <br />boundaries and how they are defined. He showed a view of the middle school service area <br />boundary map, and discussed the Availability Standard, which states “a local government may not <br />deny a residential application on the basis of school concurrency if adequate facilities will be in <br />place or under actual construction within three years of the anticipated project approval date.” <br />Further, if there were no available capacity in the system the school district would notify the <br />applicant and the local government and allow for the developer to enter into a negotiation process <br />for proportionate share mitigation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Davis <br /> questioned proportionate share mitigation asking whether <br />that would offset or would those dollars get deducted from the school impact fees. <br /> <br />Mr. DeYoung <br /> explained that they do get a credit for impact fees and it could be <br />dollar for dollar. The formula set up in the ILA is the actual cost of construction, so the dollar <br />amount provides that mitigation may be higher than the actual impact fee, he said. <br /> <br />Mr. DeYoung <br /> clarified Commissioner Bowden’s understanding on proportionate <br />share that a developer could buy his way in if there was no capacity. He said if there was no <br />September 26, 2006 <br />4 <br /> <br />Joint Concurrency Workshop <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.