6/4/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r JUN 1986 BOOK 64 F' 0r 6od PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE - PAVING REQUIREMENTS (Contd.) Planner Stan Boling reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 23, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DIVIS N HEAD CONCURRENCE: ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING SECTION 23.3(d)(3): PAVING REQUIREMENTS Robert M. Keating, IAICP , SUBJECT: Through: Michael K. Miller Planning & Development`'Ijirectol Chief, Current Development Stan Boling FROM: Staff Planner Barkett REFERENCES: STAN3 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 4, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: At the May 21, 1986 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the proposed major site plan paving requirements ordinance was con- tinued until the June 4, 1986 Board meeting. This action was taken to allow staff time to prepare additional graphics illus- trating proposed ordinance requirements. The back-up material for the ordinance was included in the packet for the May 21st meeting, and that back-up has not been reproduced for inclusion with this item. However, a copy of the revised ordinance, signed by the County Attorney's office, has been appended to this agenda item. The revisions made from the original ordinance as presented in the May 21st packet allow traffic impact fees to be substituted for escrowing funds in situations where roads are to be paved via the capital improvements program. The proposed ordinance requires all major site plan applications for.projects that abut or -utilize unpaved roads to make provision for paving, either immediate paving as part of the project's construction, escrowing for future paving, or application of impact fees for future paving via the County's capital improve- ments program. Paving requirements are determined by four fac- tors: 1. Road Type [private road, local public road, scenic or histor- ic road, Thoroughfare Plan road] 2. Existing Traffic Volume [cumulative traffic effect of exist- ing projects]. 3. Project Type [small traffic attractor/generator or large traffic attractor/generator]. 4. Relation of Roads to Project [accessing road frontage, remaining accessing road frontage, abutting road frontage]. Although some of the requirements for small and large traffic attractor/generator projects are the same, all of the requirements are fully specified under each heading. The requirements will ensure that adequate road improvements are put in place when they are needed to serve development. Additional graphics will be shown during staff's presentation at the June 4th meeting. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance establishing Section 23.3(d)(3): Paving icequirements. 45