8/20/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r AUG 2 0 1986 Boa 65 uut 4,55 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 30, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE REVISION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND SITE �PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE Ro ert M. Keating; AICA'' SUBJECT: APPROVAL PROCEDURES Planning & Developmen irector AND MINOR SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS FROM: Michael K. Miller tVMinor S/P Req. Chief, Current Developm REFERENCESMIKEII It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of August 20, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department has prepared a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which would revise site plan procedures in a manner that would eliminate sidewalk construction, marginal access road construction, and right-of-way dedication as requirements for proposed developments that are considered as minor site plans. In addition, the proposed ordinance permits the Planning Director to approve small scale additions to existing developments, within certain guidelines, if the total new impervious surface does not exceed 11500 square feet. Currently, the proposal of any new 'impervious surface precludes the Planning Director from approving what could be a very minor improvement to an existing development; consequently, the proposed improvement is processed as a minor site plan. On April 25, 1986, a workshop on minor site plan requirements was conducted as requested by the Board of County Commission- ers. A concensus was readily developed concerning the issues of improvements that should be required for minor site plans and the revised administrative approval procedure. The staff has recognized that the cost of conforming to County public improvement requirements was unreasonable in some cases where modest additions to existing structures were proposed. As an example, the proposed ordinance reduces improvement requirements in three areas. Sidewalk/ bikeway construction and construction of marginal access road paving is not required in the proposed ordinance. Also, right-of-way dedication is not required. The requirements for marginal access easements is retained, so that provisions for the orderly extension of marginal access roadways are facilitated when the development of adjacent properties warrant such construction. Right-of-way require- ments are proposed to be implemented through a reservation rather than dedication. Right-of-way reservation is similar to dedication in that the amount of land reserved for future right-of-way needs is determined by the standards noted in the County Thoroughfare Plan. In addition, proposed structures or improvements must be setback from the right-of-way reservation in the same way as for dedications. The difference between right-of-way dedication and reservation concerns the fact that right-of-way dedications, 'as a requirement of site plan ap- proval, are provided by the applicant at no cost to the County, 28