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