Laserfiche WebLink
In August, the County Attorney's Office, with planning staff's support, requested that the <br />County Commissioners (BCC) authorize staff to initiate a change to the subdivision ord <br />allow a two year bonding -out extension for developers unable to take advantage of the 2 <br />change (see attachment #1). At its meeting of August 20, 2013, the BCC considered th <br />Attorney's Office request and authorized initiation of an amendment to the land dev <br />regulations (LDRs) (see attachment #2). Based on the Board's authorization, the County P <br />Office, in coordination with staff, has drafted and advertised the proposed LDR an <br />ordinance. <br />• PZC Hearing <br />At its meeting of November 14, 2013, the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) <br />recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed am( <br />attachment #3). <br />ANALYSIS <br />As structured, the proposed amendment will allow a two year bond -out extension for p <br />were platted prior to September 8, 2009 and under contract with the County as of August <br />construct sidewalks that front individual lots. At this time, there are only a handful of f <br />meet both criteria, and those are the same projects for which a two year sidewalk c <br />deadline extension is being sought. For those projects, the proposed two year extension <br />reasonable amount of time for home construction to proceed, while guaranteeing comp] <br />internal sidewalk system at the end of the two year extension. <br />According to staff's analysis, the developments affected by the proposed ordinance are <br />Millstone Landing (Phase 3), Provence Bay, Vero Lago (Phases 1, 2, 3, and 5), and <br />Village (Plat 1C). Since those projects are still active, it would be wasteful to require the <br />of those projects to construct internal sidewalks prior to home construction, since a maj( <br />sidewalks would be demolished during home construction due to grade changes and cc <br />activities. Staff estimates that replacing damaged sidewalks could cost $500 - $1,51 <br />depending on lot frontage. Because the number of affected developments is limited, bec <br />developments are active but unable to take advantage of the 2009 code change, and becau <br />construction of sidewalks would be wasteful, the proposed amendment is justified. Thi <br />amendment is consistent with comprehensive plan policies and does not conflict with <br />interest or other LDRs. <br />Impacts on Development Costs and Affordable Housing <br />The proposed amendment to Chapter 913 will allow developers of certain active subdivisi <br />to avoid the cost of re -constructing sidewalks damaged during home construction. <br />proposed change is likely to decrease development costs in the affected projects. The <br />proposed LDR amendment will not increase the cost of development, including t <br />developing housing. <br />The County Attorney's Office, Planning, and Public Works support the proposed <br />F:ACommunity Deve1opment\CurDevABCC\2013 13CC\Chapter913Sidewa1ks.doc <br />Board of <br />Bance to <br />)9 code <br />County <br />opment <br />orney's <br />ndment <br />5-0 to <br />t (see <br />ects that <br />, 2013 to <br />ects that <br />allow a <br />n of the <br />mited to <br />aterway <br />ty of the <br />) per lot, <br />usethose <br />up -front <br />proposed <br />he public <br />in projects <br />Thus, the <br />•efore, the <br />ie cost of <br />2 <br />171 <br />