4/8/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/31/92: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV SION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PR ober M. K in opI Community Deveelo ment 01rector FROM: Stan Boling AICP Planning Director DATE: March 31, 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed LDR (Land Development Regulations) Amendments It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of April 8, 1992. BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS: Several LDR amendment proposals have been initiated by staff, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC), and by an individual applicant, Karl Hedin. All of the proposed amendments have been reviewed by staff. Most of the proposals were reviewed by the PSAC at its February 13, 1992 meeting. Staff has drafted a single proposed ordinance which addresses all of the previously referenced initiatives. PSAC comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the proposed draft; differences between PSAC and staff recommendations regarding specific amendments are indicated in the "Analysis" portion of this report and in certain places within the text of the proposed ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed amendments at -its March 12, 1992 meeting. The Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed LDR amendments with some changes. Staff has made the changes discussed at the March 12th meeting and has incorporated the changes into the proposed ordinance (see attachment #2). Differences between any staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation are indicated the "Analysis" section of the report and in certain places within the text of the proposed ordinance. ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance contains a total of 31 sections (see attachment #2). Sections 1 - 27 contain actual LDR amendments. Sections 28 - 31 contain standard legal requirements included in all county ordinances. A brief description of each section follows. An asterisk (*) after the section number indicates that the amendment was specifically reviewed by the PSAC. A double asterisk (**) before the section number indicates that the amendment was specifically reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. **Section 1.* This section is the result of direction given by the Board of County Commissioners to staff and the PSAC to assess the county's paved parking and child care facility requirements. The Board's direction was given during a hearing at which the Board denied an appeal by Graves Brothers, Inc. of a denied site plan application for a child care center. Based upon the Board's direction, staff 3 BOOK APR ® 8 1992 f'��t lJ L I