Laserfiche WebLink
M M <br />TO: James E. Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />0- ge" r5T M. K 46't'fn g'J AI <br />Community Development irector <br />FROM: Stan Boling ICP <br />Planning Director <br />DATE: September 24, 1992 <br />SUBJECT: Request to Adopt Proposed LDR Amendments <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special <br />meeting of September 29, 1992. <br />BACKGROUND: <br />At its special hearing of September -17, 1992, the Board of County <br />Commissioners reviewed and considered an ordinance proposing <br />changes to 36 sections and subsections of the existing land <br />development regulations (LDRs). At the meeting, the Board directed <br />staff to make changes to certain ordinance sections and indicated <br />that it intended to adopt the revised ordinance at the September <br />29, 1992 scheduled meeting. <br />Staff has made revisions to the proposed ordinance based upon <br />direction given by the Board at the September 17th meeting. The <br />Board is now to take final action on the proposed ordinance. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />The proposed ordinance has been revised from the September 17th <br />meeting "edition" of the ordinance. In addition to some <br />_typographical corrections and non -substantive word changes, <br />specific revisions have been made in the following areas: <br />1. SECTION 6 (pp. 2,3): The newest concurrency proposal <br />recommended by the PSAC and staff has been incorporated in the <br />ordinance. This newest provision would allow project <br />applicants to put -off obtaining a concurrency certificate(s) <br />until the time of building permit issuance. In situations <br />where a project applicant chooses to Put- -off concurrency, the <br />applicant will be required 'to place a notice in the public <br />records to alert future buyers and lot owners that concurrency <br />must be obtained prior to building permit issuance. This <br />notice requirement has been added to the ordinance proposal <br />based upon discussion at the September 17th meeting and <br />subsequent coordination with the County Attorney's Office. <br />2. SECTION 9 (p. 4): Staff has narrowed -down a previously <br />proposed requirement for an opaque buffer along I-95. As now <br />revised, the requirement would apply only to outdoor <br />(unenclosed) storage areas along I-95. The revised language <br />would require a Type C buffer, provided or preserved, to <br />screen any outdoor storage areas that would otherwise be <br />exposed to I-95. <br />SEP 2�, a FA.LE 72'0 <br />���� <br />