8/31/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

>a BOOK PAGE These four changes have been made to the proposed ordinance. To summarize, the changes recently made to the proposed ordinance would: 1. Eliminate the existing requirement that building cost estimates and building code drawings for house/structure moving projects be prepared and sealed by a registered architect or engineer. Rather, the revised wording merely requires submittal of drawings that satisfy specific building code requirements, and allows submittal of contract prices in lieu of certified cost estimates for required building construction. This proposed change is now recommended by the Building Director (see attachment #2). Also eliminated is the existing requirement for administrative site plan approval. In staff's opinion, site plan approval is not necessary since building code/bonding and haul route/roadway issues would be adequately addressed through the building and right-of-way permit processes (see section 9 of the proposed ordinance). 2. Reduce the proposed minimum finished floor elevation from 1.0' above the minimum base flood elevation to 0.5' above the minimum base flood elevation (see Section 18 of the proposed ordinance). 3. Add a sentence stating that use of lights required for vessel navigation or for outside security lighting shall not constitute evidence that someone is living aboard a buoyant vessel (boat) [see Section 19 of the proposed ordinance]. 4. Add an option to Chapter 913 and Chapter 912 provisions that would allow lot splits on private access easements that: a. existed prior to the date the county's road frontage requirement was first effective (December 8, 1973); and b. include a physical roadway that meets the county's minimum local roadway (roadbed) width standard of 201; and co are maintained by a designated person or entity. As discussed at the August 15th hearing, planning staff does not recommend adoption of this option for the following reasons: • The option would allow an increase in traffic on substandard roadways that, in the case of Hedden Place at S.R. 60, have _inadequate connections to public roads, or have other characteristics that may pose traffic safety problems. [Note: under the proposed option, the number of parcels along Hedden Place could increase from 18 to 23, an increase of 27%.] • The option does not accommodate future improvement of the affected neighborhood's roadway and drainage features since platting adequate road right-of-way (which is required by other existing options in the LDRs) is not required under the proposed option. • The option does not guarantee perpetual maintenance of the roadway since no property owners' association (with the power to use maintenance assessments and liens) is required to be established and designated as the party responsible for road maintenance. 4 August 31, 1994 M M M