5/31/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

600'K 95 P,�I,221 5. Political Sign Regulations: to rewrite and clarify the first paragraph of ordinance section 22. Also, staff indicated it would follow-up on a suggestion that the county might want to allow political signs to be "clustered" at certain major roadway intersections. In addition to these 5 areas of change, staff has added one word to the road name criteria addressed in ordinance section 23. This change would allow use of road names, rather than road numbers, for private roads in planned developments and private subdivisions that do not fit into the county's grid system of east -west and north - south roads. In regards to the previously described 5 changes directed by the Board, the changes now contained in the proposed ordinance would: 1. Correct in the proposed ordinance the proper wording order of a text footnote for the agricultural and rural districts' size and dimension criteria table (see pp. 4 & 5 of the proposed ordinance). 2. Add specific language whereby staff decisions on certain administrative permit use requests would be appealable to the Planning and Zoning Commission and, ultimately, to the Board of County Commissioners in the same manner as appeals of site plan decisions rendered by staff (see p. 23 of the proposed ordinance). 3. Add language to specifically prohibit a travel trailer or vehicle body from being used as an accessory storage structure or shed. With this language added since the May 15th hearing, the proposed LDRs would prohibit use of mobile homes, travel trailers, motorized vehicles, vehicle bodies, and any portion of such items to be used as accessory storage buildings or sheds. Also, the LDR changes would add language stating that structures used for storage must be designed for storage use and must meet building code requirements for such use. 4. Require a 500' setback from adjacent occupied structures and mining pits, material stockpile areas, and on-site haul roads. Staff notes that such a change would be significantly more restrictive than the current requirement for a 150' -setback from mining- pits to the mining site perimeter. Staff's research of the last 9 mining applications (8 were approved, 1 was denied) indicates that 6 of the 9 applications could not have been approved as designed if the proposed 500' setback was applied (see attachment #3). Staff's research also indicates that, under existing requirements, a 30 acre mine would require about 50 acres of site area. However, if the proposed 500' setback is applied to a worst case scenario where occupied structures are situated close and adjacent to a proposed mining site, the owner of the proposed mining site would need about 110 acres, in a square or fairly square shape, to ensure that a 30 acre mine could be approved on his or her site. Staff's conclusion is that applying the proposed 500' setback would positively enhance the compatibility of new mining projects in relation to surrounding properties. However, the costs of such a regulation could require significantly larger sites for the same amount of mined material. The need for larger sites would eliminate some "closer -in" sites and, ultimately, would cause mines to be located in more remote areas, further from development areas where fill is needed. As a result, costs for hauling fill could increase and more 4 MAY 319 1995