|
ANALYSIS:
<br />Plan Set Submittal/Resubmittal Requirements
<br />Staff has found that initial plan/plat submittals require a broader distribution for staff review than
<br />the current 7 set requirement accommodates. Currently, pre -application conference submittals and
<br />initial (prior to TRC) submittals for subdivisions, site plans, and PDs are routed to numerous
<br />reviewing departments and sections, as follows:
<br />1.
<br />Planning Technician
<br />2.
<br />County Surveyor
<br />3.
<br />County Engineer
<br />4.
<br />Drainage Engineer
<br />5.
<br />Traffic Engineering
<br />6.
<br />Utilities
<br />7.
<br />Environmental Health
<br />Under this current arrangement, neither the current development planner nor the environmental
<br />planner gets his or her own plan set for review. Instead, they share the planning technician's plan
<br />set. Likewise, the Fire Bureau staff currently come to the current development planner for a plan set
<br />to review. In addition, other agencies and surrounding property owners sometimes request review
<br />of project plans, too. Consequently, the current 7 set requirement can hamper reviews, since the
<br />planning technician, current development planner, environmental planner, and fire bureau staff are
<br />all sharing the same plan set. To alleviate this problem, staff recommends that initial development
<br />plan submittals include 10 rather than 7 plan/plat sets.
<br />Conversely, staff has found that there is no need for all 7 sets of revised plan/plat drawings as
<br />currently required for project resubmittals (after TRC). Revised plans require less review than initial
<br />submittals and are generally reviewed in a single location (e.g. site plan sign -off room) or via a
<br />limited routing (e.g. revised final plats). Thus, the current 7 set requirement for resubmittals is more
<br />than what is actually needed. Therefore, staff proposes to reduce from 7 to 5 the number of revised
<br />plan/plat sets required for resubmittals. These LDR changes are covered in items 1-9 of the attached
<br />ordinance (see attachment #5).
<br />As a final issue unrelated to plan set requirements, staff is also proposing as part of the LDR
<br />amendment that applicants provide either a written response to pre -application conference staff
<br />comments or a summary of development plan revisions when submitting formal applications for
<br />subdivisions, site plans, and PDs. In staff s opinion, such responses will aid its review and reduce
<br />TRC discrepancy letter comments.
<br />Special School Setbacks
<br />The current LDRs allow educational centers (primary and secondary schools) in the OCR, MED,
<br />CN, CL, and CG zoning districts as administrative permit uses. Administrative permit uses require
<br />approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission only. In addition, schools are classified as special
<br />exception uses in the A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6,
<br />RM -8, RM -10, ROSE -4, RMH-6, RMH-8, CON -1, CON -2, and CON -3. Special exception uses
<br />require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the Board of County
<br />Commissioners. Based on the existing LDRs, a school located in the CG zoning district would be
<br />treated the same as a school in the RS -3 district, and would be required to provide a 100' setback
<br />from all interior property lines regardless of the school's size, or the density of the surrounding area,
<br />or the adjacent zoning or use. The proposed LDR amendment would give the Planning and Zoning
<br />Commission and the Board discretion to reduce the 100' setback if the school is adjacent to a non-
<br />residential use that is located on property zoned RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, commercial or industrial.
<br />MAY 0% 2000
<br />-43- BOOK I IJ_ PAGE 325
<br />
|