PC Minutes 3/28/07 DRAFT
ITEM NO. 16: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (JCR/SMS)
TA-11-13-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Article 7 Subdivision Regulations to correct and clarify the proposed regulations. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their November 2006 meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle introduced the Text Amendment which proposes the following changes:
|
Pg. No.
|
Section No. 20 - |
Recommended Text Change |
|
Article 8.Subdivision Design and Improvement Regulations |
||
|
Throughout Article 8 |
There are references to requiring street trees and sidewalks in areas outside the City but within the UGA. It is not practical to require these improvements until the area is annexed into the City. A mechanism for implementing these improvements upon annexation which would relieve the owner from making such improvements while outside the City should be identified and discussed in an appropriate location within Article 8. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
|
25 of 97 |
807(c)(3) |
The text regarding the Certificate of Survey being used as a de facto Major Subdivision needs to be revised. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
39-50 of 97 |
810 |
Add a subsection at the end of this section which defines “Exception” as it applies to design standards (in accordance with the definition provided in Section 815(b) on page 81). This subsection should also outline the process for requesting an exception and gaining approval of such request (i.e. who makes the decision to approve or deny). (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
46 of 97 |
810(d)(7)(v) |
This subsection states that cul-de-sac’s which exceed 600 feet in length should include pedestrian right-of-way easements at the terminues of the cul-de-sac and references Section 20-810(f)(4)(ii) which says they should be provided when block lengths exceed 800 feet. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
47 of 97 |
810(d)(10)(1) |
This subsection provides standards for alleys in nonresidential zoning districts but no mention as to whether alleys are permitted in residential districts is made. Throughout the remainder of the Development Code, assumptions are made that alleys are permitted in residential districts, therefore standards for alleys in such areas is needed. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
49 of 97 |
810(f)(4) |
Add a reference (subsection v) to variance procedures for granting variances the standards within this subsection. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
See below.
|
|
49 of 97 |
810(f)(4)(iv) |
This subsection conflicts with Section 20-809(l) in that it alludes to the City Commission acting on a final plat. According to Section 20-809(l), final plats are approved administratively unless they do not conform with the approved preliminary plat. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
See below.
|
|
|
||
|
49 of 97 |
810(g) |
This subsection, which discusses attainment of park land, public land and open space, suggests that the Planning Commission “encourage or require” the donation, reservation, or dedication of such lands “PLUS $600 per lot for every single-family dwelling lot”. This language is unclear and provides little direction to Planning Staff or the Planning Commission. Furthermore, it may not be necessary to require donation PLUS $600 per lot and there is no mention as to what fees may be necessary for non-single family dwelling lots. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this. Hold for Legal Services review.
|
|
51 of 97 |
811(a)(1) |
Water and Sanitary Sewer should be added to the list of Public Improvements within this subsection. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
|
|
|
||
|
52 of 97 |
811(b)(4) |
This subsection is awkwardly written and should be rewritten. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 of 97 |
811(c)(1)(iii) |
This subsection conflicts with Section 20-809(l) in that it alludes to the Governing Body acting on a final plat. According to Section 20-809(l), the Governing Bodies act only on the preliminary plat while the final plat is administratively approved. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
|
|
|
||
|
54 of 97 |
811(d) |
This subsection should be revised to include discussion of sanitary sewers in City subdivisions and a requirement for submission of Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analyses should be added. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
61 of 97 |
811(h)(1) |
Revise this subsection so that it is more specific. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
64 of 97 |
812(a)(2)(i) |
The floodplain terminology in this subsection conflicts with that in other sections and must be clarified. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
Staff is continuing to work on this.
|
|
68 of 97 |
812(b)(2)(xi) |
This subsection references redistribution of City Special Assessments. It should also include County Benefit Districts. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
|
|
|
||
|
69 of 97 |
813(b)(2) |
This subsection conflicts with Section 20-809(l) in that it alludes to the Governing Body acting on a final plat. According to Section 20-809(l), final plats are approved administratively unless they do not conform with the approved preliminary plat. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
|
|
|
||
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress asked about Item 4 on the 3rd page; was “variance” really a waiver?
Ms. Stogsdill stated that it was a variance, not a waiver.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if City Commission would accept the Preliminary Plat or Final Plat?
Ms. Stogsdill said that now the Preliminary Plat would actually go on to City Commission and easements and R-O-W are accepted at the Preliminary level while Final Plats are administratively approved.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve and forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-11-13-06] to Article 8 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition, as amended January 1, 2007” to the County Commission and City Commission.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.