Laserfiche WebLink
Sect. 3.2.4 <br /> <br />Sect. 3.3 <br /> <br />Figure 3.4-t <br /> <br />The language for zoning clearance permits does not clearly address what is <br />required for an addition. Staff is recommending the following: Additions of <br />10% or less of Gross Floor Area (GFA) shall be subject to setbacks and <br />minimum parking only, while additions of greater than 10% will be required <br />to meet all UDO design standards. Staff also proposes to exempt enclosed <br />storage accessory buildings of 400 square feet or less from the UDO (except <br />for minimum building setbacks). The other planning staffs are aware of this <br />concern and we as a collective group will explore this issue further. <br /> <br />COUNTY STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS CHANGE. This section does <br />not clarify what happens if P&Z recommends denial on a rezoning petition. <br />Need to language (and update flowchart) to show that a denial <br />recommendation is automatically forwarded to the elected board for final <br />decision. Our special legislation allows for denial decisions with a <br />supermajority vote to be a final decision (subject to 15-day appeal), however, <br />the staff recommends that all denials be automatically forwarded to City <br />Council for conside.ration. The Concord staff suggests that it seems <br />reasonable that an overwhelming majority of rezoning petitioner who paid a <br />fee to have the petition review by the Commission will likely appeal the <br />decision to council (especially since their is no additional cost). This is why <br />the Concord staff is recommending that the supermajority denial authority be <br />waived and provide for all denial recommendations be forwarded to City * <br />Council. <br /> <br />Remove asterik <br /> <br />Steering Committee <br />recommends change <br />as indicated. <br /> <br />Steering Committee <br />recommends change <br />as indicated. However <br />it is likely that <br />CabamJs County will <br />continue to allow for <br />supermajority <br />decisions (approvals <br />and denials) as <br />provided for in the <br />special legislation. <br />Concord process <br />would be slightly <br />different. <br /> <br />Steering Committee <br />recommends change <br />as indicated. <br /> <br />Last Update: 3/14/00 <br />O:/Planning/Marshall's Folder/UDO Page 1 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />