Laserfiche WebLink
I I I I I I I I I <br /> <br />Article 14 <br /> <br />Sect. 14.1.3.1 <br /> <br />County staff will continue to enforce all provisions of the adopted ordinance. <br />The following is a discussion intended for the Concord City Council but is <br />included for infomation purposes. Update on status of Adequate Public <br />Facilities ordinance (APF) implementation. Included in the Oct. 13, 2000 <br />adoption of the UDO was the provisions for APF review. As the Commission <br />may recall, this included provisions for review of the adequacy for raw water, <br />raw wastewater, streets/roads, and schools. However, the staff has not <br />implemented the APF review due to lingering concerns regarding the <br />process for determining advancement of school capacity in such cases <br />where existing capacity is deficient. Staff, upon direction, will initiate APF <br />review for raw water capacity, raw wastewater capacity, and street capacity. <br />Staff recommends contiuned deferral of the review for school capacity. The <br />County planning staff has contracted with the original UDO consultant (Mark <br />White of Freilich, Leitner and CaHisle) regarding the need to review the <br /> <br />Amend applicability section. APFO will apply to the following: conditional <br />use re. zonings, minor site plans, preliminary major subdivisions. APFO will <br />not apply to a straight rezonings or conditional use permits, it is difficult to <br />apply the APF standards to a standard rezoning as the proposed use of the <br />property is unknown and the only method to calculate use is to take the most <br />intensive use. Additionally, since Art. t4 is proposed to capture certain <br />"minor site plans" an APF review for large projects that may have missed <br />such a review at the time of site rezoning. This same methodology applies to <br />conditional use permits, since all approved CUP sites are also required to <br />obtain administrative plan reivew approval. <br /> <br />Steering Committee <br />recommends change <br />as indicated. <br /> <br />Steering Committee <br />recommends change <br />as indicated. <br /> <br />Appendix A Add a definition for "building line". This is needed to clarify how lot width Steering Committee <br /> will be measured for a cul-de-sac lot (Article 6). recommends change <br /> as indicated. <br /> <br />Appendix A Page A-40, correct reference in PUD definition to 4.9 Steering Committee <br /> recommends change <br /> as indicated. <br /> <br />Sect. B-2 (page B-3) Recommend changing language from "Engineering Plans" to "COnstruction ISteering Committee <br /> Irecommends change <br /> Plans" to be consistent with Article 6. Also, make change to Sect. B-3 (page Ias <br /> B-a). <br /> indicated. <br /> <br />Last Update: 3/14/00 <br />O:/Planning/Marshalrs Folder/UDO Page 8 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />