Agenda Package - 10-18-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GO? As stated earlier, these two sections of the UDO are used frequently and have provided a solid framework for staff to use in these situations. However, staff suggests additional language should be added to these sections to remove concerns about vagueness and clarify references to other sections of the UDO. The following have been identified: Sections 3.2.3.3 and 3.2.3.4 do not clarify (or reinforce) that such parking areas should be paved as set forth in Section 8.2.6 of the UDO. Section 8.2.6.1 states that, "All required parking and vehicular traffic surfaces shall be graded for drainage and shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous asphalt pavement,... ". Staff is recommending that Sections 3.2.3.3 and 3.2.3.4 simply be amended to include a specific reference to Section 8.2.6.1. These sections also do not make reference to Section 10.7 which requires architectural design standards for projects located along our major corridors. Again, staff is recommending adding language to these two sections to reference these standards. Lastly, Section 10.1 of the UDO requires screening of solid waste storage areas (dumpsters) and, again, staff recommends that reference language be added to Sections 3.2.3.3 and 3.2.3.4 to clarify that this standard is required. Please note that the Joint Planning Commission (JPC) met on Sept. 23, 2010 to review this proposed amendment. The JPC recommended that the proposed amendment be forwarded to all three jurisdictions for consideration of adoption. Draft land age far consideration: See Attachment A for the proposed changes /new language. Amendment 2 — Section 4.7.3.2 provides language for setbacks on lots that have more than one street frontage. The last sentence of this section reads, "All other frontages shall be considered street side yards and the rear yard shall be the yard that is opposite the designated front yard." Unfortunately, the current ordinance language does not clearly spell out what the setback for a "street side yard ", so staff is recommending that language be added to clarify that a street side yard setback is the same as a front yard setback. Please note that the Joint Planning Commission (JPC) met on Sept. 23, 2010 to review this proposed amendment. The JPC recommended that the proposed amendment be forwarded to all three jurisdictions for consideration of adoption. Draft language for consideration (changes in Italics): 4.7.3.2 SETBACKS FOR LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE STREET FRONTAGE. Strictures shall meet the front yard setback from all abutting street rights -of -way unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance. For undeveloped multiple frontage lots, the developer has the option to determine which yard shall be considered the "front' so 2