Agenda - 10-01-1996 - 8c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9-�-9!o PLdAJ A(fAL r{ EGIt�K rel,vrL� c 1() The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on August 26, 1996. There were no comments. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. MOTION: - - Katz moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Section III-E(new)Improvements(was V-D-8) Section III-C-2e Application Requirements(Minor subdivisions) Section III-D-2-a(7)Application Requirements(Preliminary Plat) Section III-D-3a Application Requirements(Final Plat) Presentation by Emily Cameron. This item is for consideration of proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations to relocate provisions regarding required improvements from Section V,"Plat Specifications",to Section III,"Application and Approval Procedures",rewrite the section for clarity and to add language regarding construction cost estimates and financial guarantees. The proposed amendment is technical in nature to provide clarity and cohesiveness to the Subdivision Regulations. The only new text being added is to specify requirements for construction cost estimates and financial guarantees submitted when improvements are not completed prior to Final Plat approval. The Planning Staff consulted with the County Attorney,the County Engineer and developers to draft the new text. The proposed ordinance language specifies that a financial guarantee must be effective for 372 days,which allows one year for the applicant to complete subdivision improvements and a week for the County to"cash-in"the letter of credit or escrow agreement,in the event the improvements are not finished in an acceptable manner within a year. It also requires that the construction cost estimate be itemized with quantities and unit prices so that the County Engineer can verify that the estimate total is sufficient to complete a project according to approved plans. In addition,the new text prohibits anyone with ownership interest in the subdivision from preparing the construction cost estimate and eliminates the posting of bonds as an option for securing improvements due to administrative complications associated with bonds. On August 26,the proposed amendments were presented at the public hearing. No questions or comments were received from the boards or the public.The County Commissioners referred the amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned so sooner than October 1. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments. (Copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ) Katz asked why the County did not want to use performance bonds. Cameron responded that there were some problems working with insurance companies and that only a few bonds had ever been submitted. Administratively,letters of