Laserfiche WebLink
10. Section 25-6-64(b): Is 300 foot notification sufficient? This bill should specify contents of notification. <br /> 11. Section 25-6-64(c): Suggest leaving the timeframe for completing corridor management plan open- <br /> ended or provide language for extending. Twelve months is little time in view of the many priority <br /> projects/tasks of the Planning Department. <br /> 12. Section 25-6-64(c): Elements of corridor management plan must include the identification and <br /> availability of funding sources, strategies for obtaining funds for implementation, sunset of plan if not <br /> implemented. <br /> 13. Recommend careful use of the word "shall" or "shall be" instead of "muse' or "is". <br /> 14. Recommend consistency of the six qualities (scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, archaeological and/or <br /> natural resource) throughout bill. <br /> 15. What exactly is being adopted by the enabling ordinance-the corridor management plan or only <br /> standards and conditions in the corridor management plan that differ from those within the underlying <br /> zoning? Isn't the current Bill 231 the enabling ordinance'? <br /> 16. Recommend language relating to review process by planning commission be similar to standardized <br /> language in the code. <br /> 17. What happens if/when federal program is eliminated or funding dwindles? <br /> 18. Have utility concerns been discussed or assuaged? <br /> <br /> 19. Recommend director/core counsel restructure bill. <br /> <br />