Agenda - 04-21-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 59 property be heard separately, at different public hearings, allowing the public time to fully comprehend the two processes and 60 proceedings. The BOCC voted to refer this item to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation to be returned to the 61 County Board of Commissioners no later than April 21, 2009. 62 BOCC suggestions that could not be incorporated with this amendment process, due to legal notice limitations will be held for 63 future consideration. 64 In consideration of the comments made at the Quarterly Public Hearing, staff has modified the proposed amendments to Article 65 2, Sections 2.2.14.3 through 2.2.14.9. The new revisions are shown is underline 1 strike - through format in Attachment 1, with 66 new additions shown in blue and new deletions shown in green. 67 Staffs rationale for some of the original and post Quarterly Public Hearing amendments is noted in Attachment 3. 68 69 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts associated with adopting the proposed amendments. Staff time and the 70 legal advertisements have been accounted for in the departmental budget. Depending on the outcome of clarifications, future 71 costs for notifications could change. Notifications, as proposed, include newspaper legal advertisements at least twice prior to 72 the public hearing, as well as mailings, and posting affected properties. As illustrated by the example shown in Attachment 3, the 73 proposed amendments could have a significant impact on the budget. Processing a large -scale Comprehensive Plan 74 amendment could have upwards of $6,000 in costs for notifications for one project. By processing Zoning amendments at the 75 same public hearing, another $6,000 outlay could be avoided. Additionally, annual work plans could include 5 or more large - 76 scale projects per year. 77 78 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer recommends the Planning Board review the proposed amendments to Article 2 of 79 the Zoning Ordinance and make a recommendation back to the BOCC in time for the agenda deadlines set for the April 21, 2009 80 BOCC meeting. 81 82 Larry Wright: How is the "affected property owners" defined? Tuscany Ridge comes to mind. It was brought to the planning 83 board and planning board asked staff if the people were notified and they said yes. It was approved by the planning board and 84 went to the Board of County Commissioners and the residents did not know about it. Signs were brought before the planning 85 board and there was a lot of discussion about a prominent sign for people to see. From what I understand, 500 feet was 86 something they wanted defined so people would be notified that were adjacent to that property. And the ten days, if someone is 87 away for a week on vacation, they have two days to do something. Regarding Tuscany Ridge, that planning board spent a lot of 88 time trying to work on the resident's behalf so a Tuscany Ridge would not happen again. 89 90 Craig Benedict: Tuscany Ridge is a subdivision approved four or five years ago. The process for notification is within our 91 subdivision ordinance that requires neighborhood information meeting and a 500 foot distance beyond the boundary of the area 92 being subdivide. That will stay intact separate than this. Any subdivision that comes forward, I know the planning board 93 deliberated whether a 1,000 foot requirement would be better than a 500 foot requirement. They have pre - approved the sign 94 that goes into the field on what it looks like. 95 96 Larry Wright: Are we entertaining Section 2.2.14.6? 97 98 Perdita Holtz: Yes. 99 100 Larry Wright: In the second paragraph, it defines how many meetings (three) that planning board has to deal with an application. 101 Going back to Buckhorn Village, the applicant was able to change their application throughout the whole process. At the last 102 meeting, that applicant was able to change the application throughout. Staff was making presentations and the board did not 103 have a chance to discuss it over half the meetings. The board had to ask and makg a motion that they wanted to have control of 104 the meeting and have it board directed. A big project like Buckhom will come to this board. Does the board want to be a rubber 105 stamp? I believe that after three months, we had to send it back to the Board of County Commissioners because there was not 106 ample information to us. We need to think about what is in here. If we are going to be restricted as a planning board, then why 107 an applicant can be modifying that application up to the last meeting that is our deadline and present us with 110 changes and 108 look at them one by one and vote on them. 1 think staff has an obligation. Mr. Benedict talked about a problem with the process. 109 1 think this only makes the problem worse. Staff should have an obligation to the planning board, the applicant should present 110 their application and if we are given a deadline then the application should come to the board and that should be sufficient to 111 carry through for board decision and not have it modified over and over. 112 113 Brian Crawford: Larry, are you saying that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will be as involved as the process of 114 Buckhom or a similar subdivision? 115 N