Agenda - 09-01-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8/5/09 ~~ to do is make sure that the inconsistency right now is alleviated by this amendment They are not changing anything else about what is happening in that node, con'ect? Michael Harvey: Correct. It is the node that is the subject of this amendment, the whole node, not the area outside the node. Lany Wright I'm song, I agree with Mark and Commissioners iwo (2) and three (3). 1 think that Mark is right on and Commissioners iwo (2) and three (3) that we need to look at the blue up here and what is not considered the red area. Look at all the blue up there and then you start dealing with roofs, they have a high runoff coefficient of .85 and you're not even talking about soils or driveways and so I think we need to really move with caution and someone really needs to study this. Craig Benedict The Board can make any derision they like, recommend to move forward with it at this time or make a recommendation that to proceed or to ask the Commissioners if you should proceed with the Small Area Plan and amendments attached thereto at some time in the future. When it gets on the Commissioners work plan and then your work plan and our work plan, based on some Small Area Plans that Perdita is going to go through tonight, it's probably going to be three (3) years out We have enough implementation to do with the three (3j e~asting adopted plans that we have done already in the past that have been in limbo because we've waited for the Comprehensive Plan to be done. So, there is merit to what you are saying, if I had my druthers, 1 wish this was done already and we had studied the whole thing. 1 don't think, in my opinion, it hurts us in the interim based on the legislative authority you have to direct any rezoning that may go on in that red hatched area in the interim. If we come bads and study this area in the timeframe that everybody agrees to and we decide to compress the node, there hasn't been much rezoning activity in the County to speak of in the ten (10) years I've been here, so I don't think people are running out there for commercial in the nodes. Mark Marcoplos: That's an argument also for not minding a two (2) or three (3) year timeframe. If I were going to draw a line right now, if someone said to me, you come up with a plan right now, I would say move this line and take that intersection and make it part of that (on the map-watershed line). Let non-residential development occur at that intersection and let this be studied. That way you keep it in one area. People have some flexibility and you still get a thorough process which ensures that,,,,, Larry Wright: And you consolidated the commercal area at that intersection and not had it sprawl out. Perdita Holtz: Changing the watershed line really isn't an option. Mark Marcoplos: Not changing the watershed line. Michael Harvey: No, you have to change the watershed line. What you are essentially proposing is to only allow a small portion of the existing node, at the intersection of the major roadways, to develop non-residential land uses. There is no mechanism for you to treat this intersection differently from the rest of the node that is within the critical watershed overlay district. The watershed boundary line would have to be moved to keep the intersection out of the critical watershed boundary so that it could develop non-residential land uses consistent with the zoning ordinance. Mark Marcoplos: That's not what I am saying. I am saying do, what you are proposing for this whole area, IeYs do for this area. Michael Harvey: It is my opinion that you can't differentiate one portion of the node within the critical watershed from other portions. You can't simply say we will only allow the properties at the intersection develop and leave the rest of the node alone without amending the location of the critical watershed overlay boundary line. It's the node or it's going to be left as it is, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Why cant you? Mark Marcoplos: Why not? Michael Harvey: Because right now in order to do what Mark is suggesting you are going to have to change the watershed overlay district, you're going to have the...... Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: No Mark Marcoplos: No Michael Harvey: Yes sir, you just can't draw a circle around the intersection with this amendment and indicate that the properties located at the intersection will be allowed to develop non-residential land uses while other adjoining properties cannot 6