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

Browse Search

Approved 8/5/09 p~ Mark Marcoplos: It sounds like maybe as the process it would go to the Commissioner and you wouldn't have to do any work until they say yea or nay right? That way you may not have to do a lot of extra work if they say.... Craig Benedict If you say your recommendation is this is five hundred (500) acres this is probably (300) acres if you say create a fifty (50) acre area on this site and we'll come up with some sort of description. MonoN made by Mark Marcoplos: Ok. From what I know, I don't know enough to say fifty (50) acres. I would just say that there be some appropriate area centered on that intersection that is opened up to meet what is in this amendment and then that the rest of it be phase II as Judith termed it whereby there would be a comprehensive look at what kind of activity ought to be allowed in there. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. Judith Wegner: IYs not unique to this area right, we've had this somewhat arbitrary concept about nodes and what you're proposing is we need to be more fine tuned? As to those nodes that there may be intersection would be the priority location for one thing or another for remote areas might be dealt with in some other way. This one but your concept is something that might apply to other nodes too right? Mark Marcoplos: I guess that's implied but I wouldn't want to mix it in. I just want to talk about this node right now but I think iYs implied in the act of considering it. Judith Wegner: Maybe there's a second component in the motion that would be and that we believe that having unilateral treatment of nodes isn't necessarily the best way to go that we think that there may be a need to be more refined in approaches to nodes here as well as in other settings. Is that fair? Mark Marcoplos: Sure, that's right in there with the sentiment. Earl McKee: I have a couple of questions to make sure I'm clear. With Mark's motion, everything in the red crosshatch (map) except the little section we're talking about centering on the intersection would be restricted to no commercial development is that correct? Everything except what we're proposing to open up right around fifty (50) acres or whatever it turns out to be, the remaining balance would remain off limits to commercial development? The second question I have is am I correct in understanding that there can only be twenty (20) acres in this roughly five hundred (500) acres of commercial development total? Michael Harvey: That's only if the amendment, there is a separate amendment that is that passes you are correct. Currently, it's ten (10) acres total as LC-1 and NCD combined. Thats what the current Ordinance allows. Craig Benedict: The Commissioners will have something in August or September that take about that increase too. Ten (10) acres-ten (10) acres. Earl McKee: If that is correct and unless it is just absolutely untenable to find a perk site in that little, let's use fifty (50) acres for the sake of discussion, I really don't have a problem with it because you've got that plus everything from basically your eleven (11) o'clock to your four (4) o'clock position (map) to the northeast. I still think-that to some extent it treats the iwo (2) halves of the node differently but I realize that it is in that watershed and there's no commercal development allowed at this point Brian Crawford: So the amendment is specific to that node and is silent on the rest of the nodes. The rest of the nodes are going to be part of that comprehensive study that is the second portion of the amendment, is that correct? Mark Marcoplos: Yes, the other territory within that node except for the designated area around the intersection. Brian Crawford: Is that clear to everyone? There was a second on it? Any more discussion? MOTION made by Mark Marcoplos that there be some appropriate area centered on the intersection in the Cedar Grove Node that is opened up to meet what is in the amendment and that the rest of it be phase II whereby there would be part of a comprehensive look at what kind of activity ought to be allowed in there. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. VOTE: 6-1 (Crawford) Craig Benedict: By the next meeting, we'll probably have time as this will not go in front of the Commissioners until September. I'll give you my interpretation of how this would be accomplished with what you're motion was. So you understand what it takes to get it done. 9