|
<br />AGENDA lT~~ll ~: ~I~11"IED D~vE~.aPi~~f~T ~RDII~A~IG~ ~UD~~k To discuss any new information that came forward at the
<br />February ~8, Z0~ 1 Quarterly Public Hearing and address or take action on the information as needed.
<br />Presenfer.~ Plar~r~fng Staff .
<br />Craig oenedict: !thank the Planning Board and the public for attending Monday night's mcwting, Th~:t is part of the process that
<br />had been suggested by the Planning Board at your December meeting, You set a very goad schedule in December and an
<br />December ~4~ the commissioners said, yes take another Iook at it, get more public input, send notes out to the local
<br />governments, have the deadline for comments come in an February 2~~ from all sources so that when you made your decision
<br />an February Zn~ tQ date, you had the full breadth of the public comment at that time, That process that was approved also
<br />mentioned a conti~~uation of the public hearing to February 28~ which was Monday and that was to hear addi~onal comments,
<br />hopefully new comment that hadn't been addressed previously, and at Monday night's meeting we had speakers that staff tack
<br />copious Hates of to try to get their issues and concerns. At the end of that discussion of people suggesting revisions and
<br />concerns the Commissioners, and I might not get this motion exactly right, they said we do Hat expect the f~lanning Board ar the
<br />planning staff to an}sorer every question that came up at the meeting
<br />Brian Crawford: T~nat's true,
<br />Craig Benedict: ale expect these genera! themes ar general concepts that if there is some way to address these general issues
<br />at your next meeting, so that we can stay an schedule, please feel free to take a look 'at a few areas, Staff diligently, did
<br />definitely mare work than I did over the last couple of days to try to reduce those general overarching themes to something that
<br />we have suggested in the document called `Preamble to the Post Quarterly Public Hearing' These are not staff
<br />recommendations. We are not forcing this on you but if you do want to consider these tapirs that I am about to discuss we think
<br />they are acceptable and we think they da address same of those broad general issues where there was concern and the
<br />Planning Board can proceed with them if you like. That is what we wrote in these overarching themes, ~Ne thought one and two
<br />on this sheet were the two general categories that were of issue. one was about when people review rezoning in the futdre,
<br />whether they view those General Use Districts ar those Conditional Districts, and those Conditional Districts as we have heard
<br />include Conditional Use and master plan development and other conditional zoning districts, that there needs to be a stronger
<br />link to the Comprehensive Plan. ~e heard what you said Samantha, we actually stated in the meeting where we had recited that
<br />yet that's what we heard, vie thought we are going to add it to another section so in Attachment 1, we added something within
<br />the text in Article ~ so in page 2 of that attachment everything that is in blue there we said when considering Conditional Zoning
<br />Districts, again the policy of the Comprehensive Plan shall be considered The policies and objectives of adapted Small Area
<br />Plans should be considered because that is Pike an extension ofthe Comprehensive Plan, and we shall consider the impacts that
<br />occur from development. I think that is harmless. Is it a bit redundant?Possibly, but I think it is okay;
<br />Samantha Cabe: I just want to make one comment because I do a lot of reading of statutes and there are rules of statutory
<br />construction. I thin k that adding this to one section and not all sections is not necessarily harmless because I think an argument
<br />can be made that either you have it at the beginning and you say it controls throughout the document ar you put it in each
<br />section. If you start putting it in occasional sections then the argument can be made that where it's absent that it doesn't apply.
<br />knave that's Hat the intention and we still have the language in the beginning but 1 am saying that it opens the Boar to that
<br />argumentt You either put it at the beginning, say it applies to throughout, or you put it in every section if you want it to apply to
<br />every section, you can't just throw it in where the public I'rkes to hear it. That's dust my op~nlan, The way I would read it from a
<br />{egal point of view,
<br />Craig Benedict: Understandable, we put a little kind of disclaimer at the bottom of our preamble. It says additional evaluation
<br />may be necessary in UDO Phase ~ to determine the relationships, possible convicts with other portions of the UDO, and
<br />potential enforcement issues but in this case we think that we did mention it with Conditional Use, we did mention it with in
<br />General Use rezonings this language, and we didn't mention it as much in Conditional Zoning Districts so we are throwing it in
<br />there. In this case, it wasn't just at the beginning we're popping it into section and what we are suggesting is that we would like
<br />to be able to proceed with Phase ~ and we think this language is acceptable. fn Phase 2 these areas where we have imported
<br />miscellaneous regulations from multiple documents and packed it into one, in Phase 2 we"d really like to reexamine that material
<br />and reduce it down but for now we think that's acceptable. The second part under rezoning considerations was the public asked
<br />for additional guidance in the Unified Development Ordinance when this Planning Board reviews a rezoning application. Yes,
<br />you can refer back to the Comprehensive Plan, you can look at all the goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive Plan
<br />and have that help you make decisions but we have actually taken some language Pram the existing Planned Development
<br />section of our Code that was taken out because we thought the Comprehensive Plan adequately addressed these issues but in
<br />the spirit of having something in front of you, we've added multiple paragraphs from Article l of our old Zoning Ordinance. That
<br />had to do with relationship to thoroughfares, relationship to public utilities and services, and that type of information. That
<br />information is in Attachment 4 of your handout, Everything in black there is from the previous Zoning Ordinance, vUe have
<br />I
<br />
|