Agenda - 02-21-2012 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

17 1 to our abstract. I'm not going to review every independent section, but what I will stipulate to be 2 that with respect to Section 5.8.4, staff has provided comments with respect to the applicant's 3 compliance with the various submittal requirements and the various development standards. 4 For example, within your package, there was correspondence between Orange County 5 Planning Department and the Fire Marshal's Office, specifically Mr. David Sykes, who has 6 indicated he has reviewed the proposal and determined that he can supply emergency services 7 to the facility. As part of that review, the Eno Volunteer Fire Department was involved and does 8 not express any concerns. This is specifically on page 3 of your abstract. 9 We've also provided answers with respect to the proposed wastewater treatment facility, the 10 submittal of the biological inventory, which Orange County Planning staff and the Department of 11 Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation have indicated that there are no issues with 12 respect to the redevelopment of this site, with respect to potentially endangering significant 13 habitats that have been located. The applicant submitted a very detailed biological inventory 14 from the Catena Group as part of this development review process. The applicant has supplied 15 the landscaping and buffering storm water management drainage and grading plan. Upon initial 16 review, we deemed this to be consistent with the provisions of the UDO. 17 A formal traffic impact study has been completed and is part of the packet for you to review 18 indicating that the proposed increase in the number of students on this site will not have a 19 negative impact on local roadways. As also required by the provisions of the UDO, the 20 applicant has provided the second means of ingress/egress as required. 21 Planning staff has found, as stipulated and required by Section 5.8, 4-a, 3-n, that this site does 22 not lend itself to the development of shared facilities with respect to a park and ride or other 23 public transportation facilities due to its location. Staff, as we've indicated on page 5 of your 24 abstract, is convinced that the size of the property is consistent with existing County and school 25 board policy with respect to the size reliable for a school, and we further find that the applicant 26 has complied with the submittal requirements for Section 5.8.4, the required Class A Special 27 Use Permit findings for Section 2.7.3, and the required documentation for conditional use 28 rezoning as articulated in Section 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. 29 Our recommendation is that you receive this application; you conduct the public hearing; accept 30 public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments; you refer the matter to the Planning Board with a 31 request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for 32 their February 21, 2012 regular meeting; and that you adjourn this public hearing to February 33 21, 2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation as well as any other 34 additional comment. 35 My closing remarks are as follows: Number one, we would like this abstract entered into the 36 official record. This abstract contains the application packet as submitted, which contains a 37 biological inventory, a site plan, a resource management plan, a letter from a realtor identifying 38 her opinion with respect to the project's compliance with maintaining the value of adjacent 39 property value, a detailed naRative by the applicant, renderings of the proposed new 40 performance center and the new buildings, and all other submittal documentation, we have a 41 property and vicinity map, which is Attachment 2, staff comments with respect to memorandum 42 concerning the initial review of this application, a short description and note on the difference 43 between legislative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the neighborhood information meeting 44 comments and notification materials and certification. 45 Staff has not received any comments with respect to the approval or denial of this application, 46 with the exception of the concern that has been expressed today over the development of the 47 baseball field. There is concern from the adjoining property owner over the proximity of the field 48 to their property. That property owner is present at this meeting this evening. We have