Minutes - 20030325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the bottom, he changed the word "affect" to "circumscribe". He also added a third question as follows: Based on these conditions or constraints, is this an appropriate site far development? Commissioner Gordon said that the key is what the land in land banking is being used for. She said that one of the reasons to highlight pre-development due diligence and downplay project feasibility is because the land is going to be banked for a while. She thinks of land banking as five years and not three years. If it is going to be only three years, then the project feasibility should not be downplayed. Chair Brawn said that land banking to her means putting land aside until you are ready to do a good project. She would like to extend this out to five years and have the landowners report back. She could see holding it even for ten years. She put forward to extend it to five years with a report back at three years. She asked what would happen to the property if it was not developed. Tara Fikes said that the County would decide and it would probably be reverted back to the County. John Link said that there would be an agreement or contract whereby the County conveys property for a public purpose. Whatever the timeframe threshold, there needs to be a legal tether from the non-profit back to the County and that this is public funding and the land is to be used for a specific purpose. Geof Gledhill prefers to create a reversion in the event it is not used. Chair Brown asked if the funding could be leveraged. Tara Fikes said that the evaluation criteria does not include a leverage piece. The thought was that there may be property that needs to be purchased quickly. Commissioner Halkiotis said the natural human tendency is to "grab and spend now" and it would be useful to make a statement as to what this process is and that it is a long range commitment. He would like it to have a statement of purpose. Tara Fikes will came back with a mission statement and the definition of a successful initiation. Geof Gledhill suggested a technical change in page 10, item B as follows: Is the property within a water and sewer service area? The Board agreed to change the project initiation to five years. Geof Gledhill said that there are a lot of things in the documents that are not in the policy. On page four, Project Completion, he changed the language to "All Existing Housing Program activities will report within three years of funding award with afive-year initiation, or reversion." Jahn Link said that the idea of a concept plan is good and this means that the entity develops an initial plan for the governing body. It needs to be made clear as to what our concept plan is and haw it may be different from other municipalities. Commissioner Gordon pointed out an inconsistency on pages 4 and 14 under Eligible Projects. This was Hated by Tara Fikes. 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element- Recommendations and Qutreach Discussion The Board pursued dialogue between the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC), BOCC, Planning Board sub-committee, and County Staff on the following topics: Information contained in Land Use Recommendations Workbook, options for community outreach, role of County Staff and CPLUC members in outreach efforts, and timeline for adoption of the Land Use Element. Craig Benedict gave introductions (CPLUC Members in attendance were Don Cox, Cara Crider, and Barry Katz). This committee was formed by the Board of County Commissioners last year. Over the seven or eight meetings last year, the committee has been talking about the challenges facing Orange County in the future related to the comprehensive plan land use