Agenda - 08-04-1997 - 9e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�01 ��,� gcx0 10 1. The Board will consider three items at their work session on October 1_2 . These three items are listed below: s 1 . health insurance dependent subsidy 4 2 . health insurance waiver option 5 3 . Interlocal agreement with the Trust 6 7 0 . ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8 DISTRICT DESIGN MANUAL 9 Planner Mary Willis summarized the information in the agenda. 10 This amendment would eliminate the requirement of a 100-foot buffer along 11 the perimeter of an Economic Development District (EDD) which abuts an EDD 12 adopted by another planning jurisdiction. The Planning Board considered 13 the proposed amendment on September 18, 1995 . After considerable 14 discussion, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed 15 amendment by a 7-5 vote and the Administration recommends approval . 16 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Ms . Willis 17 clarified that the Primary Development Overlay is a separate area that has 18 been applied only to the area north of Cates Creek which has provisions in 19 addition to those which already apply to a primary area. This amendment is 20 for all Economic Development Districts which have the same intensity -- 21 Primary or Secondary -- adjacent to an adjoining jurisdiction. 22 Commissioner Gordon asked, since there is already a category 23 called "Primary Development Overlay Area" and this is part of the area that 24 is generating these questions, why can' t they restrict this amendment to a Primary Development Overlay area so it does not apply to all EDDs . She feels that the problem is with what may happen if another jurisdiction did 2'r something different in the future. 28 Mary Willis said that one of the issues that make this more 29 complex is the location in this area. The real issue is the jurisdictional 30 boundary which is what this amendment addresses. 31 Commissioner Gordon asked if it would be possible to restrict 32 this change to the Primary Development Overlay area which would limit the 33 proliferation of this amendment. Mary Willis said that the reason the 34 Primary Development Overlay area was put on the map was the fact that the 35 property was narrow and the uses would be limited. The rationale for 36 creating the Primary Overlay was to address that issue and those specific 37 concerns because of the configuration and shape of that area and the impact 38 of what could be done with it. She noted that even if there were not the 39 same kinds of conditions that are present with this strip, they would still 40 be recommending that this issue not require the double buffer in an area 41 where the boundary of the district is really invisible because it is 42 jurisdictional only. To look at it in terms of Primary Overlay area does 43 not directly address the issue they are attempting to address. 44 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the problem be formulated 15 differently so that the Primary Overlay area would address this specific =a' issue only. =7 Mary Willis will look at this problem to see if it can be =8 accomplished in a different way. However, the proposed amendment was developed so it would cover the same issue if it arises in the future, specifically with regard to the two buffers adjoining each other.