Agenda - 05-02-1994-IX-E - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

s ? Ell � lolo jC_2R�T38 3/iS!!t A4„ PRQCE88 791 RDDRIB TNO Tn PROPOSED 1KLI+IDIr_L' 5 TO =3 TWO 322IONZ. Commissioner Gordon said that with regard to the two economic development districts, there are two major policy questions. one deals wit: the location of commercial, industrial, economic development and similar non- residential activity nodes and the other deals with County Co=issione-rs review of economic development proposals. These are both explained in detail in the agenda abstract. With regard to the first policy question, Commissioner Gordon said that the previous locational criteria in the Land Use Plan required that major commercial activity nodes be located in areas in or near population centers with centralized facilities such as water and sewer.! (urban nodes with urban services) The particular locational criteria on page loa that are relevant are public services and utilities, population density,j soil conditions and existing land use which would imply urban uses. she said that when the EDDs were approved with the particular land use changes, more' intensive land uses in many other parts of the County that are essentially, rural were also allowed. klthough there were not a lot of changes for the" EDDs,- Commissioner Gordon feels that there are implications that need to be considered for the future. The second policy question has to do with Boarla review of economic development proposals. She feels that although the landr is prezoned, it does not necessarily mean the County Commissioners must bell removed from the review process. She feels that because the standards area, fuzzy and require a lot of review that the Commissioners should have some[" review function for large developments. This could be a fairly simply special i process where the only specific condition would be to meet the Design- .ndards. She made reference to the information in the agenda abstract and_; _�narized some of the key points: She asked the Board to consider these two;; policy questions. Commissioner Willhoit noted that with regard to the County Commissioners getting involved in the process of interpreting whether or not the project meets the criteria in the Design Manual, that this is a good example of a need to distinguish between policy issues that the Board is l suppose to be involved with and the staff applying the policy to a proposal.. He feels the Design Manual is a good document which provides a much more k detailed guidance that what they have had in the past. The issue of somer arbitrary level over which the Board would make the decision as opposed to smaller developments is exactly the opposite of ,what he would suggest. The total impact of developing 200 acres is the same it it is developed as one or twenty ten acre developments. He would not reserve approval of the big developments for the Board. He feels the policies and ordinances in place' address the total development regardless of its size. Zn fact, he feels tha businesses may go the minor economic development route to avoid bringing it before the Board which would have the opposite ,affect of what they want t � achieve. He feels the Board needs to be involved with the policy issue an then let the staff apply it as stipulated. A Commissioner Gordon said that the ordinance is structured so tha}. a zajcr subdivision is so defined to prevent putting together a lot of wino., subdivisions. She feels that if something has a large affect, the Board should have a chance to review it. With regard to the policy questions, ythinq about the EDDs is in the Design Manual. She is not proposing that . 'f