Agenda - 02-05-1990 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MMMIMIL 10 ..� • 1 making a judgment about what's significant enough to be referred back to the Planning 2 Board doesn't work. Obviously, it will be referred back on one occasion and not on 3 others and the citizens will have difficulty understanding why one thing was referred 4 and another was not. 5 6 COUNTY ATTORNEY GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, stated that a possible solution would be to 7 leave the Public Hearing open solely for the purpose of hearing the Planning Board's 8 recommendation. He indicated that the concern which caused him to write the letter was 9 that in reviewing the Planning Board's meeting minutes it became apparent that 10 information was coifing into the Public Hearing process that was not a part of the Public 1 Hearing, either through staff reports or otherwise. All of that should occur before the 2 public hearing is closed because it is pertinent, valuable information. However, 3 deciding how to get it into the process is the problem. Leaving the Public Hearing open 4 until all that is left is a decision is one way of getting this information into the 5 process. Limiting the last round of the Public Hear mg is a way of accomplishing that 6 by stating that nothing will be heard at that point except the Planning Board's 7 recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation could contain whatever information 8 had come to it outside of the Public Hearing. 9 o .LINK 'suggested that the statement be made that the "Public Hearing is held open 1 until the Commissioner's -receive the Planning Board's recommendation. 2 3 CHAIRMAN CAREY stated that when it is held open for the Planning Board's' 4 recommendation it must be advertised as a Public Hearing.' - 5 6 GLEDHI tate thattif the meeting was adjourned until no new information was . 7 expected than it is not necessary*.to readvertise. .= 9 YUHAS2, Planning Board STEVE member, stated that he hoped that any information 0 coming before the Planning Board would be written and not verbal because the meetings l are barely able.to cover all: pertinent information as it is:.-: If more verbal comments 2 Y• .. .: . Fere included. the would not be able' to complete the meetings s in one -evening.' GLEDHILL stated comments, and in particular ted that. it�_is. .of written co 4 -- the., ar - - . _. . area , . 5 technical i or motion, th:. .. . . .. • here. n . yea y_ 7 indicated-that he . that the Commiyssio .. _... : ... �...,. _>,�. g• in=.the_ PlanninghBoardgs�re .� �,� nays CHAIRMAN CASEY indicated�_th N ; • 9 to close. the hearin and entertai ' �,. commendation:_ :_°T u_ . ' . . . r. . : or 3 Not-Residential Development 1 In s. . ., =rv_this item..was presented t 2 proposal to receive citizen � ��ent`on the 3 ro osal to provide. -•r. area ratio- {FAR) requirements for + • esidential uses - 3 permitted in residential - , 'ng districts which are con- ' - ent with the actual floor areas of existing facilities. .ntroling the inter -- y of a land use or the degree to which a property is used is one o .nnines : s.-_ Residential land use regulations - 5 almost always deal with density. In n. , idential districts, intensity is most often 7 controlled through the use of stan. - tha egulate the hulk of a building. Floor 3 area ratios (FARs) , in conjunc with height -'tations, are the principal standards a used in the Orange Count ' • ing Ordinance to contro • ilding volume. Floor area ratio is defined as the m. ' m floor area permitted for each - :re foot of land area. In recent years, - orange County School Board has submitted ti.. equests for a variance of FAR to permit an existing school to expand or a new school to ■, uilt. The ' inability of the School Board to comply with the FAR requirements wit •ut purchasing sizable land tracts has raised the question as to whether or not the ratios are too low,