Agenda - 05-15-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 , a 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 5 COUNTY ATTORNEY GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, stated that a - i leave the Public Hearing open solely For the Possible solution would be to u 3 recommendation. He indicated that the concern which caused r him toewritenthe letter s was 9 that in reviewing the Planning Board's meeting minutes it became apparent that 0 information was coping into the Public Hearing process that was not a part of the 1 Hearing, either through staff reports or otherwise. All of that should occur beforebthe public hearing is closed because it is , -' 3 deciding ow to pertinent valuable information. However, g get it into the process is the problem.. Leaving the Public Hearing open until all that is left is a decision is one way of getting this information into the :) process.. Limiting the last round of the Public Heari -ng is a way of accomplishing that " 6 by stating that nothing will be heard at that point the 7 recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation except containnwhateverrinformation g had come to it outside of the Public Hearing. 3 LINK suggested that the statement be made that the "Public Hearing is held open I 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. 6 GLEDHILL stated that if the meeting was "adjourned until no new in was- 8 expected than it is not necessary to readvertise.:; 0 STEVE YUHASZ, Planning Board.member,. stated that he hoped that any information I coming before the Planning Board would be written and not verbal because the meetings are barely able to cover all pertinent information as it is. If more verbal comments 2 were included they would not be able to complete the meetings in one evening. 3 _ 4 GLEDHILL stated that it is- the area of 'written p 6 technical information, that really -is im itten comments, and in articular 6 _ - portant here.• ~- CHAIRMAN CAREY indicated that w - g hat he was hearing was that the Commissioners wanted— to close- .the_hearing and entertain the Planning: Board's recommendation: - 9 w "'w•� `�f: Non - Residential Development Standards (1) Article S.1.2 - Schedule for - 0� -. Non- Residential Development 2 In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on the 3 proposal to- provide floor -area - ratio - (Fax)- requirements for non - residential uses 4- permitted in'residential. zoning districts which are consistent with the actual floor 5-areas of existing facilities.-__Controling the intensity of a land use or the degree to - which- a 6 propert y is used is one -of planning's goals. Residential land use regulations _ - almost always_deal with density.— In - non_ - residential districts, intensity - -is most often — 8 controlled through the use of - standards that - regulate the bulk of a building-- g _.__ ._.._. Floor.. - 9 area ratios (FARs); in conjunction with height limitations, are the principal - standards _- 0 used in the Orange County.Zoning Ordinance to control building volume. Floor area ratio 1 is defined as the maximum floor area permitted for each square foot of land area. In 3recent tears, the Orange County School Board has submitted two requests for a variance . of. FAR to permit an existing school to expand or a new school to be.built. The 4----inability of the School Board to'comply with the FAR requirements without purchasing 5 sizable land tracts has raised the question -as to whether or not the ratios are too log:,