OCPB agenda 030613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

As requested during the hearing staff will be soliciting input from OWASA on this matter and provide the information to the Planning Board. Staff has taken the liberty to provide additional information on our watershed management program, Attachment 3, in an effort to address some of the comments from the hearing. Staff will reiterate, however, development standards associated with the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts are not being changed as part of this amendment package. All staff is attempting to do is modify existing language within the UDO to either expand the list of watershed overlay districts, specifically those with a 6% impervious surface limit (i.e. Upper Eno Critical, Cane Creek Protected and Critical, Little River Protected) where property owners are required to submit a professionally prepared site plan as part of a development application regardless of the proposed amount of land disturbance or eliminate the requirement altogether and base the submission of a professionally prepared site plan on existing stormwater land disturbance thresholds. Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation and any submitted written comments. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed text amendments based on the following: a. Staff is in favor of option C, as detailed above, with respect to basing the need for a professionally prepared site plan on stormwater management standards rather than on the impervious surface limit of a particular watershed overlay district. If, however, it is a choice between option(s) A and B, staff would recommend option B and encourage all watershed overlay districts with a 6% impervious surface limit be treated the same. b. The amendments eliminate existing inconsistencies and provide additional clarification on the submission of professionally prepared site plans. c. The amendments provide reference to recently adopted stormwater management standards, and d. The amendments are consistent with the overall intent of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For additional information please refer to Section B.1 and 2 in Attachment 1. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments; 2. Consider the new information supplied since the public hearing and the Planning Director’s recommendation to approve the UDO amendments contained in Attachment 2; and, 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed amendments in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC meeting. 52