OCPB agenda 110117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16 sizing of the lines for the areas in the EDD, with the anticipation of a certain volume being generated from the land 805 uses. 806 807 David Blankfard asked about the neighborhood meetings that Mr. Parker held separately from the Planning 808 Department. How did it go? 809 810 Jim Parker thanked him for asking that. He said that they have held 3 neighborhood meetings: September 2016, 811 August 2017 and September 2017. The meetings have been generally well attended. At the first meeting, they mostly 812 talked about the area itself since they did not have specific plans together at the time. There were questions from 813 adjacent property owners that live outside of and south of this property. These neighbors have not come back to 814 subsequent meetings. There have been concerns over types of uses, traffic, but generally, no concerns from 815 individual property owners with specific things they wanted from the developers. The attendees have been well-816 informed and he said that he and his partners have listened to them. 817 818 Tony Blake asked if in the project would expand in the future if additional adjacent properties became available. 819 820 Jim Parker said that they have reached out to most every property owner in the area and offered to buy their property 821 to make it part of the development. The properties in the development are a result of property owners selling their lots 822 to Mr. Parker’s group. 823 824 Tony Blake responded that he sees the challenge facing the County that there are no big areas for development, just 825 segmented properties. 826 827 Jim Parker said that other EDDs look similar; it’s just the way it is. There are a lot of little properties that need to be 828 amassed to do a development. 829 830 Michael Harvey made a point of clarification. He said that if the development secured additional property, the Settler’s 831 Point Master Plan would have to be amended to add the additional properties into the proposal, which would initiate 832 another public hearing process. If Settler’s Point is approved without District 3 and District 3 becomes possible to 833 develop later on, the developer will have to go through an entire new process to do so as well. 834 835 Lydia Wegman asked for clarification. If the Board tabled District 3 this evening, there would not be a need for an 836 entirely new process, unless District 3 is withdrawn. 837 838 Michael Harvey said that this is correct and added that if District 3 were to come back to the Board but there is no 839 movement forward on the components still needed for it to be viable, the Board may recommend that it is denied, and 840 it would have to go through the process again as well. 841 842 Jim Parker said that they are supportive of Staff’s recommendation. 843 844 Kim Piracci said that she did not do her homework to study the materials for this development. She cannot make an 845 informed decision on any of the items tonight. She said that she suspected that other members may be in a similar 846 position. If she recommended that this item be tabled, the world would not come to an end. What is the worst that 847 would happen? 848 849 Michael Harvey responded that if the decision is to table the entire project, it will be tabled and brought back up at the 850 Board’s November regular meeting. With the delay, the project would not be going forward to public hearing in 851 November because there will likely not be enough time to get it to the BOCC. He recommended that she ask Mr. 852 Parker any questions. He also said that he would need direction on what Staff should provide in terms of more 853 information or direction. 854 855 Kim Piracci said that she needs more time to study this project. She feels like this is too much to go forward with, for 856 her personally. 857 858 20