OCPB minutes 040313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/5/13 2 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 54 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 58 59 Pete Hallenbeck: In your packet we had the summary of things people had talked about regarding directions to go 60 for the UDO and the Planning Board and I also enclosed 3 pages on what I have been thinking about with regard to 61 emergency services and home occupations. I don’t really want to discuss those tonight. I put those in there so 62 you could see an example of what I’d like to see from members. We have the first step, things we’re interested in, 63 I’d like as a second step to get more specific things. What I am purposing is that I’ll take all that and condense it in 64 and then we can all read it and when it’s time to discuss it, we have input from everyone and we’ve read it in 65 advance. It should be a wonderful discussion. 66 67 Lisa Stuckey: Are you going to send an email asking for us to submit it. 68 69 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I’ll do that. 70 71 72 Agenda Item 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation to 73 the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing 74 language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater 75 management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public 76 hearing and was discussed by the Planning Board at its March 6 meeting. 77 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 78 79 80 Michael Harvey: As you will recall last month we began looking at a purposed UDO text amendment where we 81 were wrestling with the notion of providing appropriate reference to recently approved stormwater management 82 guidelines. In doing this we identified several options and we were directed by the elected officials to get input from 83 OWASA. At last month’s meeting there was a unanimous consensus amongst the Planning Board that option C 84 was the preferred method. This option has been incorporated into the proposed amendment package you are 85 reviewing this evening and has staff approval as well. What will happen now when you develop your property for a 86 residential use, the way this now reads, is if you reach the stormwater land disturbance thresholds that we have 87 provided on page 18 of your packet, you will have to produce a site specific development plan. The Ordinance also 88 now contains language indicating you are going to show us everything on that one site specific development plan 89 so that erosion control and current planning are looking at the same document. What we’re hoping also is that 90 health is going to be looking at that same document so the three agencies that are clearly concerned about land 91 development and environmental protection are all going to be working from the same central document. We have 92 eliminated the 6% requirement, with respect to serving as a trigger for the submission of a professionally prepared 93 site plan, all together. Our opinion on the validity of this recommendation is bolstered by the fact that in attachment 94 3 of your packet, we have a letter from OWASA basically saying we don’t care. 95 96 Michael Harvey: A couple of clarifying points, as you will recall this doesn’t change impervious surface limits. One 97 of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Gordon at the quarterly public hearing is that we are going to be 98 lessening the protections for the University Lake both Critical and Protected overlay districts. This is simply not 99 true. 6% is still the impervious surface limit for this area of the County. There was a question at the last Planning 100 Board Meeting, what happens if you get your plot plan from an applicant and you think it’s over its impervious 101 surface allotment. Staff can still require, per the UDO, a formally prepared site plan. We have done that on a few 102 occasions in Orange County even in the less protected watersheds. From our standpoint this is a reasonable 103 compromise, it provides the link we were looking for in terms of referring people to the stormwater thresholds. We 104 are asking the Board to complete its review, you have OWASA’s statement and the ordinance amendment has 105 been rewritten to incorporate option c as suggested by the Board. 106 107