OCPB minutes 100213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/6/13 3 Paul Guthrie: Will that sewer system that is going through there have the capacity to handle that operation or will there have 109 to be pre-treatment? 110 111 Craig Benedict: The system is in the design stages and it will take into consideration the land uses and the water and sewer 112 demand enough to accommodate the change of land uses from what is there now to non-residential. From a demand 113 standpoint, yes we have it covered. We will examine what type of sewer flow they have and sometimes pretreatment is 114 necessary in some manufacturing operations. 115 116 Maxecine Mitchell: You said that a certain percentage of the R1 could be turned into I1. 117 118 Michael Harvey: The percentage figure I believe you are referring to was the allowable percentage of impervious surface 119 area on a given lot. The node, as currently defined, allows for minimal high intense residential development in the area. 120 121 Maxecine Mitchell: If we rezone this will it leave room for more requests? 122 123 Michael Harvey: Yes. Approval of this request will not limit or hinder future requests from being submitted or heard. 124 125 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve attachments 3 and 4 to rezone two parcels totaling 16.1 acres. Seconded by Lisa 126 Stuckey. 127 128 VOTE: Unanimous 129 130 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – To make a recommendation to the 131 BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that will 132 require a neighborhood information meeting be held prior to site plan submittal for most proposed 133 governmental uses. This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 134 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 135 136 Michael Harvey: (Reviewed abstract). There were a couple of comments and questions at the quarterly public hearing. 137 This information is detailed on page 45 of your abstract. Concern was expressed by a Planning Board member that there 138 needs to be additional thought as to what constitutes government use and the expense of logistical issues of having this 139 neighborhood information meeting. Staff’s comment is essentially that we understand the concern but the direction we have 140 from the elected officials is that anytime there is a government use, that use is going to be reviewed by the adjacent property 141 owners in this form and setting to ensure that they understand what is going on. There are concerns about local volunteer 142 fire departments absorbing this cost and those have been expressed to the elected officials who have indicated that while 143 they understand the concern, they are moving forward with this option. Planning staff recommends that you deliberate on 144 this and vote to recommend approval of the amendment to the elected officials. 145 146 Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments. It was expensive and not what the intent of what the fire tax is. It was several 147 thousand dollars including renting space, printing boards and mailing expense. It was difficult to communicate to people that 148 this site plan was not approved yet so we didn’t have anything concrete to show them. 149 150 Paul Guthrie: Do I read this to be that the volunteer fire department is not a governmental function? 151 152 Michael Harvey: No sir. It is a government use. In Section 5.2 of the table under the government use category, it is listed. 153 154 Pete Hallenbeck: This is a pain for the fire department and it costs money but can be fairly cheap compared to upsetting 155 neighbors forever when something is just dropped on them. 156 157 Tony Blake: There were more complainers that lived further away. 158 159 James Lea: What are the nuts and bolts of this? It is the cost or the information for the meeting? 160 161 Michael Harvey: The issues were the cost of the certified mailing. 162