9.7.22 Planning Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 DRAFT 224 Charity Kirk: So we're meeting that threshold with it? 225 226 Cy Stober: Yes,that's staff interpretation and the basis of our recommendation. 227 228 Delores Bailey: If, as Randy mentioned, this is not the place for the community to talk about the use that is going to be on the 229 parcel,where is that in the process? 230 231 Overlapping conversations 232 233 Adam Beeman: Regardless of if we approve or deny it here tonight, it is going to the Board of County Commissioners. 234 235 Charity Kirk: It's still related to just what we're talking about, it's not related to any businesses on it. 236 237 Adam Beeman: But when it gets to the Board of County Commissioners, they are the only people that you can sway to say 238 yea or nay. They are going to be the ones willing to take on any litigation, if they deny the request and it doesn't meet—if the 239 applicant meets all the requirements and has done everything he is supposed to do and we say no,we have to have a reason 240 why we said no that is legitimate. 241 242 Charity Kirk: We can come up with a legitimate reason. 243 244 Delores Bailey: My question of process is when does the community get to say what they think. 245 246 Cy Stober: If it is approved by the Board of Commissioners,there will be no further opportunity for the community to have any 247 input on the use. It will come before staff and staff will review the site plan and ensure conformance with the UDO use 248 standards. Unless it's a Special Use Permit, in which case it would go to the Board of Adjustment,which would also be a 249 public hearing. 250 251 Overlapping Conversations 252 253 Amanda Griffin: I'm Amanda Griffin and I'm a homeowner in this very small community. I live on Everett Lane across from the 254 proposed rezoning lot and I wrote a treatise, I didn't know there was going to be a limit. I'm just going to have to bullet point 255 some of my main topic points here. I see that the Statement of Consistency does recommend for approval because it states it 256 moves acreage from residential to commercial and that it is in an area that is already more developed. I urge you to take the 257 following into consideration. As discussed,this lot is substantially located within a resource protection area. This may not 258 have any legal significance currently but it is talked about in the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Goal 1, Objective 1.1 issues 259 that it is to avoid higher density, higher intensity development in area with protected cultural resources which is a direct 260 opposition to the current rationale used in the Statement of Consistency for this application. Also extending the lot's existing 261 commercial zoning by a substantial 3.67 acres seems to inevitably promote higher density and higher density development 262 which according to the Comprehensive Plan, should be avoided, specifically related to resource protections areas.The lot also 263 falls into Rural Community Activity Node, Land Use Goal 2, Objective 2.4 applies directly to these rural crossroad communities 264 and issues guidance to identify whether current regulations permit appropriate development that is in character with these 265 communities,which I say strongly, this is not. Land Use Goal 1, Objective 1.1 further calls for sustainable development 266 checklist to evaluate and report on whether both proposed developments are quote"compatible with existing natural, cultural 267 resources and whether they will enhance community character". I believe this directly concerns this rezoning proposal;as 268 discussed there's a possibility there could up to 40,000 sq.ft. unit or maybe just a 10,000 sq.ft. proposed for this. It is 269 dramatically out of character for our local crossroads community and would be a tremendous change from what exists there 270 already. Also,this will eat up nearly 5 acres of valuable commercial development that could be used on more valuable 271 properties or will better serve the community. I also do believe that the language used in the Comprehensive Plan and Land 272 Use Goals makes the planned use of this lot not only relevant but in fact imperative to consider when making this rezoning 273 decision. The application does state the intended use of this lot is for retail sales which is greatly redundant in our community. 274 We have a local grocer, Bravos Market, which serves local produce, local meat and dairy,they employ locally, are owned 275 locally and sits on locally owned land. A large chain store would directly threaten them and take locally circulated money and 276 distribute it elsewhere. The zoning application submitted says quote"this rezoning should meet the intended purpose of the 277 Orange County Comprehensive Plan to provide retail sales to the community"this seems a woefully inadequate consideration 278 of the Comprehensive Plan and a redundancy in our neighborhood. Thank you. 279