6_5_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7.10.24 Lamar Proctor: The meeting process is there’s a staff presentation on our items, the applicant presents, then there 102 are questions that will be entertained in sequential order from the Planning Board, and then we take public 103 comments, and then our deliberation and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners following that 104 process. Since we have consolidated the items, we will, in essence, be discussing all three agenda items at once, so 105 we have to be very careful because, and I want to be clear, Mr. Stober, there’s Agenda Item 7 is to review and make 106 recommendations to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the comprehensive plan to amend the FLUM, 107 the Future Land Use Map to expand a rural neighborhood activity node and to amend the text of Appendix F Land 108 Use and Zoning Matrix. That’s the first item. Is that correct? 109 110 Cy Stober: That is correct. 111 112 Lamar Proctor: And so that would be to consider expanding, making conditional zoning that is under consideration 113 in this case applicable to the rural activity node. 114 115 Cy Stober: So the staff presentation will detail our analysis, yes, at present the zoning application is 116 inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map as well as Appendix F, and we have a fairly thorough presentation on our 117 analysis on the existing inconsistency and the applicant’s proposed remedy to it. 118 119 Lamar Proctor: Okay, and the Agenda Item No. 8 is review and make recommendation to the BOCC on the 120 applicant-initiated amendments to the UDO pertaining to family care homes. And No. 9 is to review and make 121 recommendations to the BOCC on the zoning atlas amendment to rezone this particular parcel essentially from 122 Agricultural Residential to MPD-CD Master Plan Development Conditional District. 123 124 Cy Stober: That’s correct. On Item 8 there’s a staff recommendation on this submitted application to resolve 125 some statutory inconsistencies or some inconsistencies of our UDO with general statute that are independent of the 126 applicant’s proposed amendments. 127 128 Chris Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would request that, you know, just looking at our meeting process, we have the 129 applicant presentation that’s going to take place, ‘we’re going to have the questions from the board and the public 130 comments, I would say if we can keep the questions from the board concise and not repeat each other and then for 131 the public comment request that the public listen to what everyone’s saying and if someone is about to repeat what 132 ’you've already said, in the interests of everyone here, if you have signed up to speak and that item has already been 133 covered, please state that you are reiterating what someone has already said, that will help us understand and gauge 134 where we are that will help move the process along and make sure that everyone can be heard. I would ask that we 135 not necessarily limit people to a lesser amount of time, but as long as we can all understand and work towards that, I 136 think that’ll move this process along. 137 138 Lamar Proctor: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? 139 140 Marilyn Carter: Mr. Chair, I would also recommend following the process that the Board of County Commissioners 141 uses for public comment’, I believe it’s 1 hours in a given meeting. They typically do it up front at the beginning of 142 their meetings, but we're allowed 1 hour to tonight and if we find that as we may that we're going to reach our 10 p.m. 143 time limit for the meeting that we follow into the next meeting with continued public comment and our deliberations. 144 145 Cy Stober: So, Ms. Carter and the board, that is for general public comments that are addressed to the board 146 on unspecified agenda items or topics. For agenda items, and particularly for those going to public hearing, which 147 this would, there’s no limit on the number of comments or the duration of the comment period. 148 149 Marilyn Carter: Okay, in that case, in keeping with the policy then, I would agree. 150 151