7/13/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J U L 1 101 IN FURTHER CONVERSATION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND THIS IS PURELY AN ORGANIZATIONAL MATTER, COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT A LOT OF DISCUSSION WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD IN REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL AREAS OF 15 ACRES OR MORE COMING UNDER THE IMPACT EVALUATION REQUIREMENT, AND MR, REVER REPORTED THAT NOW ONLY THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL WOULD FALL UNDER THE IMPACT EVALUATION REQUIREMENT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT LANGUAGE ON PAGE 5 WAS TO BE CLARIFIED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SITE PLAN LANGUAGE, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT THEY HAVE THIS LANGUAGE BUT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED DUE TO AN OVERSIGHT ON THEIR PART WHEN RETYPING. MR. REVER REPORTED THAT ON PAGE 21 SECTION 2. D. 2, THEY RAISED THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING SPACES FROM 200 TO 300 WHICH WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MR. REVER NOTED THAT ONE PARK- ING SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY 200 SQ. FT. OF BUILDING; S0, 300 TIMES THAT WOULD BE A 60,000 SO. FT. BUILDING. MR. REVER NEXT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE WORDING IN SECTION A. 4 ON PAGE 5 REGARDING PROVIDING NAMES OF OWNERS, OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT, AND ENGINEER AND/OR ARCHITECT WOULD BE REVISED TO READ THE SAME AS IN THE BINDING LETTER ORDINANCE, AND COMMENTED THAT MOST OF THE CHANGES WERE SLIGHT WORD CHANGE'S THAT WERE REQUESTED AT THE LAST MEETING. HE THEN DISCUSSED HAVING A MANDATORY MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT WHICH TIME MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE DISCUSSED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR EXPLAINED THAT AN IMPACT EVALUATION DOCUMENT IS NOT ONE WHICH WILL BRING ABOUT APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF A PROPOSED PROJECT; IT WOULD MERELY BECOME PART OF THE APPLICATION AND WOULD BE REVIEWED BEFORE ACTUALLY MOVING INTO THE SCHEDULED PROCESSING. DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED AS TO THE NECESSITY OF AN APPEAL PROCESS AND,IF IT WERE CONSIDERED NECESSARY, WHETHER AN APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR THE COUNTY COMMISSION. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ONLY THING THAT COULD BE APPEALED WOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED SINCE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS SIMPLY AN INFORMATION GATHERING TOOL.