5/23/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 2 3 1984 I BOOK 5" I FADE 165 April 10, 1984; those in attendance were County Planning Department staff, County Utilities Department staff, the consulting engineer for St. Edwards School, and a representa- tive of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. Although a number of issues were discussed and a number of alternatives considered at that meeting, none of the problems were resolved. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. site plan application at its meeting of April 12, 1984. At that time, the Commission approved the site plan request by a 4-0 vote with the condition recommended by staff that the applicant obtain a type B stormwater management permit. Both the legal counsel and the consulting engineer for St. Edwards School spoke against the site plan approval request at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Representing St. Edwards School, attorney William Stewart filed an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's action of approving the Hutchinson Utilities site plan request. Mr. Stewart listed several reasons for the appeal. These include the incompatibility of the proposed wastewater plant with surrounding property, the lack of control of potential environ- mental or ecological/economic impacts on surrounding property from the proposed facility, inadequate protection for surround- ing property, insufficient separation between the proposed facility and the existing school, and the lack of protection of the public's health, safety, and general welfare. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The staff reviewed all aspects of the Hutchinson Utilities wastewater treatment facility site plan application prior to recommending to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the site plan be approved. Not only did this review include the consideration of alternative locations for the proposed facili- ty; it also involved scheduling and participating in several meetings with all concerned parties. In its review, the Planning Department assessed the proposed project in terms of its conformance with zoning and land use plan requirements, landscape ordinance requirements, paiking and internal traffic circulation regulations, and other fac- tors. It also considered the character of the proposed devel- opment and its relationship to surrounding land uses. The applicant' adequately satisfied all Planning Department con- cerns. The proposed use is allowable in the A, Agricultural, zoning district; this district requires 30 foot setbacks which together with required buffering adequately separates the proposed facility from surrounding property. As part of the site plan review process, other County depart- ments review site plan applications as appropriate. In this case, the County Utilities Division reviewed the Hutchinson Utilities application for conformance with all County Utility regulations. This' review. indicated that the Hutchinson Util- ities application was satisfactory. The Utilities Division also indicated that Hutchinson Utilities would be required to obtain DER approval for its facility; this would involve state review of the plant design, operating characteristics of the facility, and other. factors. The County would have the oppor- tunity to make additional comments during this review period. Besides the Utilities Division, the Public Works Division also reviewed the proposed site plan. Its principal comment was that the applicant obtain a Type B Stormwater Management Permit. All other stormwater management requirements, except issuance of the permit, had been met. Obtaining a Type E permit was made a condition of the site plan approval, and this condition has since been met. The staff reviewed all applicable site plan characteristics in the Hutchinson Utilities application. This primarily involved _ 46