Laserfiche WebLink
NOV 13 1990 <br />I <br />800Kc 81 PAa894 <br />CONTINUATION (THIRD_ HEARING) TY TARBY/DEBARTOLO CORP. REQUEST FOR <br />COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & DRI DEVEL. ORDER APPROVAL <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Staff backup and recommendation: <br />James E. Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />Robert M. Keat' g, P <br />Community Deve opine t Director <br />Stan BolingodAICP <br />Planning Director <br />November 6, 1990 <br />SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION (THIRD <br />HEARING): TY TARBY/DEBARTOLO CORPORATION REQUEST FOR <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, AND DRI <br />DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPROVAL <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular <br />meeting of November 13, 1990. <br />BACKGROUND <br />The Board of County Commissioners considered the above -referenced <br />requests at two previous public hearings: September 25 and October <br />16, 1990. At the September 25th meeting, staff recommended <br />approval of the request with conditions attached to the proposed <br />development order (D.O.). The applicant -however, stated that he <br />had concerns and problems with four issue areas arising from the <br />D.O. conditions. •- <br />r <br />The four issue areas raised by the applicant involve: <br />1. A drainage condition relating to filtration of building and <br />parking area stormwater run-off. <br />2. Providing in the D.O. an option for the applicant to "stage" <br />traffic improvements commensurate with actual site <br />development.. <br />3.• The timing of traffic improvements in relation to concurrency <br />standards and policy. <br />4. Right-of-way contr-ibution needed to, allow a resolution of - <br />future 66th Avenue roadway expansion. <br />At the -applicant's request, the Board continued the public hearing <br />_to October 16th to allow the applicant.time'to work further with <br />staff and -to try to explore alternatives to staff's <br />recommendations. Immediately after the September 25th meeting, <br />staff re-evaluated its position and recommendations relating to the <br />four issue areas of concern to the applicant. Staff took the <br />initiative to formulate alternatives to address the applicant's <br />expressed concerns.. Although the applicant never responded in <br />writing to staff's new proposals and canceled two tentatively <br />scheduled meetings with staff, staff proposed to the Board, at its <br />October 16th meeting, modifications to the D.O. that would address <br />several of the applicant's previously expressed concerns. <br />18 <br />