Commissioners,
I have no opinion with regard to the actual Office Business Park (OBP) amendment, however I do have a problem with the process used to arrive at the proposed amendment. I have reviewed the staff report, read the Planning Commission meeting minutes, and viewed the 5/24/05 BOCC public hearing, and there has been absolutely no mention of the involvement of the Development Review Forum (DRF). In essence, the DRF is a handful of members from the local development community that meet with your staff once a month in a back room at LUGM in order to provide you with their advice and recommendations regarding Zoning Ordinance regulations and amendments. According to their 1996 charter and by-laws, they are supposed to be advising you on ways to streamline the convoluted development review process. The words “zoning” and “ordinance” do not appear anywhere in the DRF charter and by-laws, however, over the past few years, the DRF has been transformed into a Zoning Ordinance advisory board, with nearly 100% of their time now devoted to Zoning Ordinance amendments . According to DRF meeting minutes, the OBP amendment before you now, is a Zoning Ordinance amendment project the DRF has been working on since December 2003.
According to the DRF meeting minutes of 10/20/2004, DRF member John Parlett lobbied four of you on behalf of the DRF in an effort to gain support for the proposed OBP amendment. The following is an excerpt from the 10/20/2004 DRF meeting minutes:
“John Parlett had meetings with four of the County Commissioners during the past month regarding residential buildout in the OBP. His understanding from these meetings is that the Commissioners he spoke with seem to be agreeable to the many of the original suggestions for residential buildout in the OBP. Some of the suggestions addressed included allowing a base density of 10 dwelling units by right, with up to 20 dwelling units per acre allowed with the use of Transfer Development Rights (TDRs); allowance of, but not requirement for, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) within the Development District; requirement of PUDs outside of Development District for any residential buildout in the OBP; and a requirement that no more than 49% of the development be residential. Mr. Parlett said that Commissioner McKay suggested that this issue be taken back to DRF for input and then for Mr. Canavan to return to the BOCC with the suggested text amendment. A motion was made to use these suggestions to revise the 9/15/04 memo, presented last month, assuming that it meets the Board of County Commissioners’ needs and subject to Mr. Canavan’s acceptance. The motion passed by a majority.”
On 2/14/2005, DRF member Parlett testified before the Planning Commission in support of the OBP amendment with his recommended changes. He did not identify himself as a member of the DRF, but only as a representative of his development company, CMI General Contractors. The following is an excerpt from the 2/14/2005 Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed OBP ZO amendment:
“Chris Longmore, of Dugan, McKissick, Wood, & Longmore; Larry and Shawn Day, of Day Tech Engineering; and John Parlett, of CMI General Contractors all spoke in support of the amendment but expressed concern that a base density of 5 units per acre was much too low. They suggested that a base density of at least 10 units per acre would be needed to make development economically feasible. Mr. Parlett also recommended that there be no maximum footprint requirements in the OBP, and that permitted and accessory uses be reviewed and expanded to include uses typically permitted in residential settings.”
<!–
–>