Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oakcrest Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission forwards Oakcrest Center PUD concept to county commissioners for review after 17-year lapse
Summary
The Planning Commission voted Dec. 10, 2007 to forward the Oakcrest Center Planned Unit Development concept plan to the Board of County Commissioners for review, citing the long lapse since the original 1990 approval, ownership changes, and outstanding phasing and traffic‑mitigation issues.
The St. Mary—s County Planning Commission on Dec. 10, 2007 voted to forward the Oakcrest Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept plan (CCSP 04-13200010) to the Board of County Commissioners for their review because of the passage of time since the PUD—s initial approval, changes in ownership, and unresolved phasing and traffic-mitigation items.
Planning staff noted the PUD was originally approved Aug. 21, 1990 (recorded pursuant to resolution Z90-04 and Z90-04A) and that the phasing plan and traffic mitigation remained outstanding. A staff presentation said the approved PUD document and current zoning chapters (44 and 60) provide the process to be followed; staff recommended each phase be brought back to the planning commission for review.
Owner Ramon Benitez and agent Mahaffey of Mahaffey & Associates attended. Benitez told the commission the property had changed hands recently: "Approximately 2 months ago," he said when asked about the purchase. Commissioners raised concerns about the 17-year interval since initial approval, two ownership changes, the lack of on-site construction, and that the project—s latest concept plans emphasize retail/commercial uses rather than large industrial park development historically envisioned. Commissioner Thompson moved to forward the concept to the Board of County Commissioners for review; Thompson said the request was based on "the passage of time and because of other outstanding issues" and sought the board—s guidance on whether to continue or amend the PUD resolution.
Commissioners discussed that the Board of County Commissioners could re-examine a long-dormant PUD and that the applicant should supplement materials for the commissioners with updated development plans, historic context, market analysis and technical data (traffic, public works) to support a timely review. Planning staff and several commissioners said they did not object to the concept itself but that forwarding it was a procedural step to get county-level guidance and public input before proceeding.
On a motion by Mister Thompson the planning commission voted to forward the Oakcrest Center concept to the Board of County Commissioners for their review and input; a second was recorded and the motion passed. The commission directed the applicant to provide supplemental information for the commissioners' review and to coordinate outstanding phasing and traffic-mitigation details with county technical staff.
