the PD plan not been brought, the staff would have followed its standard practices of
reviewing that development plan for the 580,000 square feet that it included within in. As
the December staff report indicated, it was going to leave remaining undeveloped parcels
with very limited amounts of acreage. That statement, in and of itself, is an
acknowledgment that we knew that the action was going to have an impact. Via the
litigation, as Mr. Hollis pointed out, and as Mr. Gebhardt pointed out, however, they had
identified within that restrictive covenant, which was then brought to your attention, this
legitimate process that they could go through. We normally would never have considered
it from that aspect, so I -- they wanted to take the appropriate step that they were
afforded through their covenants to revise the plan. They could have come in as easily
when we were doing the plan review had they known that that was going to become an
issue and ask for a concurrent increase in the square footage, and we would have
handled it like we handle any other amendment to a statement of intent. So the way that
it's portrayed in the staff report for this evening's report is a correct portrayal. It was
driven by the applicant bringing to us and our attention that restrictive covenant. We
would normally not go digging; however, it is what it is, as I often say. We do not have
many planned districts that have caps in them. And therefore, that's the other unique
little element associated with this. And if you look at the history of planned development
prior to the stormwater ordinance, it's probably a more common tool that was utilized
because the stormwater ordinance didn't exist. Now that we have the stormwater
ordinance, we really don't have to be as concerned about coverage because the
stormwater ordinance deals with that, as well as the rest of our Code requirements. And
hence the reason why we -- if you're going to do a planned district moving forward, we're
asking that we are doing bulk and density related provisions within that statement of
intent, not fictitious building footprints that may change over time in order to define what
the limitations are for that site but allowing the rest of our Codes to apply in each
individual instance. So for any planned district that's use for mitigating maybe
neighboring property owner or other possible political issues, planned districts, I think,
will continue to exist, but the way that we want to structure them is to not be so confining
as it relates to a site plan illustration, but more confining based upon that the actual
capacity issues are that it relates to the property. And that's all driven by roads and
other infrastructure that may be available. We believe that the Code and our allied codes,
the stormwater ordinance, tree preservation, and all of those other factors, provide
adequate levels of protection that don't necessarily need to be maybe augmented
generally speaking by additional restrictions, such as what we see here at Crosscreek or
other developments with the maximum square footage being limited. It's a much cleaner
way for us to review projects and it's probably a much cleaner way for the Commission,
as well, to deal with amendments because then we're not dealing with this type of stuff. I
