Minutes - 19851015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OOOti45 In addition to the requirements of Article 12.4, peripheral landscaping is required along the property which does not adjoin an industrial or commercially zoned area. The landscaping shall consist of one (1) tree planted for each sixty (60) linear feet of landscaping area and a hedge or other durable landscape material of at least three (3) feet in height shall be planted adjacent to the common lot line so as to provide a continuous landscape barrier. When screening is required between boundaries where a proposed Industrially zoned tract adjoins residential property, the applicant must provide a Class A screen - a six-foot high continuous vegetative mass with intermittent visual obstructions to a height of twenty (20) feet. The Planning Board recommended that such screening be continued along the eastern property line and the southernmost part of the property adjacent to the railroad. Article 7 speaks to landscaping and setbacks required adjacent to a residential districts. It also speaks to frontage requirements in that the fifteen feet nearest the street right-of-sway is to be landscaped, and the remaining fifteen feet may be used for parking. The applicant has proposed an eighteen-foot strip, which satisfies the requirement in the Ordinance. Article 7 also requires that a 35-foot building and structure setback be provided along the boundaries where the property does not adjoin residential zoned property or along the eastern and southern most portion of the Chandler tract. The Article further requires a fifteen foot strip extended to the depth of the adjoining districts' front yard setback. Since the adjacent property is in an R-1 district and 40 feet is the depth of the required front yard setback, the applicant must provide a fifteen foot landscape strip for 40 feet. He provides the strip for a distance of 46 feet and proposes a landscape strip eighteen feet wide. Article 7 requires that all other property lines or peripheral areas must be landscaped for a distance of ten feet. Since a Class A screen is also required, under Article 12, the stricter of the two requirements would apply and that is what was referenced in the recommendation made by the Planning Board. Susan Smith presented sketches which illustrated what the property would look like with the proposed landscaping and screening in place. The road is somewhat higher than the front of the property within the right-of way; the property starts to rise and then dips back down toward the ponds. The tops of the ponds are not seen from the road. Commissioner Lloyd questioned the durability of a stockade fence and Smith indicated that the Ordinance does not indicate the type of fence that must be used. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the rezoning request contingent on the fact if the fencing is to be changed other than designated that it would have to be done with the approval of the planning staff. Commissioner Marshall indicated that a Special Use Permit could not be approved with that kind of motion. Chair Willhoit pointed out that a decision must first be made on the findings of fact. The Planning Board made three negative findings of fact. The Board must review these and make findings independent of the Planning Board findings. Commissioner Marshall proposed that Articles 7.17b, 7.17c, and 6.12a which deal with the minimal gross land area cannot be approved under the Article 7.3 as the Planning Staff has suggested. Article 7.4.4 regulates