Agenda - 10-15-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 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 byammissioner 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 notion. 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 most review these and make findings independent of the Planning Board findings. Camissioner 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 reduction or increase in minimal gross land area generally required, and Article 7.4.4a regulates lesser areas than generally reqpired, it states that no such reduction shall amount to more than 10% of the area generally required. In Article 7.3 the Board of Commissioners may make specific modifications but the provision indicates that where floor area and similar ratios as maximum permitted amounts of development and have been established by these regulations, the Board of County Coondssioners shall not act in a particular case to modify such ratios or uaximums. There is more than a 10% modification under consideration for approval. Planning Director Marvin Collins indicated agreement with the interpretation of Article 7.4.4 but referred to 7.3 which states: "Where actions, designs or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable PD or general regulations, but the Board of County Commissioners make a finding, in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfed, to an equivalent or greater degree, the Board of County Commissioners may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case, provided that where floor area and similar ratios, as maximum permitted amounts of development have been established by these regulations, the Board of County Coumissioners shall not act in a particular case to modify such ratios or maximums." Article 5 contains dimensional requirements and land use intensity ratios for the different zoning districts. The interpretation of Article 7.3 is that it does not apply to all dimensional requirements but only those ratios that are