BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 18 of 123 BOCC in its amending action. Our contention in that regard is that, the Board of County Commissioners set the 1 special use permit standards and this ordinance provision makes that so. 2 3 Larry Wright: The date of that is? 4 5 Geof Gledhill: This is the ordinance that was in effect at the time the special use permit was adopted. I think it 6 was May 20, 1986. Now, let’s go to Attachment C, which is the special use permit itself and the relevant site 7 plans. The first one of the site plans is page 1 of 9 revised on January 2, 1986 which is the site plan that is 8 referred to in the narrative of the special use permit. You can see at the top in the middle that the minimum 9 recreation space ratio is .022. I don’t have a clue where that number came from because the Ordinance says 10 .019. We are on page 1 of 9 under the general notes, number 7, Minimum Space Ratio. I don’t have any idea 11 why that says .022, it should say, in my opinion, .019 but what is important is that it is more than .019 for this 12 purpose and further more number 8 says, “Fifteen of open space recreation area have been provided which 13 calculates to a .025 which exceeds twice what is required by the ordinance that was in effect which this special 14 use permit was approved. What does all that mean in acreage? Those same notes say there are, proposed 15 Zoning Districts R2 is a single family which is what that note refers to, 290.03 acres. You multiply 290.03 acres 16 by 019 you get 5.51 acres. That is the requirement in the zoning ordinance. If you multiply 290.03 by 022, the 17 number that is there, you get 6.388 acres. If you multiply 290.03 by .052 you get 15.08 acres which is what is 18 shown on this plat as being committed to recreation. 19 20 Jeff Schmitt: Prior to putting in the walking trails. 21 22 Geof Gledhill: Without the walking trails, this development has over 15 acres of recreation space which is more 23 than twice what the ordinance requires. The ordinance has a slightly different standard for multi-family and I read 24 that standard to you as well. That standard is .036. For some reason, if you go to the next page in the multi-25 family section, for some reason, the recreation space ratio that is used is .040. I don’t know where these 26 numbers are coming from but in any event, if you use .036 which is what the ordinance standard is, and there is 27 29.5 acres of multi-family space and that is also in that note, you end up with 1.062 acres of required recreation 28 space in the multi-family or if you use the .040 which is what is shown on this map, you end up with 1.18 and all 29 the testimony is that the recreation and the multi-family area is 2.38 acres so it too is twice as much as the 30 ordinance required when this special use permit was approved. Does anyone have any questions? 31 32 Jeff Schmitt: When we do the multiplication of 290 acres times the .19 or .052 or whatever it is and you get the 33 math, that includes from the edge of the street through the sidewalks to wherever, it does not just include a 34 swimming pool where a tennis court, it includes all the grounds that surround that activity or that play thing, right? 35 36 Geof Gledhill: You are right. It includes the tract that is committed to recreation. Either passive or active and 37 that is because at the time of this approval, that is what the ordinance said. 38 39 Mark Micol: It is the plaintiff’s contentions that open space is inferior because of easements, etc. 40 41 Geof Gledhill: I understand that. Our argument to you is I get that but it wasn’t part of what the county was 42 working with on May 20, 1986. Those requirements to make, for lack of a better word, quality open space, came 43 later. And they were under discussion, you have heard testimony about this, contemporaneous with the approval 44 of this project. We have also seen with testimony and seen in exhibits that the county commissioners were told 45 by the planning director that Scotswood was not subject to those changes and I will talk more about that in a little 46 bit. Let me take one more minute with you on this special use permit and ask you to read with me on, Attachment 47 C, second page of the special use page, third page of the special use permit, third paragraph reads, ‘The 410 48