BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 40 of 123 1 Geof Gledhill: Not along the creek. It is to the south of the creek. It is part of the active recreation parcel. It may 2 be in trees, let’s play tag again, let’s do swimming, let’s do basketball, let’s do tennis, let’s play tag in the trees. 3 That is active recreation. 4 5 Larry Wright: Is that in a flood plain? 6 7 Geof Gledhill: I am looking at a small portion is in the 100 year flood boundary but most of it is outside of even 8 that boundary so it is a question of quality versus quantity and our argument is that quality was not in this special 9 use permit. The regulations in effect at the time it was approved are recommendations. 10 11 Larry Wright: You heard his comments on the parking lot and whether that was considered part of the recreation 12 area or not and could you go over those calculations again. 13 14 Geof Gledhill: I think the parking area is in the active recreation part of this project are within the polygon that 15 makes … 16 17 Larry Wright: And why is that? 18 19 Geof Gledhill: Because its, the point made by another members of the board, you have people coming in and 20 out, it is not a permanent occurrence of parking for any particular vehicle. It is intermittent use and I can 21 understand the other way, I am just making the argument that the entire gross, the entire gross land area 22 qualifies. The ratio is calculated by multiplying the required ratio times the gross land area. 23 24 Jeff Schmitt: Mr. Buck makes the point that Mr. Harvey relied on three separate sections in the code, one of 25 which relates to the parking and I think the comment was made something to the degree about incidental use, 26 how is that referred to … we don’t provide 20 parking spaces for incidental use, do we? 27 28 Geof Gledhill: I am reading from Condition 27; provide 10 parking spaces to serve the above activities within the 29 15 acre recreation area. 30 31 David Blankfard: When was this plat modified to its current condition? Did that void the special use? How does 32 that process work? 33 34 Geof Gledhill: I don’t think I understand the question. 35 36 David Blankfard: What was the issue with the SUP dated 1986, October and it is different … How does that 37 relate back to the SUP? 38 39 Geof Gledhill: The final plats that were recorded fleshed out the site plan that was part of the special use permit. 40 Changes that were made in the minds of the planning staff, changes that were made from the site plan look to the 41 final recorded plat look were minor changes that did not require a modification of the special use permit. 42 43 Larry Wright: Minor as defined by the ordinance? 44 45 David Blankfard: Which ordinance? 46 47 Geof Gledhill: I would argue that it is the 1986, the ordinance in effect when the special use permit was adopted. 48