BOA minutes 110810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 3/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 9 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 The applicant is required to adhere to the submittal requirements and design criteria standards as detailed within 8.8.21.1 and 8.8.21.2. Their first requirement is a description of the exact type of facility plan, the amount of area including the number of members or participants expected, the site plan citing the size of existing and proposed buildings. As part of this application, we do have a site plan and a narrative that fulfills this requirement, Subsection B, access, parking, service and recreation areas for all planned or existing facilities. Both the site plan and the narrative provide this level of detail. Subsection C, plans and elevation for all proposed and existing structures and descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior materials. The applicant has provided you something and I would respectfully request that you allow me to suggest a condition at an appropriate time concerning adherence to this standard. While the applicant has submitted detail I think some additional information is required which I believe can be handled and I want to propose a condition. The next condition, a landscape plan showing at the same scale as the site plan, existing and proposed trees, shrubs, and ground cover. We have a unique situation here in that the applicant wants to hold himself to a higher standard than the ordinance currently exists. They are required to provide a 20 foot landscape buffer for Article 12 of the existing zoning ordinance. What Mr. Andrews has elected to do instead of just providing a buffer that meets those standards, he is actually incorporating and adopting language that will be in the proposed Unified Development Ordinance by asking the board to impose a condition that would allow Mr. Andrews to develop a landscape plan in accordance and consistent with recommendations from Orange County Planning Staff and the Orange County Cooperative Extension Office to identify plants and utilize native vegetation that is drought tolerant that would also address concerns that we would have in working with the local utility company concerning the power line easement. We have recommended that a condition be imposed on this landscape plan which I will address in a moment. I would like to stipulate that Mr. and Mrs. Andrews voluntarily incorporated a requirement that is in the proposed UDO in terms of working with Cooperative Extension to have a landscape and buffer plan that actually made use of indigenous local vegetation that was drought tolerant and tried to respect the existing power line instead of just planting trees that the current ordinance would allow that we know would get mowed down because it is near a power line easement. The next subsection E, a signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will have adverse affects on adjacent property. Mr. Andrews submitted that this evening to staff which we have given you a copy and it has been entered into the record. We believe it is consistent and adheres or satisfies the condition of Subsection E. At the bottom of page 41, standards of evaluation per Section 8.8.21.2, the first requirement is the lot size shall be adequate for the method of sewage disposal proposed, and for the proposed recreational uses. We are finding in the affirmative based on the memorandum supplied to the Orange County Health Department and attachment 3 there is also a condition associated with this which I will go over in a moment. The site plan, number 2, should show the boundaries of the site, the distances to the nearest residential structures, proposed or existing access points, parking and service areas, location of outdoor recreational facilities and location of existing or proposed buildings. We attest the site plan provides the required data. At the top of page 42, The landscape plan shall be at the same scale, I am not going to rehash what I had commented on the landscape plan, elevations of all structures and buildings. Again, I will propose a condition that addresses my concerns for this point. Finally, there are no adverse impacts on the adjacent roads or residential property which I believe is addressed in their statements. This is ultimately up for the Board’s consideration but I believe he has met the requirements of the ordinance. It is my opinion that recreational facilities are permitted in the zoning district where this property is located. The Health Department has indicated there are no concerns for the proposed use or portable toilets at this facility although they have recommended a condition which Mr. & Mrs. Andrews have agreed to which I will go over in a moment. From staff’s perspective, the proposed operation of this facility complies with the intent and purpose of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan specifically the 10 year transition area which this property is located. You will note within the applicant’s narrative they have provided documentation they feel their policies and goals of the comprehensive plan that support the development of this facility which staff concurs with. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the Board through attachment D, beginning on page 107, the Findings of Fact.