Agenda - 11-05-20; 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

29 could be at a higher grade level than the property, and lead to buildings being higher than 40 1 feet. She said she would prefer it to read that buildings cannot exceed 40 feet starting at grade 2 level wherever the building is built. 3 Michael Harvey said it would be best to ask this question of the Applicant. He said he 4 reads the language as a way for the Applicant to address the fact that portions of Davis Road 5 are at a higher elevation than the property. He said the Applicant will take the measurement 6 from the highest portion of the adjoining Davis Road property to the roof deck of the building. 7 Commissioner Greene said so the building could exceed 40 feet. 8 Michael Harvey said yes, but it would not exceed 40 from under the guise of measuring 9 at Davis Road. He said if the property is 10 feet lower, then the building could be 50 feet, but 10 fronting Davis Road, there will be no buildings higher than 40 feet. 11 Commissioner Greene said this is a conversation she would like to have with the 12 Developer. 13 Commissioner Marcoplos said the Board should have a conversation with the 14 Developer. He said the overall development should be 40 feet high, as opposed to use a 15 geographical feature near by to raise the height of the buildings. He said there could be a 16 central measuring point that is used for the 40-foot height limit. 17 Commissioner McKee said he appreciated Commissioner Greene’s comments and 18 remarks about asking the developer. He said he sees this wording as a way to achieve a 50 or 19 60-foot façade on Davis Road. 20 Commissioner Price referred to the setbacks, and asked if follow up discussion needs to 21 be had with the Developer. 22 Michael Harvey said yes. 23 Commissioner Price said the County has put in setbacks to protect green space, and 24 asked if there is reasoning behind the developer reducing the setbacks. 25 Michael Harvey said it would be best to talk to the Applicant. 26 Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 54, point IV-d, and asked if staff could clarify its 27 purpose. 28 Michael Harvey said the rationale for the extension is to allow for additional service on 29 adjoining parcels, and potentially develop a true service road going west. He said it is part of 30 County’s efforts to spread connectivity. 31 Commissioner Price referred to page 55, item n, and said there was so much discussion 32 about Davis Road, but the Applicant seems to want to keep Davis Road as a part of the plan. 33 Michael Harvey said the Applicant has put in conditions to mitigate concerns about Davis 34 Road, but he suggests the Board discuss this further with the Applicant. He said the Applicant 35 believes the concerns can be addressed with a Davis Road driveway. 36 Commissioner Greene referred to page 55, item p, and said she thought once the road 37 was saturated with the trucks there would be two left turn lanes, but rather it seems a second 38 access onto 86 would be needed. She asked if there is a plan in place, should the second 39 access not be possible. She asked if development would not be able to expand. 40 Michael Harvey said the intent of the condition is to show that the Applicant has worked 41 with all involved to preserve a left turn from the service road onto 86. He said the time may 42 come that the left turn may become untenable, and if so, the Applicant would have to find an 43 alternative access point to allow traffic to turn left onto old 86. 44 Commissioner Greene said she still does not see what happens if the second access 45 point cannot be secured. 46 Michael Harvey said if the second access point cannot be secured, then the 47 development that necessitated it in the first place would not be allowed to proceed. 48 Commissioner Marcoplos said there is no language about traffic stopping while pursuing 49 the second access point. 50