|
282
<br /> Approved 8.7.24
<br /> 1651 it's licensed by the state and it's further distinctive piece in here is that it has to be by a
<br /> 1652 licensed provider within that piece of property, and so what's in the application is for a
<br /> 1653 maximum of two single family homes, as defined by the state, that would have a
<br /> 1654 maximum of six residential occupants within those. That's not, with due respect to some
<br /> 1655 conversations at the last meeting and other things, that's not a non-residential use as
<br /> 1656 defined by the state. Now we can all argue about whether it ought to be or whether it
<br /> 1657 shouldn't be.
<br /> 1658
<br /> 1659 Beth Bronson: And I can appreciate that. Thank you for clarifying that there is no commercial
<br /> 1660 component.
<br /> 1661
<br /> 1662 Scott Radway: There is no commercial component, and as such, this application could have come
<br /> 1663 forward as a residential conditional district or, in some ways, as a flexible development, so
<br /> 1664 if I can, before Patrick comes up and swats me, if I can say one thing. There's a lot of
<br /> 1665 overlaps in the design that are pieces that are required by the ordinance. For example,
<br /> 1666 there was a comment about signs and a lot of back and forth as we were trying to figure
<br /> 1667 out signs. Well, in fact, to make the application we have to design a sign and submit it
<br /> 1668 with the application. So, the back and forth on many of these items is not conspiracy in
<br /> 1669 any fashion. It's trying to find out what we have to submit in order to begin the process.
<br /> 1670 The second piece that we've heard about things that don't match up is the zoning districts
<br /> 1671 for this require a perimeter buffer around the property on all sides; buffers against what's
<br /> 1672 across the street, buffers against the adjacent properties. This project, if brought forward
<br /> 1673 as a flexible development, in the subdivision process would not have to provide any of
<br /> 1674 those buffers around to any properties, so the claim that this is a village that's put into the
<br /> 1675 woods and hidden from everything is, in part,just because your ordinance requires it to do
<br /> 1676 that, so parts of these are elements of how to build a community, and they're the elements
<br /> 1677 of how to bring forward and have a good discussion about this, and I think it would be
<br /> 1678 helpful to have Cy be able to comment on some of these things from this meeting that
<br /> 1679 happened at the first meeting too. I don't get to make that choice, but it's my 2 cents.
<br /> 1680
<br /> 1681 Adam Beeman: Correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick, but the community buildings is why they can't use those
<br /> 1682 residential districts?
<br /> 1683
<br /> 1684 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, in short, they've been working on this for quite some time, and they kind of came to
<br /> 1685 the point of let's talk about what we need to do and what our vision is and which
<br /> 1686 category, which way do we go with our request, and I think that a lot of the considerations
<br /> 1687 with where the category they ended up with were based in, or, what is our best
<br /> 1688 opportunity to be consistent as best we can or a path towards consistency with our plans,
<br /> 1689 our goals, our objectives. Also knowing that this board reviewed a residential conditional
<br /> 1690 district recently, Eden View, 30 plus units, and that is a fairly simple design because
<br /> 1691 you're talking about just single-family homes on public or private roads. This group is
<br /> 1692 contemplating more than just single family in a sense that single family, duplex, triplex,
<br /> 1693 town homes, family care facility, like a multi-family, so the difference from a design
<br /> 1694 perspective, I think that there was, and I'm not trying to speak for them or weigh whether
<br /> 1695 that's good or bad, but the reality is once you cross that line you start to get into building
<br /> 1696 and design commitments. With a master plan there is some very limited flexibility to that.
<br /> 1697 If you go to an RCD and/or, let's just say theoretically to accommodate their other uses
<br /> 1698 other than the residences, you start to get into where are the dumpsters, where is the fire
<br /> 1699 lane, exactly where is the ADA accessibility space, where's the route? It's a higher level
<br /> 1700 of design, and so I think that there was an obvious choice, like we know a lot about what
<br />
|