12.10.25 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

59 Draft 1 the applicant work with staff to provide the screening that's required by the UDO with the 2 understanding that if there's a change made, a new structure is built in that future building 3 envelope area, we know we're coming back with a new site plan anyway. That new site plan would 4 then have to address fencing and buffering for that particular building addition. 5 6 Beth Bronson: Could I? The reason I brought that up to begin with is that there's buffer called out on only one 7 portion of the property on the site plan as part of the application.And I understand now that the 8 UDO requires further buffering? 9 10 Cy Stober: No, if I can clarify. Yeah, so to I think Ms. Bronson's point, it is—Table 6.8.6(d) shows that as a 11 matter of zoning, and not a special use, but, and to Mr. Myers' point here—no, Mr. Myers is there. 12 That AR, R1, and RB zoning don't require any perimeter buffering due to, I'm presuming, due to 13 their rural nature. So, if a buffer is preferred by the board, that would need to be a condition to be 14 negotiated with the applicant or to be requested of the applicant. What is required, to Mr. Hornick's 15 point, is screening of some manner, whether it be fencing or landscaping, of the care facility use. 16 But the remainder of the property would not require a landscape buffer. So, the site plan is 17 accurate and reflects the standards of the UDO because there is no perimeter buffering required 18 by the UDO. I apologize for any confusion on that point. 19 20 Leon Meyers: Jeff, you were about to say something? 21 22 Jeff Scott: No, I was just going to say, sorry, I should probably speak into this thing. Because like, I'm just, I'm 23 a little worried that we're starting to impose some excessive conditions on some of these things. 24 And like, I don't—to Sy's point, it's like, you know, most of the site is wooded and part of that rural 25 part is, you know, the buffer is in some ways kind of inherent on the property anyway. So, I just, 26 I'm concerned we're going a little bit too far on some of these conditions and trying to impose 27 things. Whereas my position is more of; you know, should the application be approved that they 28 would work with the staff? So, that's just my concern with the conditions a little bit. 29 30 Leon Meyers: I want to come back to the frontage question. I don't— I'm not sure. James, you offered some 31 guidance about to read that section. Do other board members have concern about what appears 32 to read as a requirement for direct frontage on a public road? 33 34 Beth Bronson: Yeah, it says direct frontage, and I think that that is something that can be contested. It can be 35 interpreted, and so I think that that is up to us to decide what the fact is. Is the fact that this 36 easement is sufficient definition that it provides direct frontage and access on a public state- 37 maintained road? Now, the applicant has, council has provided their definition of how that fits to 38 this. I think it comes down to the way that you see, the way that we see the standards interpreted 39 in our UDO. The nature of this seems like there should be direct frontage to a public state- 40 maintained road. And that seems to be related to emergency services and accessibility. 41 42 Leon Meyers: I believe it's correct to say James's advice is if you're going to look beyond a normal reading of a 43 phrase like that to special definitions in the LIDO, then you should look at all of the related 44 definitions. Did I understand that correctly? 45 46 James Bryan: Yes. 47 48 Leon Meyers: And Mr. Hornick suggested one possible of way understanding direct frontage. And Cy, can you 49 tell us if there are any other frontage terms defined in the UDO? 50 59