HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 21 85 PC MinutesMay 21, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, May 21, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr.
David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr.
Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other
officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner;
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Richard Cogan and Ms. Patricia
Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the May 7, 1985 meeting were approved as written.
ZTA-85-06 - Proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include
landscaping, screening requirements and related amendments.
Deferred from April 23, 1985.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She made the following change
in the proposed amendment. The first two sentences of section
32.8.3.1 shall be amended as follows:
Large street trees shall be 1 1/2" to 1 3/4" minimum
caliper measured 6" above the ground when planted.
Medium street trees shall be 1" to 1 1/4" minimum caliper
when planted.
It was decided a note should be added to the bottom of the con-
servation checklist to the effect that "It is the developer's
responsibility to confer with the contractor on this matter."
It was determined that enforcement of the conservation plan
would be a joint effort of the Engineering Department and the
Soil Erosion Control inspectors after the measures that are
shown on the plan have been initially reviewed by the Planning
staff.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission and offered the following
comments:
--Regarding 32.8.2.3 which deals with the conservation plan,
he stated he felt this is a duplicate of the Soil Erosion
Control Plan and could best be handled with the Soil
Erosion plan.
M
May 21, 1985
Page 2
--Regarding the Conservation Checklist, he felt there
should be flexability in the enforcement and this
should be reflected in the language concerning what
wooded areas are to be maintained, such as: "Wooded
areas may be preserved except for those areas which are
within 5-10 feet of the house." He questioned the
restriction against fires within 100 feet of trees.
He questioned the requirement for fencing around
certain trees since it is often necessary to work
closely around the trees. He was in favor of the
checklist being "suggestions" for the contractor to
follow. He questioned the feasability of identifying
the type of each individual tree. He felt it would
be difficult to identify scenic views since a view
might be scenic from one point, but not from another.
--He questioned the use of the term "Director of Planning"
in section 32.8.2.3 and asked if this means only
the actual Director of Planning or does it mean any
member of the planning staff.
--Mr. Hurt was concerned that as the members of the
Commission change these requirements may be inter-
preted differently in the future.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Regarding Mr. Hurt's concern over the use of the term "Director
of Planning", Mr. Payne stated it is up to the Director to
determine how this will be handled. He explained that in the
past, the Director of Planning has designated certain members
of the staff who are authorized to act for him and sign his
name to certain documents, followed by that staff member's
initials. He confirmed that, ultimately, it is the Director
of Planning's responsibility.
Referring to section 32.8.2.4, Mr. Michel stated that it was
difficult to define "significant features" but that in time
developers will come to know what the staff and the Commission
expect.
Ms. Diehl stated that the identification of trees did not need
to be technical, but only general in nature, such as "oaks,"
"maples," etc.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt Mr. Hurt's comments about the
checklist were reasonable.
Ms. Scala explained Raintree would not fall under these require-
ments since there was no site plan required for Raintree and
the landscaping had been acquired through a bonus.
Mr. Hurt indicated he felt the amendment would apply to
everything he does, if not now, then at some future time.
=71/
May 21, 1985 Page 3
Ms. Scala explained the conservation plan would only be required
for required plantings. She stated when existing trees and
wooded areas are proposed to be saved, rather than replaced
by a new planting, then it becomes the concern of the staff.
However, if the developer has trees that he would like to
save, but may or may not be able to, and they are not required
plantings, then this may not apply to the letter. But if
the developer prefers to save a tree rather than plant a new
one, then the staff wants to see some effort made to actually
save the tree. She stated it was not staff's intent that
the conservation plan pertain to every tree on the site.
Mr. Hurt stated that though a developer will try to save as
many significant trees as possible, he will be very reluctant
to "designate" the trees because of the difficulties imposed
by the conservation plan.
Mr. Michel stated he felt that the situation would occur
very rarely since few sites will have a "major, significant"
tree that would qualify for all these measures.
Ms. Scala stated that making the conservation plan voluntary
would be the same as exists now. She pointed out that the
developer does not have to save any trees, beyond those
required, but if he does say that he will save certain
trees, there should be some assurance that he will work
toward that.
Mr. Hurt indicated he was in favor of the conservation plan being
optional.
Ms. Scala suggested it might be possible to require that the
five items under 32.8.2.3 be shown, i.e. "trees to be saved,
limits of clearing, location and type of protective fencing,
grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or
tunnelling proposed beyond,the limits of clearing,";to show
that the developer is at least considering how to save the
trees, and then recommend that the items on the checklist be
followed. Ms. Scala stated she feared the developers would
then not designate any trees.
Mr. Payne stated if the conservation plan was going to be made
purely "recommendatory", it might as well be deleted entirely
because it would not be enforceable. He suggested a solution
might be to allow the Director of Planning the discretion
of approving something different in certain cases. He suggested
the following amended language for section 32.8.2.3:
• In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation
checklist approved by the Director of Planning, to insure
that the specified trees will be protected during con-
struction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the
Director of Planning in a particular case, such checklist
shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through
III-297.
May 21, 1985
Page 4
Mr. Payne explained the advantage of retaining the reference to
the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook was that
this is a document that most engineers are already familiar
with.
It was determined the above noted change to section 32.8.2.3 and
Ms. Scala's previously stated change to section 32.8.3.1 are
the only two changes to be made in staff's proposal.
Regarding the recommended species list, it was determined
that a substitution for another tree on the list could be
made by the developer automatically, and a substitution for
a tree not on the list could be taken care of by phone.
The Chairman commended Ms. Scala for her work on this issue.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-85-06 to amend to the Zoning Ordinance
to include landscaping, screening requirements and related
amendments be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
as follows:
AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THE ADDITION OF:
32.8 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
32.8.1 PURPOSE
The objective of these requirements is to provide for the installation,
preservation and maintenance of plant materials in order to:
a) insure development which is consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan related to natural resources and with the Plan's
environmental and land use standards;
b) promote the public health, safety and welfare;
c) conserve energy by providing shade and wind breaks;
d) provide pervious area which helps to reduce runoff and to
recharge ground water;
e) improve air quality;
f) minimize noise, dust and glare;
g) promote traffic safety by controlling views and defining
circulation patterns;
h) to protect and preserve the appearance, character and value of the
neighboring properties;
112
May 21, 1985
Page 5
?.8.2 ADMINISTRATION
32.8.2.1 Whenever a site plan is required by this ordinance, a landscape plan shall
be submitted for approval. The site plan shall not be deemed approved
until the landscape plan has also been approved by the Director of Planning.
If the impervious cover of the site exceeds 80% of the total site, the
landscape plan shall be submitted concurrently with the
psite
toplan.
Other-
issuance
wise, the landscape plan may be submitted for approval that the
of a building permit and prior to any clearing of the site; except
Director of Planning may require that any landscape plan be submitted con-
currently with the site plan due to unusual circumstances or conditions
peculiar to the site, or if requested by the Planning
32.8.2.2 The landscape plan shall show location, size and type of all proposed plant
materials, and verification that minimum landscaping and screening require-
ments have been met. Plant materials may be indicated in the following
generic terms on the landscape plan: large or medium shade tree, screening
tree, screening shrub or street shrub. The required plant materials shall
be chosen from a recommended Species list approved by the Director of
Planning. Plant material not listed may be used as required plant material
only if its use shall be expressly approved by the Director of Planning.
32.8.2.3 Existing trees or wooded areas may be preserved in lieu of planting new
materials in order to meet the landscaping and screening requirthntsq
subject to the Director of Planning's approval. In such case, the
land-
scape plan shall indicate the trees to be saved, limits of clearing, location
and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells orIwnalls
�= and trenching or tunnelling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved
by the Director of Planning, to insure that the specified trees
will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the Director of Planning in a particular case, such
checklist shall conform to specifications contained
in the
lIIVirginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp
111-284
32.8.2.4 In addition, the landscape plan shall indicate existing landscape features
on the site. Such features may include, but shall not be limited to:
wooded areas indicated by general type and location of tree line; other
groups of trees or individual trees other than scrub, indicated by general
type, size and location; prominent ridge lines, scenic views, existing
structures, travelways, fences or walls. The Director of Planning may
require that any or all such features be preserved if the Director determines,
following a site inspection, that the features contribute significantly to
County
the character es is necessaryatoemeet thelpur.poseeanddthat intentthe preservation
of the of this
featurordinance.
such features
The purpose of this section is to protect unique amenities which could
otherwise be irretrievably lost due to careless site design. It is not
intended that this section be applied indiscriminately, nor solely to
prohibit development.
M
Page 6
May 21, .1985
32.8.2.5 The Planning staff in its review of the landscape plan shall consider
comments from other agencies before approving the plan, including the
Virginia Department of Highway^ & Transportation and the Albemarle County
Service Authority. Once the landscape plan is approved, no changes may.
be made unless the revision has been approved by the Director of Planning.
32.8.2.6 Required landscaping may be bonded to insure completion prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All required landscaping shall
be completed by the first planting season following the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
32.8,2.7 A maintenance bond for the required landscaping shall be posted by
the developer in favor of the County. If the landscaping is com-
pleted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, then
the maintenance bond shall be posted prior to the issuance of a.
certificate of occupancy.
If the landscaping is bonded for completion, rather than completed
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, then the
maintenance bond shall be posted when the materials are planted
but before the completion bond,is released. The maintenance bond
shall be in the amount of approximately one-third of the value of
required trees and/or shrubs, and shall be held for a period of
twelve (12) months following the planting date.
At the end of the twelve (12) month time period, the bond shall be released
if all required plantings are in healthy condition as determined by the
Zoning Administrator. Thereafter, required landscaping shall be maintained
in healthy condition by the current owner or homeowners' association, and
replaced when necessary. Replacement material shall conform to the original
intent of the landscape plan. When existing plantings are preserved in lieu
of required new plantings, the bond shall be calculated according to the
replacement value of plantings which weet the minimum requirements of this
ordinance.
32.8.2.8
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director of Planning may demand
a review of the plan by the Planning Commission. Such request shall be
(10)��
made in writing and filed with the Director of Planning within ten
'person
calendar days of the date of such decision. The term aggrieved
shall be limited to the applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant
to Section 32.3.2, the Planning Commission, any member thereof, the Zoning
Administrator, County Executive, Board of Supervisors, or any member thereof.
32.8.3
MINIMUM STANDARDS
32.8.3.1
Large street trees shall be 1 1/2" to 1 3/4" minimum
caliper measured 6" above the ground when planted. Medium street
trees shall be 1" to 1 1/4" minimum caliper when planted.
Evergreen grees for screening shall be minimum 4-5' in height when
planted. Shrubs for screening shall be minimum 24"-30" in height
when planted. Shrubs for street planting shall be minimum 15"-18" in
height when planted.
32.8.3.2
All landscaping shall be planted according to established planting procedures
using good quality plant materials. Planting islands shall contain minimum
50 square feet per tree, with a minimum dimension of 5 feet in order to pro-
tect the landscaping and allow for proper growth. Wheel stops, curbs, or
other barriers must be provided to prevent damage to landscaping by vehicles.
May 21, 1985
Page 7
Where necessary, trees shall be welled or otherwise protected against
shall be permanently
y
change of grade. All impervious areas of the site
with either grass, a ground cover or mulch
protected from soil erosion
material.
32.8.4
STREET TREES
32.8.4.1
Street trees shall be required along existing or proposed public streets
to site plan approval in all commercial
in any development which is subject
residential districts if developed at a density
and industrial districts and may
or greater. The Planning
of four dwelling units per acre
in cases where site conditions warrant an
waive this requirement certain
alternate solution.
Street trees shall be selected from a current list oMedium shadedtlarge
32.8.4.2
shade trees, approved by the Director of ing'Plansiapproval, when site con -
Planning
may be used, subject to Director of
The Director of Planning may approve
ditions warrant smaller trees.
limited to large or medium shade trees.
substitutions of species
32.8.4.3
Street trees shall be planted in an evenly -spaced row adjacent to the
street tree shall be required
public street right-of-way. One large
or portion thereof, if 25 feet or
for every 50 feet of road frontage,
shade tree shall be required for every
more. Where permitted, one medium
or portion thereof, if 20 feet or more. The
40 feet of road frontage,
Planning may approve minor variations in spacing.
Director of
32�g.4.4
sale, the trees
ma.intained byprotected
beshall
In the case of development with
and shall
�rrr
en
through an open space or easement arrangement
homeowners' association.
32.8•5
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING
All developments subject to siteplalre eew.shall include the following
32.8.5.1
required landscaping in the parking o
1. Street trees:
8.4
Street trees shall be planted in accordance with lot.SectThe2treesashall
the public street frontage which abuts a parking lot. parking
normally be planted between the street right-of-way and the p
area, within the parking setback. If required street trees may not
be planted within the parking setback or within 10 feet of the street
right-of-way due to sight distance or utility easements or other
conflicting requirements, then the planting strip must be enlarged
to accommodate the trees. If this requirementscreatesthenathehaddi-
by causing the relocation of required parking Pa
tional planting area may be counted toward the interior inridscaping
requirement.
In
May 21, 1985
Page 8
2. Interior Landsca ip ngs
In addition, an area equal to 5% of the paved site area shall be
landscaped with trees or shrubs. Thisshall include one thereofif
or medium shade tree per 10 parking paces shall be located in reasonably
5 spaces or more. Interior landscaping
dispersed planting islands or per areas. Shrub plantings
adjacent to a building shall not be counted as interior landscaping.
3. Additional Dlantings along ublic streets:
lot is located such that the parked cars will be
When a parking visible from a public street, then additional landscaping of
low street shrubs shall be required between the street and the
parking lot. Shrubs shall be planted in a singledesigned to row n5 feet
centers. Alternate methods of landscaping
the visual impact of the parking lot may be approved by the
Director of Planning.
32.8.E SCREENING
When required, screening shall consist of a planting strip, existing
32.8.6.1 tl opaque wall or fence, or combination thereof.
vegetation, a sightlyprovided, such screening strip
Where only vegetative screening is P such
Vegetative screening
shall not be less than twenty feet in depth.
shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees on 15 feet
centers, minimum 4-5' in height when planted, or a double staggered
raw of evergreen shrubs on 10' centers, minimum 24-30" in height
10100
when planted. Alternate metPlannhods in vegetative Wherea fence norw all may is
approved by the Director of Planning. imum 6' in height. plantings may be required
provided, it shall be min
at intervals along the structure.
32.8.6.2 Screening of parking lots shall not be counted toward the interior
landscaping requirement. When screening is required along the frontage
of public streets, the Director of Planning shall determine if the
street tree requirement has been met.
32.8.6.3 Screening shall be required in the following instances:
1. Commercial and industrareas duses
shall
be screened from adjacent
residential and
2. Parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential and
rural areas districts.
3. Objectionable features including, but not limited to the following
uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural area
districts and public streets:
• loading areas
• refuse areas
• storage yards
R
May 21, 1985
Page 9
• detention ponds
• recreational facilities other than children's play areas
1%W where visibility is necessary or passive recreation areas
where visibility is desirable.
4. Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between the
rear of the residences and the public right-of-way.
5. Natural Resource Extraction uses shall be screened from public
streets as required in Section 30.4.9.
6. The Planning Commission may require screening of any use or
portion thereof, if the Commission determines that the use
would otherwise have a negative visual impact on a property
listed on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register.
AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING:
Article 21. Commercial Districts Generally. (C-1, CO, HC, PD-SC, PD-MC).
Page 143.1
21.6 MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA
�iin�mdn+-gendsesped-area-eat-an}-#nd#etdtsa�-het-ske��-net
be-less-tkan-A: �8-t#thee-tote-area-e�-tote-het:--finch
�endsesped-area-skel�-be-used-te-enkenee-thee-appearance
e€-tote-�etr--�e-eenut►�a seen-�a�-regn�re-errtamenta�
�andseapfng-e�-street-€renteges.
See Section 32.8 for landscaping and screening requirements.
Page 144
21.7 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
21.7.1 Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure
except signs advertising sale or rental of the property
shall be erected closer than thirty (30) feet to any
public street right-of-way. 8ff-street-perking-and-dead#ng
space-st�e��-be-�eeated-snd�er-screened-se-as-te-tn�n�tn#ze
v#sets-}tnpset-frem-pak#e-streets. No off-street parking
or loading space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet
to any public street right-of-way.
21.7.2 Adjacent to residential and agrieultural rural areas
districts: No portion of any structure except signs
advertising sale or rental of the property shall be
located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential
or agr4ealtesra4 rural areas district. No off-street
parking or loading space shall be located closer than
twenty (20) feet to any residential or egrfeesltura4
rural areas district.
AlY
May 21, 1985
Page 10
Add: 21.7.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas
districts No construction activity including grading
or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty
(20)feet to any residential or rural areas district.
Screening shall be provided as required in Section 32.8.
Except, the Planning Commission may waive this require-
ment in a particular case where it has been demonstrated
that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in
an improved site design, provided that:
1. Minimum screening requirements are met; and
2. Existing landscaping in excess of minimum
requirements is substantially restored.
Article 22 C-1 Commercial.
Page 147.1
22.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the requirements contained herein, the
requirements of Section 21.0 commercial districts,
generally shall apply within all C-1 districts. Prer#ded
tkst-tke-eeaQx}ss#en-a+s�-mad#€�;-tisr�-er-ws#re-tke-re�erire-
ments-a€-Beetien-�#Tb-end-8#��-#n-e-part#es#er-ease
open-e-€#nd#ng-seek-set#en-xed#d-be-in-keep#ng-Witk-tke
eksreeter-e€-tke-and-tkat-a#ternet#ees-prepesed-b�-tke
app##east-wen#d-set#s€g-pnb##e-#nterest-et-#east-te-an
eqn#as}ent-degree-{Amended---3-#�-8�}.
Article 25 Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC)_
Page 156.
Delete: -2;j:4:3 SCREENING
bards;-fences;-Na##s-er-eegetstibe-screening-skn##-ke
prey#ded-Wkere-needed-te-preteet-residentie#-districts
and-pab�ic-streets-frem-sdberse-#n€�nenees-seek-ss
nndesirebie-d#ews;-i#gkt#ng-and-ne#se---fn-pert#en#ar,
sterege-yards;-extens#de-perk#ns-end-iesd#ng-cress,-cad
reface-eterage-cress-aka#i-be-effeetibei�-screened-ftem
€#rat-sterY-W}ndeWs-en-ebntt#ng-#eta-#n-res#dentin#
d#streets:--6ereening-Bey-��nsist-ef-e-e#gkt#g;-epsgne
wa##-er-fence;-s-p#eating-str#p;-ex#st#ng-vegetet#en-er
eembinet#ens-tkeree€s--i�+ete-en#�-�egetst#ee-screen#ng
is-preb�ded;-seek-screen#ng-strip-sks��-set-be-less-tksn
tmentg-{�A}-feet-#n-deptk:--eke-#eest#en;-tape-cad-extent
e€-screen#ng-sks##-be-eppra�ed-b�-tke-eemm#ea#en-er-its ,
des#ghee.
May 21, 1985 Page 11
Article 25A. Planned Development - Mixed Commercial (PD-MC).
Page 158.
Delete: �5Azir-. 9 6ERHBN4 G
Verde;€eneeOT-Ws}ls-er-vegetet#ee-sereening-she}}-be
pree#ded-Where-needed-te-preteet-res#dent#e}-d#sir#ets
snd-pnb}#e-streets-€rem-ed�rerse-#n€}e3enees-stsek-ss
e:ndes#reb}e-r#ewe;-}#ght#ng-end-ne#ser--}n-pert#et:}er.
Wkere-greet#ee};-sterege-herds;-extens#ve-perk#ng-end
}eed#ng-srees;-end-refetse-sterege-cress-she}}-be-effect#ve}�*
screened-freer-€#rst-stern �a#ndews-en-ebe:tt#ng-}ets-tn
res#dent#e}-d#str#etsr--6ereen#ng—:sey—eons#st-ef-s-s#gkt}�*,
epegne-we}}-er-fence;-e-p}ent#ng-str#p;-ex#st#ng-vegetet#en
er-eeenb#rat#ens-theree€:--F}here-erg}}�-vegetet#ve-screening
#s-preb#ded;-seep-screen#ng-sir#p-ehe}}-net-be-}ess-t�►sn
twenty-f29}-feet-in-depth. The-leeet#en;-type-snd
extent-e€-screen#ng-ske}}-be-eppreded-b�-the-ceaim3s9#es
er-#ts-des#gnee.
Article 26. Industrial District Generally. (LI, HI, PD-IP).
Page 161.
26.9 MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA
M#es#eae3en-�endse aped-eree-en-any-#nd#*a#de3e}-}et-ske} }-net
be-}ess-then-Ar�A-t#eree-the-eree-a€-tke-}et:--6esek-}end-
seeped-eyes-ske}}-be-need-te-enkenee-tke-eppeersnee-e€
the -let.
See Section 32.8 for landscaping and screening requirements.
Page 162.
26.10 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
26.10.1 Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure,
except signs advertising sale or rental of the property,
shall be erected closer than fifty (50) feet to any public
street right-of-way. Off street perking end }esd#ng
spaee shall be }eested and4er sereened se as to miniv&te
e#saal 4mpeet from pab}#e streets and be }eested a
m4m4 mm of ten {}9� feet from any pnb}te street right-e€-
way. No off-street parking or loading space shall be
located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street
right-of-way.
5 G
May 21, 1985
Page 12
26.10.2 Adjacent to residential districts: No portion of any
structure, except signs advertising sale or rental of the
property, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to
any egriea#tare# rural areas or residential district and
no off-street parking space shall be closer than thirty (30)
feet to any egr#ee#terel rural areas or residential district.
For the heavy industry (HI) district, no portion of any
structure except signs advertising sale or rental of the
property shall be located closer than one hundred (100)
feet to any egr#ea#tare# rural areas or residential district
and no off-street parking shall be closer than thirty (30)
feet to any residential or agr#ea#tare# rural areas district.
ADD: 26.10.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential -and rural areas districts:
No construction activity including grading or clearing of
_vegetation shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any
residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be
Provided as required in Section 32.8.
Except, the Planning Commission may waive this requirement
in a particular case where it has been demonstrated that
grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an
mprove site design, provided that:
1. Minimum screening requirements are met; and
2. Existing lan scaping n excess o minimum
requirements is substantially restored.
DELETE: 26712V2 &GREENING
herds;-€epees;-we##s-er-vegetet#be-screen#ng-sba}�-be
prebgded-where-needed-to-protect-resfdent#e#-dfstrftts-end
pab##e-streets-from-adrerse-#nf#aenees-saeb-as-andes€rabic
views; �#ght#ng;-and-noise:--fin-pert#ea�ar;-storage-yards,
extensire-parking-and-deeding-erees;-snd-re€ase-sterege
areas-sba#�-be-a€€eetibeig-screened-€rem-€first-stern
windows-en-abntt#ng-#ets-in-res#dent#a#-district:—fiereen#ng
Bey-cans}st-a€-e-s#€gkt#g;-epergne-xe#�-err-fence; a-p#ant#ng
strip;-ex€sting-eegeta�en-err-eemb#netferis-tkeree€r-iihere
enlY-regetet#tee-screening-is-prod#ded;-saeb-screening
strip-she##-net-be-ices-tken-txent�-{�Q}-€eet-in-depth.
Abe-#ecetien;-tgpe-end-extent-e€-screening-xis#-be-epprered
by-tke-eee�n#ss#en-eY-#�s-des�gaee.
In
6_/
May 21, 1985 Page 13
Article 30. Overlay Districts - Natural Resource Extraction (NR).
Page 191.
(no change) 30.4.9 ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING, SCREENING
Existing trees and ground cover along public road frontage
shall be preserved, maintained and supplemented by se-
lective cutting, transplanting and addition of new
trees, shrubs and other ground cover for the depth of
any roadside setback. The type, design and spacing of
such plantings shall be approved by the zoning adminis-
trator and shall be so designed as to lessen the visual
impact of the activity from any adjacent public road, and
to minimize the noise and dust resulting from such operation.
In any case in which roadside planting is not practical,
the zoning administrator may permit the substitution of
any other screening devices such as fences, berms, walls
and the like which are adequate to accomplish the same
purpose.
Article 32. Site Development Plan - Specific items to be shown.
Page 210.
32.4.33 A landscape and open space design plan, based upon accepted
professional design lay -outs and principals. The plans
shall include outdoor lighting proposals; recreational
areas and open space; location and type of plantings;
location, type, size, height and illumination of signs.
A" laEat.og and-se�ee�-ice$-�a�Qsialc-�e� a�d� xx�sh
cep}eetien-eeea-aid-ax$Q-xeceptacles. See Section 32.8
for landscape and screening requirements.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
It was determined no Board date has been set for this matter.
Mr. Bowerman called the Commission's attention to a letter that
had been received from the League of Women Voters in which
they ask that the members of the Commission speak more loudly
during the public hearings since they often cannot be heard.
Ms. Patterson distributed copies of tentative agendas for upcoming
Commission meetings .
5�
May 21, 1985
Colston - Lot 2 - Request for administrative approval.
Page 14
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She stated that although
some of staff's previous concerns have been met, staff still
feels administrative approval would set a precedence for other
developments and this developer, who might wish to do the
project in a piecemeal fashion. Staff feels the entire sub-
division plat should be approved by the Commission prior to
approvals of individual lots. She stated Mr. Payne has
indicated the issue of granting staff administrative approval
of all the lots is not provided for in the Subdivision
Ordinance. Thus, the current request is for administrative
approval of only Lot 2.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to explain the difference between
granting staff administrative approval of the entire
preliminary plat and granting administrative approval for just
one lot.
Mr. Payne responded that there is no difference. He explained
staff cannot be granted administrative approval because there
is no authority to approve the larger number of lots since they
do not meet the definition of a subdivision that is approvable
under the administrative approval section of the Ordinance.
He added that the lot, in this case, does not comply with the
special use permit because that permit shows everything fronting
on the public road (lots 2 - 7).
Ms. Patterson explained that the access to the lot would be an
easement out to the public road and the easement would be in
the general location of the road alignment shown at this time.
Mr. Payne expressed surprise that the Commission would seriously
consider this request particularly since they had very
recently had to deal with a problem that had been the result
of a very similar situation.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's request, Mr. Patterson explained
that Mr. Elrod has approved the road plans and they have been
sent on to the Highway Department for comments and revisions,
if necessary. They then are returned to the County Engineer
and the road can be bonded at that time. However, Mr. Elrod
is opposed to stating that the road can be bonded until the
plans have been approved by the Highway Department. The
bond amount is based on the road design.
Mr. Wilkerson reviewed the previous situation to which Mr.
Payne had referred (State Farm Blvd.). The conclusion
had been that the County Engineer cannot set a bond until
plans have received Highway Department approval.
Mr. Payne confirmed that this is the same situation.
R
S3
May 21, 1985 Page 15
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to why
the entire subdivision could not be presented, Mr. Osborne
indicated the applicant has a buyer for Lot 2 who is anxious
to begin construction, and since the road plans have been
submitted, he felt it should be easy to establish a bond
amount. He indicated Mr. Robb, the applicant, was unfamiliar
with the process and the amount of time that is involved.
It was determined the final plat is scheduled for Commission
review on June 11 (lots 1-7).
Mr. Bowerman stated he could not justify the risk of setting
a precedent for no other reason than the applicant's desire
to sell one parcel.
Mr. Robb, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He apologized
for his lack of understanding of the process and proper procedures.
He stated the contract purchasers for Lot 2 have already sold
their home and need to begin construction as soon as possible.
He asked for the Commission's guidance and assistance.
Ms. Patterson pointed out that the June 11 review date will not
be the "end of the line" and conditions will still have to be
met.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Robb and the
contract purchasers, but he could not support the request.
Mr. Gould stated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman and
added that he felt this issue should not have been on the agenda.
It was the consensus of the Commission that administrative
approval not be granted for Colston Lot 2.
The Chairman advised Mr. Robb that he should look to staff and
follow their advice as to the proper procedure to follow.
Mr. Skove called the Commission's attention to the public
hearing being held for the LURC Committee on Thursday, May 23,
7:30 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
ames R. onnelly, Secretary
DS
.s
m