My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/12/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
7/12/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:25 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:33:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/12/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
M <br />project abuts the RS -3 district, the LDRs require that a Type <br />"B" buf fer be constructed to separate the uses. To the north, <br />the property is zoned RM -10. Where a CL district commercial <br />project abuts the RM -10 district, the LDRs require that a Type <br />"C" buffer be constructed to separate the uses. To the south <br />of the jreaysthe rHarbor <br />troj <br />ect <br />whiwas approved satimeshare/ental development. The <br />_ <br />Harbor Inn property is zoned CL. Since that property is zoned <br />CL, there is no buffering required by the LDRs. At the <br />request of staff and residents, however, the developer is <br />depicting on the site plan a Type "C" buffer along the south <br />property line of the shopping center parcel. <br />The LDR's require that the developer provide a 6' opaque <br />feature where the Type "B" buffer is required adjacent to the <br />single family residential zoning. The developer is proposing <br />a berm which would be 6' above the pavement for Bowline Drive <br />• and 3' above the elevation of the shopping center. There <br />would-be plant material installed on top of the berm to <br />provide additional height for the buffer. The slope of the <br />berm would extend from the parking lot into the right-of-way <br />for Bowline Drive. The Public Works Department has <br />conditionally approved the developer's request to extend the <br />berm into the right-of-way. (Please see attachments #6 and #7 <br />for details of the berm and buffering adjacent to Bowline <br />Drive.) As submitted, the site plan exceeds all plant <br />material quantities for the buffer areas and the S.R. A -1-A <br />landscape strip. <br />The property to the east is zoned RM -10. However, no special <br />type of buffering is required since there is a thoroughfare <br />plan road (S.R. A -1-A) between the two properties. A standard <br />10' wide landscape strip is required between the proposed <br />shopping center parking lot and the S.R. A -1-A right-of-way. <br />The applicant is proposing to plant the 10' landscape strip <br />within a 15' wide utility easement that runs along the <br />project's S.R. A -1-A frontage. The landscape material, <br />however, could conflict with the ability of utility providers <br />to construct and maintain utilities within the easement. <br />Therefore, the applicant will be required to maintain the <br />required 10' landscape strip, regardless of any utilities <br />construction or maintenance activity. The applicant has three <br />options to remedy the conflict: <br />a. obtain a release of the easement, <br />b. redesign the site plan to remove the landscaping from the <br />15' utility easement, or <br />ce obtain and execute a covenant for removal and replacement <br />of the landscape material, in the event of utility work <br />disturbing the buffer. <br />The applicant has indicated that he will pursue option "c.", <br />and will obtain and execute a covenant for removal and <br />replacement of required landscape materials. The covenant <br />will need to ensure that the applicant or.its successor will <br />replace any required landscape material removed during utility <br />work in the easement. A covenant or release of easement must <br />be obtained prior to site release. Any redesign (option "b.") <br />would need to be re-evaluated and re -considered by the <br />Technical Review Committee (TRC) and the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission. - <br />50 Bm 92 <br />July 12, 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.