5/15/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 95 Fg E 10 Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 2/23/95 (attachment #5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 17. Buffers Between Certain Institutional Uses. Recently, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a special exception approval application for a church and a school in a residential area. Under the current LDRs, 'the church and school are required to provide a buffer along all property boundaries abutting residentially designated property. No exceptions are allowed. However, the proposed church and school are bordered on two sides by a cemetery. The applicant contends and staff agrees that cemeteries are rather permanent uses that do not need to be buffered from churches or schools. In response, staff has reviewed all buffering requirements for institutional uses located in residential areas. Staff's position is that special buffering, over and above normal landscaping requirements, is not always necessary between abutting institutional uses in residential areas if the abutting uses are not residential in nature and would not be easily converted into a residential use in the future. To achieve that end, the proposed LDR amendment would allow the Board of County Commissioners to waive or reduce buffering requirements where cemeteries, churches, community centers, and schools abut the following uses: •Adult care facility •Cemetery •Child care facility •Church (places of worship) •Community center •School (educational centers) Under the proposed amendment, child care and adult care projects would always be required to provide a Type D buffer, as required under the current LDRs, and the Board would consider security, noise, and visual impacts when reviewing requests to reduce or waive buffer requirements. Also, under the proposed amendment, the Board could reduce buffering requirements in part or in whole and require buffering alternatives such as fencing. Where buffers are waived, the normal landscaping between uses required under the landscape ordinance would still apply. Such landscaping generally requires the planting of 1 canopy tree for every 40' of property perimeter. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 2/23/95 (attachment #5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 18. Administrative Permit Appeal Procedures. Recently, staff was made aware of a discrepancy in the administrative permit use procedures. The Chapter 971 section regulating such uses states that the Chapter 914 site plan procedures apply to administrative permit use requests; yet another part of Chapter 971 refers to an appeal process found in Chapter 902. The Chapter 902 appeal process is different (longer) than the Chapter 914 site plan appeal process. In staff's opinion, the administrative permit use appeal process should parallel the Chapter 914 site plan appeal procedures. The proposed amendment would delete the Chapter 902 reference, and specify the Chapter 914 process. Such a change would shorten the administrative permit use appeal timeframe from 30 calendar days to 10 working days. 10 MAY 159 1995