11/20/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV 2 O 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE7,98 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 12, 19 8 f i LE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: APPEAL OF ROYAL GARDEN SUBJECT: VILLAGE SITE PLAN -� APPROVAL i ro b'e'; ftnNf. 9 ea f ij h g, P Planning & Development Director FROM: Michael K. Miller REFERENCES: H Chief, Current Planning Section Disk: MIKE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS John Lyon, owner, is appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a minor site plan modification request for the approved Royal Garden Village Shopping Center site plan. Located on the east side of U.S. #1, south of the south relief canal, the shopping center site is 2.98 acres in size and is zoned C-1, commercial district. The applicant proposes to eliminate four parking spaces and construct a small (318 square foot) retail ice cream store. As a minor modification, this site plan was considered for final action by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) at its meeting of October 8, 1985. At that time, the TRC determined that the project, while eliminating four parking spaces and creating a demand for four additional spaces, could be accommodated within the proposed center without an increase in impervious surface area because of the sixteen extra spaces provided within the center. The TRC made several recommendations for changes in the center's circulation pattern to accommodate the proposed structure as well as several other changes. The applicant accepted these changes and revised his site plan accordingly. The TRC, however, determined that the design of the proposed building would constitute a sign exceeding the maximum amount of signage permitted. Consequently, the TRC denied the minor site plan request. According to the new site plan ordinance, minor site plans are final at TRC, unless appealed to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Since the TRC denied this request for minor site plan approval, the applicant appealed the TRC action to the Planning & Zoning Commission at its October 24, 1985 meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the appeal on a two to two vote, and the owner is now appealing the Planning Commission action to the Board of County Commissioners. ANALYSIS It is the staff's position that the action of the Technical Review Committee and the Planning & Zoning Commission was correct. According to the County's zoning code, business signs Of up to 150 square feet are allowed in the C-1 district. Since the proposed structure is intended to function as a sign, its size is regulated by the zoning ordinance, specifically Section 25(o)(2)(b)(v) By exceeding 150 square feet in size, the proposed structure would violate the sign ordinance provisions of the zoning code and could not be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Kia