My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/13/2015AP
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2015
>
01/13/2015AP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2018 11:07:13 AM
Creation date
3/23/2016 9:10:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
01/13/2015
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
112-0017-R
Book and Page
282
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000H\S0005C9.tif
SmeadsoftID
14513
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
282
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
17. General Criteria for Review of Special Exception Uses: In addition to the specific land use <br /> criteria listed for places of worship,there are also general criteria for review of special exception <br /> uses listed in LDR section 971.05(9)(see attachment 6). Those criteria include consistency with <br /> the comprehensive plan and LDRs (land development regulations), compatibility with <br /> surrounding land uses, mitigation of potential negative impacts, and orderly development. <br /> Staffs analysis is that,with the recommended conditions,the proposed project(fellowship hall <br /> addition) meets those general criteria, as follows. <br /> a) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and LDRs: The project is located adjacent to a <br /> commercial/industrial area, along a collector road, on residentially designated/zoned <br /> property. A place of worship is allowed in residential areas as a special exception use. <br /> As indicated in the preceding analysis, applicable LDRs have been satisfied by the <br /> application. <br /> b) Compatibility with Surrounding Uses:With the recommended conditions,the proposed <br /> project should make the church facility more functional and provides for compatibility <br /> through project features which include: <br /> • A formalized driveway and parking layout that provides for safer and more <br /> efficient traffic circulation through the project site; <br /> • A relocated driveway that is provided further away from adjacent residences than <br /> the church's existing driveway; <br /> 0 Additional buffering and screening, especially along the west property line <br /> adjacent to residences; and <br /> • A 38' setback between the proposed addition and the closest(western)property <br /> line, adjacent to a residence. The 38' fellowship hall setback compares to a 10' <br /> setback that would be required for a new residential structure located on the <br /> subject site. <br /> e) Mitigation ofPotential Negative Impacts: In addition to the previously described project <br /> improvements, the recommended conditions address potentially negative impacts <br /> through control of the addition's color and provision of foundation plantings. <br /> d) Orderly Development:The project proposes stormwater management,infrastructure,and <br /> buffer improvements that meet County requirements. In addition, the project should <br /> make the church parking and traffic flow function in a more orderly manner. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> The proposed addition will add no sanctuary seats, and the project will meet the required number of <br /> parking spaces by continued use of grandfathered-in nonconforming parking spaces as well as by <br /> providing conforming parking spaces. The proposed project will better organize existing access and <br /> parking, and will provide a physical buffer and more distance between the church's existing 13 t Place <br /> SW driveway and the adjacent residence to the west. The applicant has made changes to reduce noise <br /> impacts from sanctuary sound equipment on nearby residences and has agreed to some design-related <br /> conditions to address aesthetic concerns expressed by adjacent property owners. <br /> Adjacent property owners object to the project,primarily on the belief that the site is too small to handle <br /> more development and peak parking demand. Staffs finding, however, is that the subject application <br /> meets applicable setbacks, buffers, and site development minimum requirements. <br /> 168 <br /> F:ACommunity DevelopmentA('m-DcvA13CC\2015 BCC\FullGospelAssembly(SP-Sl,' 14-07-17).docx 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.