7/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(reference LDR Section 914.13) the Board of 1ounty Commissioners is now to consider the site plan application and is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the site plan application. *Planning and Zoning Commission Review of the Old (May 12th) Site Plan At its regular meeting of' May 12, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered an earlier submittal, voting 2 to 3 on a motion to deny the application (see attachment #2). Since a majority of 4 votes is required for the Planning and Zoning Commission to take action, the earlier site plan was deemed denied. Subsequently, the developer, in accordance with the LDAs, appealed the Commission's action to the.Board of County Commissioners. Although the Board waad�ss scheduled to hear that appeal at its June 21, 1994 regular meeting, the developer waived his right to have that appeal hearing within 30 days. Therefore, the June 21, 1994 hearing was canceled. Subsequent to waiving his rights to appeal the decision on the "May 12th" site plan, the developer submitted revised plans which the Planning and Zoning Commission considered at its special meeting of June 28, 1994. • Impetus for a New (Revised) Site Plan At the May 12th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, representatives of The Moorings Property Owners Association raised • questions regarding several technical site plan issues, including: project open space, project driveway internal separation distances, and parking and loading space provisions. Prior to the -May 12th meeting, each of these specific issues had been discussed in TRC deliberations and had been considered by the departments responsible for reviewing these issues. In fact, planning staff, in its TRC discrepancy letter, requested verification from the applicant that the plan met the 25% open space requirement, and public works staff raised the driveway internal separation distance issue. At the May 12th meeting, concerned residents and the applicant, as well as planning and public works staff, discussed these issues. After the May 12th meeting, planning staff requested that the applicant verify and document that, as indicated on the original site plan, the site plan satisfies the applicable 25% open space requirement. Public works staff also requested that the applicant document how the site plan satisfies the LDR driveway internal separation distance requirements. In response, the applicant revised the original site plan to: a. Provide more green open space area and to document, with working -drawing calculations, that the project -'satisfies the 25% open space requirement; and b. Increase the driveway internal separation distances and add a third project driveway. Upon receiving the site plan revisions, planning staff made a determination that the changes were substantial enough to constitute a "new site plan" and warrant a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. While this site plan is similar to the site plan considered at the May 12, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the County Attorney's Office has indicated that this site plan must be treated as a new submittal by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. *Planning & Zoning Commission Action on the New (June 28th) Site Plan July 12, 1994 4