2/16/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Therefore, according to the SIC code comparison, an indoor gun range is a use that can be considered either a membership sports and recreation" use or an "enclosed commercial amusement" use. In reality, because the proposed indoor gun range was restricted by the Planning and Zoning Commission to membership only use, it is now a listed use ("membership sports and recreation"). Both membership sports and enclosed commercial amusements are permitted in the CG district, the zoning of R & R Investment's project site. Comparing various aspects of an indoor gun range use to the zoning code's listed commercial uses renders the same result. The traffic use intensity and parking requirement characteristics of the proposed site plan project are similar to retail and commercial amusement and recreation uses. Compatibility, lighting, noise, and visual impact characteristics of indoor gun ranges are similar to enclosed commercial amusements. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission was correct in determining that the approved use is a permitted use in the CG district. Because the approved use is consistent with the CG district regulations, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR APPEALS Section 902.07(4) provides guidelines for the Board's review of this appeal. Under section 902.07(4), the Board is to review the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and make findings in the following four areas: 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow appropriate review procedures? Response: There appears to be no contention regarding review procedures. Appropriate review procedures were followed. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Commission allowed public input and discussion on a non -hearing site plan application matter. 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? Response: The Commission did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Analysis Provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and discussed at its meeting formed the basis of the Commission's decision. The Commission properly applied the LDR use determination and site plan standards, and heard arguments from concerned citizens. Thus, the decision to conditionally approve the site plan application was based on the LDRs. 3. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, public health, safety and welfare? Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in this regard. Perceived potential negative effects on the Gifford community is at the heart of the appeal. The Commission's decision properly relied upon provisions of the LDRs that address land use and development impacts on surrounding properties. Those provisions restrict the indoor gun range use to the CG district and require that the use be in a controlled, indoor environment. 4. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? Response: The Commission did not fail to evaluate the application in regard to the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. Staffs analysis demonstrates compliance with technical site plan issues, and proper application of the land use and zoning code treatment of the indoor gum range use. Based upon the analysis performed. staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Make a finding that the Planning and Zoning Commission's action to conditionaLy approve the R & R Investment's site plan application did not fail any of the areas outlined in LDR section 902.7(4), and 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to conditionally approve the R & R Investment's site plan application. FEBRUARY 16, 1999 • -43- BOOK 108 FAGE77.