4/3/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 (1) Did the Commission fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? T - The staff s position is that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to follow appropriate review procedures. The Commission considered the application at a regularly scheduled meeting, heard comments from staff and all interested parties, and had lengthy discussion before making a decision. The motion was properly made, and a vote was taken as reflected in the meeting minutes (see attachment #2). In addition, proper timeframes and procedures have been followed regarding this appeal. Procedurally, me Commission appears to have conducted an appropriate review of the application. t(2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? Staffs opinion is that the Commission did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. During consideration of the site plan application, the Commission heard staff s presentation. The Commission then questioned staff regarding a number of technical matters, including building height, emergency services issues, and erosion. The Commission also heard presentations from all concerned parties and asked questions of those various parties. The Commission then discussed various aspects of the plan in its deliberations. and considered all of the information presented. In fact, one of the Commissioners asked the deputy county attorney how much latitude and discretion the Commission had on this type of application. The attorney # indicated that, if a site plan met the regulations, then it should be approved. While several Commission members indicated that they felt the development (' may not be appropriate in this location, they concluded that the site plan did meet the LDRs, and they supported the motion to approve the site plan. Thus, the Commission's decision was based on its finding that the application met the LDRs and on legal advice that approval was required if the LDRs were met. (3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? - The Planning and Zoning Commission heard from a representative of the adjacent property owner (the Browns), as well as a representative of the North Barrier Island Civic Association regarding effects that the proposed development could have on the surrounding properties. Most of the comments made were about the scale of the building, dune erosion in the area, and emergency services access to the proposed building. Prior to the representative for the adjacent property owners expressing these concerns, a Commissioner expressed some similar concerns related to Emergency Services access and on-site circulation under the proposed site plan design. In response to that concern, staff explained that the Fire Division does review site plans for design issues such as vehicular access, building separation, building height, fire hydrant locations, and fire flow. At a later part of the development review process, the Fire Division reviews the project building permit plans for building related life/safety code issues such as proper means of egress, interior fire separation, sprinkler systems, smoke alarms, and materials used. At the Commission meeting, planning staff April 3, 2001 63 8K I 1 7 PG 5 !