4/3/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

indicated that such a proper site plan review had been conducted by the Fire Division and that Fire Division staff indicated they-had_no objection to site - plan approval. Later in the Commission meeting, the project engineer confirmed the Fire Division's "sign -off'. Subsequent to the Commission meeting, the Fire Division provided a letter indicating that the site plan related emergency services issues had been addressed, confirming the information conveyed by the staff and applicant to the Commission. Relative to the erosion concern, the Commission was supplied technical information regarding the rate of erosion in he area since 1972. Te Commission in making its decision considered this information, along with the fact that the site plan locates most of he improvements landward of the 1987 CCCL. Based on he appeal letters, the erosion issue still seems to be a concern with the appellants, even though the erosion data show that the proposed building and pool improvements are located landward of the 30 year erosion line. Thus, he record indicates that he Commission did consider the effects of the Proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation, safetv and welfare. Recently, staff was informed by the applicant's engineer that the engineer may submit a revised site plan which would move all improvements (including the proposed pool) landward of he 1987 CCCL to address the erosion concern even further. As of the writing of this report, no such plan modification has been submitted. (4) Did the Commission fail to evaluate the application comprehensive plan and land development regulations ons of Indian RiverPCountov?the - The appellants contend that the Commission failed in this area because the Commission approved a plan that maximizes density on the barrier island, and that such density is inconsistent with he comprehensive the applicants contend that the Commission did nota thplan. Secondly, t its decision allows construction of a building whichisout of scale w th he area and negatively impacts adjoining properties. For various reasons, the comprehensive plan prohibits high densities on the barrier island. In fact, some properties on the north barrier island located north of the Town of Orchid were, in 1991, redesignated from L-2 (up to 6 units/acres) to L-1 (up to 3 units/acres). The subject property is south of the Town of Orchid and remains L-2 (up to 6 units/acres). The proposed density is consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designation, and the site's RM -4 zoning. The density and use issues were examined by the Commission which concluded that, although much of the surrounding property has developed as single-family rather than multi -family, the site plan is consistent with the site's land use designation and zoning. The three concerns raised by the appellants are addressed by the county LDRs as follows: April 3, 2001 64 PG b 2