4/3/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Emergency services issues: The Fire Code has specific criteria related to vehicular access, building separation, fire hydrant locations, and fire flow which have been reviewed and approved by the Fire Division for this site plan application (see attachment #4). Also, pursuant to normal procedures, the Fire Division will also review the more detailed building permit plans when those plans are submitted. Therefore, the site plan application has been approved by the Fire Division for site plan level design issues. Such approval ensures that applicable Fire Code Standards are satisfied. In addition, no building permit will be issued unless and until the Fire Division signs off on building permit plans. • Effects the proposed development has on surrounding properties, based on the size and scope of the proposed development. The County LDRs contain "intensity" and "scale" criteria related to building height, building coverage, setbacks and density. For the subject site, those requirements are contained in the RM -4 zoning district standards. All applicable county land development regulations have been applied in regard to the intensity and scale of the proposed development. Thus, the site plan application meets all density, open space, building coverage, and setback standards. In addition, one of the Commission's conditions of approval is structured to ensure compliance with the county's building height requirements. Therefore, the application, with the Commission's approval condition, meets all intensity and scale requirements applicable to the subject site. • Erosion issues based on some improvements (e.g. portion of the pool) being located seaward of the 1987 CCCL. The Commission attached a condition to its site plan approval to ensure review and approval by the state DEP for any project improvements located seaward of the 1987 CCCL. In addition, information presented to the Commission indicated that all proposed improvements were to be located landward of the site's 30 -year erosion line. The project appears to be able to meet applicable state coastal construction requirements, and the Commission attached a condition to ensure compliance with those requirements. Therefore, the application and Commission conditions adequately address the coastal erosion issue under the rules governing the proposed project. In staff's opinion the application, combined with the Commission's approval conditions, adequately addressed the 3 issues of concern within the constraints governing the review of permitted uses, such as the proposed condominium building. SUMMARY In summary, the Commission's decision has met all 4 of the review criteria. There is no specific LDR provision that has been cited with which the application can be found to be inconsistent. As indicated by the Deputy County Attorney at the February 22, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a permitted use should be approved if the LDRs are met (see attachment #2, page 9 of Planning and Zoning Commission minutes). Because the proposed condominium building is a permitted use on the subject site, and because the project site plan with the attached approval conditions meets all applicable LDR requirements, the application should be approved. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission made the proper decision in granting site plan approval with conditions. April 3, 2001 65