7/10/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUL 10 1985 I BOOK 61 F"..)E 466 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 1, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: • APPEAL OF BOBBY HIERS'S SUBJECT: SITE PLAN APPROVAL Robert M. Keatin , P Planning & Developm ht Division Director �) l THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried Chief, Current Development Section FROM:Karen M. CraverREFERENCES: Staff Planner It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular business meeting on July 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On May 23, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan application submitted by Bobby'Hiers to construct improvements on ,the site of United Irrigation at 1206 8th Street. The development plan proposed the construction of a 71500 square foot warehouse to be associated with an on-site furniture cushion manufacturing business, an allowable use in the M-1 zoning district. The subject property is approximately nine -tenths of an acre in size. As approved, the warehouse will be accessed by the existing 24 foot wide drive off the north side of 8th Street. The plan designates the southern 40 feet of the property as a "road reservation". The 40 feet is being reserved, rather than dedicated to the County as 8th Street right-of-way, due to the fact that there are existing structures within the area. The stormwater management plan, the landscape plan, and the utilities plan all meet County regulations and have been approved. The subject property is surrounded by vacant land, with the exception of the.single-family residences on the south side of 8th Street. On June 6, 1985, Mr. Robert E. Fleckenstein, 766 13th Avenue, Vero Beach, formally -"'appealed .the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of Mr. Hiers's site plan application. In his appeal letter, Mr. Fleckenstein cited four principal reasons to support his position.' Mr. Fleckenstein feels that (1) the current zoning of the property is incompatible with the land use designation; (2) the property is incompatible with surrounding land uses; (3) that toxic chemicals, associated with the furniture manufacturer, pose a threat to the safety of the neighborhood; and (4) that setback and parking requirements have not been adhered to on the approved site plan. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Upon receipt of a site plan application, one --of the first factors considered by the staff is the site's present zoning and land use designation. In this case, the staff found that the subject property was zoned M-1 and had a land use designation of LD -2, low density residential. Because the property contained a lawfully conforming restricted industrial use that was established prior to adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and because the Plan states that the purpose 54