06/17/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N1111'BLIC HEARING�� INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird; County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Stan Boling, AICP; o unity Development Director DATE: May 30, 2014 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Section 901.03 Definitions to Establish the Definition of a "Commercial Service Street" and to Modify the Definition of "Yard, Front" to Specify the Appropriate Yard Designations for Properties that Abut a Commercial Service Street It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 17, 2014. BACKGROUND Several years ago, the owner of a commercially zoned site located at the northwest corner of US 1 and 87�' Street redeveloped a former convenience store/retail building into a medical office/wellness center facility. The site contained a number of grandfathered-in non- conformities. Authorized by an administrative approval site plan, the owner re-developed the site by renovating and re-purposing the existing building in its grandfathered-in location, upgrading the site with corridor-compatible architectural and building fagade improvements, providing landscaping and open space improvements, and replacing a non-conforming pole sign with a corridor-compliant monument style sign. Recently, the owner, through her engineer, submitted a preliminary site plan for a staff-level pre- application conference review. That site plan proposed expanding the existing commercial building and parking facility to the north, onto adjacent property that is now under the same ownership as the medical office/wellness center. The overall development site fronts US 1 (to the east), 87`h Street (to the south), and 501 Avenue (to the west). Please see attached aerial (attachment #2). Under current regulations, the site has three front yards which, in commercial districts, require greater setbacks than rear or side yards(25' vs. 10'). During the pre-application conference review process, the applicant and owner asked staff to consider treating the site's 50`h Avenue frontage as a rear yard (10' setback) rather than a front yard (25' setback). The applicant asserted that 50`h Avenue functions like an alley with respect to the subject site and emphasized that the owner desires to extend the footprint of the existing, grandfathered-in building which sets-back just over 15' from the site's 50`h Avenue property line. In response to the applicant's request, staff coordinated with the County Attorney and determined that, under the existing LDRS, 501h Avenue is not classified as an alley(resulting in a F:1Community De elnpmentlCurDa1BCC�2014 8CC%901wnjmucialsumi.da 1 97