Laserfiche WebLink
8 I'A",E <br />� X99® BOOK ,E <br />Plan indicates that the county's availability of commercially <br />designated land already exceeds that which will be needed from the <br />present through the year 2010. The land use element also indicates <br />that the existing Commercial/ Industrial Areas or Corridors contain <br />approximately 829 acres of vacant land; this constitutes 38 percent <br />of all the land in the commercial/ industrial corridor. These <br />numbers indicate that the county currently has a surplus of <br />commercial land available for development and does not need <br />additional lands designated commercial. <br />It appears that the applicant's request for a land use change <br />relates to the existence of commercial uses abutting the site. <br />However, if this request to change the zoning and land use <br />designation can be justified, then so can a request to make the <br />property north of this site commercial as well. Such action could <br />result in a commercial designation domino effect along Indian River <br />Boulevard. It has been county policy to restrict further <br />commercial designation along the boulevard. <br />In reviewing this request, one of the most important policies to <br />consider is Future Land Use policy 13.3. That policy requires that <br />one of 'three criteria be met in order to recommend approval of a <br />land use amendment. These criteria are: an oversight in the <br />approved plan, a mistake in the approved plan, or a substantial <br />change in circumstances affecting the subject property. The staff <br />is of the opinion that this land use amendment and rezoning request <br />does„not meet any of the three criteria as stated above. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Public facility concurrency requirements are important factors in <br />evaluating any land use amendment or rezoning request. Concurrency <br />requirements, however, are not the only criteria. Unlike other <br />comprehensive plan policies, though, concurrency requirements by. <br />themselves can be a reason for denial of a request. Even if all <br />other comprehensive plan policies are satisfied by a request,, 'a <br />lack of concurrency would be a reason for denial. <br />In this case concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste and <br />potable water can be satisfied with the proposed amendment. <br />Although capacity for wastewater services is not presently in _ <br />place, the applicant's execution of a developer's agreement to <br />ensure that these facilities will be provided would meet the <br />concurrency test. Despite such a positive concurrency finding in <br />this instance, other plan policies fail to support approval of the t <br />request. _ <br />Specifically, inconsistencies with the adopted comprehensive plan <br />and its policies in the Future Land Use Element as described in <br />detail in the above analysis section warrant denial of this <br />proposed land use amendment and rezoning. The subject property is <br />located in an area designated for medium density residential <br />development and based on staff's analysis this request does not -- <br />warrant a change in that designation. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Based on the analysis including the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of <br />County Commissioners deny transmittal of the land use amendment to <br />DCA for their review and deny the request to rezone the property. <br />112 <br />M M M <br />