6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

* an oversight in the approval plan * a mistake in the approved plan * a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property In this case, policy 13.3 is met because there was an oversight during the plan preparation process. At that time the property was not sufficiently studied to determine that intense non-residential uses existed on two sides of the subject property, thereby restricting residential development. Other Plan Policies Several other comprehensive plan policies have applicability to this amendment request. These include policies 9.5, 1.21, and 1.23, all of the Future Land Use element. Policy 9.5 relates to this proposed amendment, because it requires buffers between incompatible land uses. While this policy has been incorporated into the county's adopted land development regulations and is usually considered only at the time of site development, it does have special applicability to this request. In this case, the properties to the south and west of the subject property were developed prior to the county's current buffering requirements being adopted. As such, those sites have buffering less than -- required by existing regulations. Consequently, if the subject property were developed residentially, it would need to install buffering usually accommodated on the commercial site. County land development regulations require that commercial sites reduce their impacts on adjacent residential properties by installing buffering on the commercial property. In this case, the subject property can provide such a buffer meeting existing county criteria when developed commercially. Without a change in land use designation, the subject property will need to provide the buffer not adequately provided by the adjacent commercial sites, thereby bearing heavier burden- than similarly situated residential properties. Like policy 9.5, Future Land Use policy 1.21 has applicability to the proposed amendment. That policy's intent is to discourage strip commercial development; therefore, all commercial land use redesignation requests should be reviewed for consistency with that policy. This policy amendment is consistent with policy 1.21, because it would fill-in rather than strip out. With commercial on two sides and a major roadway on another, designation of the subject property as commercial would have a square -off, in -fill effect and would not produce a strip pattern. Finally, policy 1:23 must be considered. This policy limits node expansion when a node is less than seventy percent developed. While this policy is an important consideration in node expansion requests, it does not apply in this case. Since it has been established that the subject property was designated as residential because of an oversight during the plan preparation process, that indicates that the property should have been designated commercial at that time. For that reason the proposed request should not be subject to policy 1.23 criteria. Even though the plan preparation oversight makes policy 1.23 non - applicable in consideration of this amendment request, staff conducted an analysis of the City of Vero Beach to South Relief Cabal Commercial/Industrial area to determine the level of development of this node. In conducting this analysis, staff identified each parcel in the node, used property appraiser records to determine parcel size, used aerial photos with field verification to identify developed parcels, and compiled the results. The survey showed that 301± acres of the total 365± acres - in the node are developed. Since this results in a developed BOOK °r Frl��t JINN 18 1991 131