Laserfiche WebLink
V 2, 6 1991 <br />Poor 84 F;'.JFja­,0 <br />areas within the overflight zone, uses which the staff feels <br />are appropriate for this area. In staff's opinion, however, no <br />school accessory uses which would allow for the congregation <br />of people (such as playgrounds) should be permitted within the <br />overflight zone. The use of the school's property within the <br />overflight zone should be restricted to uses such as parking, <br />buffering, open space and stormwater retention areas. At a <br />November 12th meeting between planning staff, airport staff, <br />and the applicant, all parties agreed that the revised <br />conceptual plan would be acceptable if it were redesigned <br />further to prohibit all uses which congregate people within <br />the overflight zone part of the site. However, airport staff <br />noted that agreement on the site design would be subject to <br />concurrence by FAA and FDOT. <br />In a November 15, 1991 conversation with the airport staff, <br />the planning staff was advised that the FDOT and/or FAA may <br />still respond negatively to the redesigned conceptual plan. <br />If either of these agencies responds negatively, the airport <br />staff would probably "mirror" those responses due to grant and <br />funding responsibilities. However, no response from either <br />agency has been received at the time of this report. Absent <br />an official position in writing from the airport staff, the <br />FAA, :and the FDOT regarding the revised conceptual plan, <br />planning staff is applying the proposed overflight guidelines <br />to form a recommendation on the safety issue. As of the <br />writing *of this - report, -the staff has completed a preliminary <br />review _of the revised -.conceptual plan. Based upon this <br />review, staff determined that all structures and assembly uses <br />are now to be kept out of the overflight zone and all site <br />plan and specific land use criteria will be met. In staff's <br />opinion, the revised.conceptual plan is.approvable subject to <br />conditions, including a detailed review of the revised <br />conceptual plan by the TRC. <br />15. Airport Zoning: During the past six months, county planning <br />staff have been working with the airport authority staff, City <br />of Vero Beach planning staff, City of Sebastian planning <br />staff, and the FDOT to develop an airport zoning ordinance as <br />required by State statute. As drafted, the proposed ordinance <br />focussed on noise and height issues. Until the Suncoast <br />application submittal, no reference to, or regulations for, <br />overflight zones were included in the draft ordinance despite <br />close coordination with and review of the ordinance by FDOT. <br />Because of concerns raised relating to the Suncoast <br />application, staff intends to incorporate overflight zone <br />requirements into the proposed ordinance. It is anticipated <br />that the proposed airport zoning ordinance will be presented <br />to the Board of County Commissioners in several months as an <br />LDR amendment. <br />16. The following specific land use criteria are applicable to <br />primary schools: <br />a. Sites for secondary schools shall be located near <br />thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along local <br />residential streets in residential subdivisions. <br />Elementary schools should be discouraged from locating <br />adjacent to major arterial roadways. [Note: 43rd Avenue <br />is not a major arterial roadway.] <br />b. For the type of facility proposed, the minimum spatial <br />requirements for the site shall be similar to standards <br />utilized by the Indian River County School Board and the <br />State of Florida. [Note: the proposed student to site <br />size ratio falls within the school board guideline for <br />elementary school site size.] <br />5 <br />30 <br />W <br />