Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 95 PAGE 367 <br />It is important to note that there will be no effect on service <br />levels for any public facility as a result of this land use <br />designation amendment. <br />In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in <br />conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will <br />address facility service levels and demand. <br />Compatibility with the Surrounding Area <br />- Subject Property 1 <br />The proposed amendment will not increase potential <br />incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property <br />1. Since this property abuts commercially designated land to the <br />south, the proposed redesignation would result in a continuation of <br />an existing land use designation pattern. <br />Industrial development on subject Property 1 would generate demand <br />for nearby housing. While the properties to the north and west are <br />currently -zoned and used for agricultural purposes, they are <br />residentially designated and could be converted to residential <br />uses. Currently under the same ownership as Subject Property 1, <br />residential development on those properties would likely be planned <br />to meet the housing needs of nearby commercial/industrial <br />development. <br />If those properties converted to a residential zoning or use, <br />several LDR provisions would work to mitigate the potential impacts <br />on those properties from industrial development on Subject Property <br />1. One of those provisions would require that, in conjunction with <br />industrial development of Subject Property 1, a Type "A" vegetative <br />buffer with a six foot opaque feature would need to be installed <br />along its northern and western borders. Additionally, at ±37 acres <br />and ±38 acres respectively, the size of the parcels north and west <br />of Subject Property 1 indicates that, if warranted, additional <br />buffering and/or separation can be added. <br />The primary impacts of industrial development on Subject Property <br />1 would be on the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision along the east <br />side of 98th Avenue. Despite being platted in 1960, this <br />subdivision remains largely undeveloped. <br />There are -also several factors that indicate that industrial <br />development on Subject Property 1 would not be incompatible with <br />residential development in the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision. <br />In contrast to the properties to the north and west of Subject <br />Property 1, the Vero Tropical Garden properties are relatively <br />small in size and, therefore, do not have the option of providing <br />additional buffering. They do, however, have the advantage of an <br />additional 100 feet of separation due to canal and road right -of= <br />way. LDR provisions that would work to mitigate potential impacts <br />on these properties from industrial development on Subject Property <br />1 include a Type "A" vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque <br />feature, and a required 25 foot front yard. To minimize the mixing <br />of residential and commercial traffic, access to industrial <br />development on Subject Property 1 would be required to be from S.R. <br />60. <br />Finally, LDR chapter 926 requires perimeter landscaping, as well as <br />landscaping of parking lots, and open space. <br />For these reasons, <br />increase potential <br />Subject Property 1. <br />,JUNE 139 1995 <br />M <br />staff feels that the proposed amendment will not <br />incompatibilities associated with development of <br />27 <br />M <br />