10/24/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land: Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land use intensity are exempt from concurrency requirements. For the subject request, the amount of land to be removed from a C/I node is equal to the amount of land to be added to another C/I node. Therefore, this land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review becausethe requested land use designation changes would not increase the potential land use intensity that the sites could accommodate. It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of this land use designation amendment. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area - Subject Property 1 The proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 1. Since this property abuts commercially designated land to the south, the proposed redesignation would result in a continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. Industrial development on subject Property 1 would generate demand for nearby housing. While the properties to the north and west are currently zoned and used for agricultural purposes, they are residentially designated and could be converted to residential uses. Currently under the same ownership as Subject Property 1, residential development on those properties would likely be planned to meet the housing needs of nearby commercial/industrial development. If those properties converted to a, residential zoning or use, several LDR provisions would work to mitigate the potential impacts on those properties from industrial development on Subject Property 1. One of those provisions would require that, in conjunction with industrial development of Subject Property 1, a Type "A" vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque feature would need to be installed along its northern and western borders. Additionally, at ±37 acres and ±38 acres respectively, the size of the parcels north and west of Subject Property 1 indicates that, if warranted, additional buffering and/or separation can be added. The primary impacts of industrial development on Subject Property 1 would be on the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision along the east side of 98th Avenue. Despite being platted in 1960, this subdivision remains largely undeveloped. There are also several factors that indicate that industrial development on Subject Property 1 would not be incompatible with residential development in the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision. In contrast to the properties to the north and west of Subject Property 1, the Vero Tropical Garden properties are relatively - small in size and, therefore, do not have the option of providing additional buffering. They do, however, have the advantage of an additional 100 feet of separation due to canal and road right-of- way. ZDR provisions that would work to mitigate potential impacts v �F 4 39 October 24, 1995 55 BOOK 96 p J