3/18/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 100 PAGE 935 - Future Land Use Policy 1.21 This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate strip,commercial development and urban sprawl, and to provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities. Given the land use designation pattern along SR 60, between I-95 and the City of Vero Beach, the proposed amendment will not result in strip commercial development. Presently, the SR 60/58th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node extends on the north side of SR 60 from east of 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue, a distance of more than one mile. The exception is the M-1 designated portion of the subject property. That portion of the subject property abuts SR 60 for only 192 feet, constituting a residential enclave in a commercial area. Redesignating this property will result in infill, rather than strip, development. Because the development pattern of the area is already set and will not be impacted by the proposed amendment, the proposed amendment will not cause strip commercial development along SR 60. For that reason, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21. - Future Land Use Policy 1.24 Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated commercial through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its former designation if construction on the site has not commenced within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement. This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that demand for additional C/I designated land is present before requests to expand nodes are approved. This policy also allows for the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of demand for more C/I designated land. '- Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that development under the proposed land use designation and zoning would be more compatible with surrounding areas than development under current conditions. Since properties to the north, east and west of the site have a similar land use designation and zoning as is being requested for the site, the request is for a continuation of an existing land use designation and zoning pattern. In fact, the subject property is a-4.6 acre residential enclave within a 296 acre commercial/industrial node. By eliminating that enclave, the proposed amendment would result in a more consistent, efficient and logical land use designation and zoning pattern in that area of the county. Additionally, eliminating the enclave would also make zoning administration more efficient. Besides increasing compatibility, the proposed amendment would eliminate potential incompatibilities associated with residential use of the subject property. Potential incompatibilities associated with residential development on the site include the noise, lights, and traffic generated by a 130.3 acre regional shopping center and a six lane highway. Although those impacts can be somewhat mitigated through setbacks, buffering and site design, the significant difference in -area, size, and intensity of uses indicate that incompatibilities would continue. In contrast, the primary impacts of commercial development on the site would be on the single-family houses to the south, across SR 60. There are, however, 2 factors, in addition to the factors previously mentioned (setbacks, buffering and site design), that work to mitigate the impacts of commercial development on the site. First,. there is the 200 foot separation provided by the SR 60 rightof-way. In addition, the county is presently developing a SR 60 Corridor Plan. That plan will contain enhanced sign, landscaping and building design standards for commercial development. The provisions of that plan would apply to any commercial development on the subject site. For these reasons, commercial development of the site would be compatible with surrounding areas. Potential Impact on E_nyi onmental ouality Environmental impacts of development on the subject property would be the same under either the existing or the proposed land use designation. Since the subject property does not contain any MARCH 189 1997 62 M M M