3/18/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 100 FAGE 965 retail commercial development could occur on the site. For that reason, DCA suggested adding a policy specifically limiting development on that site to an industrial park and related uses. Staff agreed and has developed such a policy. That policy is included on Attachment 9. By adopting such a policy, DCA's objection will be met, and the proposed amendment can be adopted. Discussion of Node Reconfiauration - Standard of Review 'Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an expansion, of commercial/industrial nodes. For this reason, the subject --request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable -density or intensity of development. As such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis. The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing density or intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a locational shift in future land uses with an overall decrease in land use intensity. Staff's position is that these different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan, a high standard of review -is justified. For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and, in fact, many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. Another consideration involves the purpose of the county's three C/I nodes along I-95. In contrast to other nodes which are located and sized based on market area, these nodes were established for economic development purposes to attract industry and manufacturing employment to the county. Since these nodes, in aggregate, serve the entire county, they function as one node with a countywide market area. For that reason, shifting land between these nodes without updating the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan is acceptable. - Land Use Efficiency The proposed amendment involves reconfiguring two commercial/ industrial nodes. The node containing Subject Property 1 has access to both SR 60 and I-95, while the node containing Subject Property 2 focuses principally on Oslo Road and has no access to I- 95. Several factors indicate that the demand for commercial/ industrial designated land is greater at the SR 60/I-95 Node than at the Oslo Road Node. The most important of these factors involves the county's efforts to attract industry and increase employment. Businesses considering locating or relocating in Indian River County have repeatedly indicated a preference for the SR 60/I-95 Node. These businesses cite the central location, the proximity to other businesses and population, and the easy access to major roads. In contrast, the Oslo Road Node is relatively isolated from business and population centers, and has less access to major roads. Other factors also suggest that the proposed node reconfiguration is more logical and efficient than the existing configuration. These factors include: • population growth along the SR 60 Corridor and in the northern portion of the county; • recent developments in the SR 601I-95 Node (including a retail center that is anticipated to soon surpass DRI thrgsholds); • future landfill expansion; and.. • the land owners' proposed -use of the subject properties. MARCH 18, 1997 92 M M