6/10/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I PAGE t y 6 1. The improvement must be in place or under construction not more than two years from issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a development project needing the improvement; or 2. The capital improvements element must specify the improvement's estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of completion; and 3. The Capital Improvements Element must include a requirement that, if this allowance is used to meet the concurrency requirement for a project, then a comprehensive plan amendment will be required if the roadway improvement needed to maintain levels of service is deferred, delayed, or eliminated. To conform with the 1996 plan amendment, the proposed LDR amendment would update the text of Chapter 910 and include in Chapter 910 a reference to Capital Improvements Element Table 13.24. That table gives the estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion for priority transportation projects. PSAC Recommendation: At its May 15, 1997 meeting, the PSAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed concurrency regulation changes. PZC Recommendation: At its May 22, 1997 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed concurrency regulation changes. 4. Allowing Banks in the PRO District Recently, Peter Beuttell filed an LDR amendment request to allow banks (including ATMs and drive-through facilities) and credit institutions in the PRO district (see attachment #6). Mr. Beuttell has an interest in a ±3 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of SR 60 and 74th Avenue that is zoned PRO (Professional Office) and has a residential (M-1 up to 8 units/acre) land use designation. The parcel does not appear to qualify for, nor does planning staff support, a change in the land use map to allow for a more intense commercial zoning district. To increase the spectrum of allowable uses on the parcel, Mr. Beuttell has filed the subject request, which, if approved, could be applied to all properties within the county zoned PRO. *Applicant's Analysis The applicant states that banks and credit institutions are similar to other office uses (e.g. insurance and securities sales offices) currently allowed in the PRO district. Furthermore, the applicant contends that banks are less intense than medical offices (currently allowed in PRO) in relation to parking requirements. The applicant also states that banks would not have as negative an impact as post offices and libraries, which are allowed in PRO. The applicant also cites examples of banks (many within the City of Vero Beach) that abut residential uses and appear to be compatible. Also, the applicant points out that the City of Vero Beach's P.O.I. (Professional, Office, and Institutional) district allows banks. 24 June 10, 1997