7/15/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BQ9K 1602 PACE 7 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 27, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DDWYN HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AIPT Community Develop ent Dire/or .1.3 FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: June 27, 1997 SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Proposed LDR Amendments: Banks in the PRO District It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 15, 1997. At its June 10, 1997 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners considered four LDR amendments contained in a single, proposed ordinance. At that meeting, three of the amendments were recommended for approval and were acceptable to the Board. However, the amendment proposed by Peter Beuttell to allow banks and credit institutions as a permitted use in the PRO district was discussed at length. Sta$ the Professional Services Advisory Committee (by a 5-1 vote) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (unanimously) had recommended that the amendment be denied. At the Board meeting Architect John Dean, representing Mr. Beuttell, presented an amendment to the request. The amendment proposed allowing banks of limited size in the PRO district, subject to specific criteria and administrative permit use approval. After hearing Mr. Dean's presentation, the Board voted unanimously to refer the revised request back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the PSAC (see attachment #2). As directed by the Board, staff has coordinated with the applicant and analyzed the proposed LDR amendment that would allow small-scale banks and credit institutions in the PRO district as an administrative permit use subject to specific criteria At its June 26, 1997 meeting,the PSAC discussed the revised proposal and the possibility of allowing small-scale banks as an administrative permit or special exception use in the PRO district. Some PSAC members thought that the revised proposal could work since a similar allowance in the City of Vero Beach's P.O.I. district seemed to work. However, most members expressed concerns that approving the proposal would stretch the intent of the district too far and set a precedent for allowing other general commercial uses in the PRO district. The PSAC voted 6-2 to deny allowing small-scale banks and credit institutions in the PRO district with special criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission also met on June 26th to consider the revised request. At the meeting)the applicant again revised the request, proposing special exception rather than administrative permit use approval for small-scale banks in PRO. The Commission discussed various issues and alternatives at length but did not muster an official recommendation. A motion to recommend denial of the revised proposal failed 3-3. The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the revised request and the remainder of the proposed ordinance and is to approve, approve with modifications, or reject the proposed ordinance. ANALYSIS: Staffs original position is unchanged: banks (even small-scale banks) should not be allowed in the PRO district as a permitted, administrative permit use, or special exception use. However, it is also staff s position that, if the county approves an allowance for banks in the PRO district, the proposed IDR change presented in Part 4 of the attached, proposed ordinance is the proper way to implement the revised request. As stated in staffs previous presentations, the county's commercial zoning districts allow a spectrum of uses based on general intensity, other land use characteristics, and compatibility. The PRO district is the least intense, least "commercial" in character, and most residentially compatible commercial district in the county's LDRs. Consequently, the PRO district currently allows single-family residential and a limited range of commercial uses, not the broad range of uses allowed in the more intensive and general commercial districts (see attachment #3). JULY 15, 1997