My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/4/1997
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1997
>
11/4/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:22:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/04/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 <br />The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with <br />the county's Comprehensive Plan is Fume Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that <br />one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: <br />• a mistake in the approved plan; <br />• an oversight in the approved plan; or <br />• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. <br />Staff s position is that this land use amendment request meets Policy 13.3s third criteria. <br />When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned <br />commercial/industrial zoned properties to commercial nodes. These nodes were designated various <br />sizes to reflect commercial demand and were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed <br />suitable for commercial development. The subject property was considered for inclusion in the node <br />at that time. <br />When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was not included in the node for <br />the following reasons: <br />• There was already sufficient land designated commercial/industrial to accommodate <br />projected demand; and <br />• Given the size and shape of the subject property, residential development was determined <br />to be feasible. <br />For these reasons, staffs position is that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br />There has been, however, a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. That change <br />relates to the county's airport zoning regulations (Section 911.17) which were adopted, pursuant to <br />Chapters 163 and 333 of the Florida Statutes, on March 18, 1993. Those regulations establish a <br />noise impact overlay zone. Prior to building permit issuance, developers of proposed residences <br />within noise impact zones must show that those impacts will be mitigated through one of the <br />following means: <br />• <br />Vcdf3ing in writing that M=sed buildings are designed to achieve an outdoor to indoor <br />noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels. Normal residential construction can be expected <br />to provide a noise reduction level of 20 to 25 decibels; or <br />• Executing and recording an aviation easement An aviation easement is a legal document <br />that grants to the owner/operator of a nearby airport a right to continue to operate the airport <br />under the current conditions, despite potential nuisance effects upon uses that are being <br />established in close proximity to the airport. <br />Because the subject property is located within a noise impact zone, these regulations apply to the <br />site. Staffs position is that due to unique circumstances of the subject property, these regulations <br />adversely impact the site to the extent that the site is not feasible for residential development. Those <br />circumstances are related to the residential development potential of the site. <br />The most feasible residential development scenario for the subject property involves lower cost or <br />affordable housing. That is due to the following factors: <br />• The site is designated for up to 10 units/acre, the county's most dense residential land use <br />designation; <br />• The site is located in an area of the county with a high proportion of low and very low <br />income households; and <br />• The site is located near several employment centers that generate a demand for nearby <br />affordable housing. Those employment centers include The Vero Beach Municipal Airport, <br />The Sheriff s Administration/County Jail Complex, Dodgertown, Indian River Memorial <br />Hospital, the Gifford Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/58th Avenue <br />Commercial/Industrial Node. <br />Even though the added cost associated with development within noise impact zones is not <br />significant, that cost may be enough to impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project. <br />Therefore, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those <br />zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that reason, the <br />subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 13.3. <br />NOVEMBER 4, 1997 39 03 <br />BOOK <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.