11/4/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ANALYSIS According to the report, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, "including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intensive use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation.", thereby satisfying the concurrency test for the subject property. The report further states the property "is not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan." The proposed land use amendment satisfies Future land Use Policy 3.1 ("...maintain levels of service established in this and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.") and Future Land Use Policy 3.2 ("No development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system..."). CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Future Land Use Policy 13.3 requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. a mistake in the approved plan an oversight in the approved plan a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property This land use amendment request meets all three of these criteria. The subject property is uniquely located in a manner in which the Urban Service Area (USA) Boundary "leapfrogs" north, east, and west of the subject property. It is the only occurrence of this implausible phenomenon in Indian River County. This "leapfrogging" of the USA Boundary has created an island or pocket of land which is bounded on the east of the subject property by 58' Avenue, on the west by 74"' Avenue, on the north by 4h Street where a finger of development (Pine Tree Park Subdivision) juts into this island, and on the south by the St. Lucie County Line. The property is bounded on the north by Oslo Road, classified as an urban principal arterial roadway, and designated on the "Indian River County MPO 1997 List of Priority Projects" indicating that the segment of Oslo Road from 27"h Avenue to 82"d Avenue will be expanded to four lanes between 2001-2005. Oslo Road, both east and west of the property has pockets of more intensive land uses ranging from L- I Residential to perhaps the most intensive land uses to the west which include the County Land Fill and the State Corrections Facility At the heart of the matter is the question of what constitutes an Urban Service Area (USA) and whether or not the area which encompasses the subject property should be included within the USA Boundary? The Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides the definition of Urban Services and Urban Service Areas together with the criteria that needs to be satisfied in order to be included within an Urban Service Area. The Plan staters and I quote: "Man-made features have been developed to increase the natural capacity of the land to accommodate more intense uses at higher densities. These public services, facilities and infrastructure not only increase the natural development capacity but also encourage development in some areas while limiting it in others. The public and community based features and facilities have become essential aspects of urban development .... As a group, these public improvements and infrastructure have become known as "urban services". Urban services include but are not limited to public water and sewer; solid waste and garbage collection and disposal, road, bridge and transportation facilities; public safety; education: and utilities such as gas. electric and phone .... Those areas in which these services have been made available and deliverable are designated as Urban Service Areas (USA's). The delimitation of urban service areas has historically been based on arbitrary boundaries of proposed or existing services, political boundaries or the extent of existing development .... The major issue in defining a service area is not merely the availability of a particular service or services but also the ability to deliver the service within a reasonable standard." The area in question explicitly satisfies this definition which is taken verbatim from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Having clearly met the standard for inclusion in the Urban Service Area, what mistake or oversight occurred in the plan which resulted in leap -frogging the USA boundary to arbitrarily exclude the subject property from the Urban Service Area? NOVEMBER 4, 1997 63 B 103 PAGE 3DJ