1/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ir -I 600K IN PAGE 220 Granting the proposed request would result in development on the subject properties that is compatible with surrounding areas. Typically, land use impacts are most significant where reswenuai ueveiopment aouts commercial, inausmat aeveiopment. i nose Impacts can incivae noise. lights, and aesthetic concerns. For the proposed amendment, such impacts could occur along the south, east, and west boundaries of Subject Property 2. In such situations, county land development regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site design and by requiring commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers. In this case, the legally binding DRI Development Order provides assurance that land to the south and east, and the land along the south ±843 feet of the west boundary of Subject Property 2 will be developed with conservation, recreation and/or open space uses. The remaining land west of Subject Property 2 consists of a citrus grove. Although currently zoned A-1, that land is designated for residential development. Therefore, granting the proposed amendment would result in ±485 feet where commercial and residential land development would be most likely to impact each other. That is a substantial decrease from the existing ±1,300 feet. Several factors, however, work to mitigate the potential impacts of commercial development on land to the west of Subject Property 2. In addition to required buffers and the provisions of the SR 60 Corridor Plan, the DRI Development Order requires that a parking area, rather than buildings, be placed in that portion of Subject Property 2. Another mitigating factor is physical separation. In this case, additional separation is provided by 60 feet of Indian River Farms Water Control District right- of-way. That right-of-way is used for a drainage ditch Finally, at nearly 40 acres, the property west of Subject Property 2 is large enough to provide additional buffers if desired. For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential incompatibilities with surrounding areas. _! •1t 4[!407}, Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or 49 a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when evaluating land use amendment requests to increase density or intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutinv. In fact, the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the comprehensive plan recommends adding a fourth criteria to Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. That criteria would specifically allow future land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. The EAR has been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and found sufficient JANUARY 27, 1998 -20- 0 0