My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/27/1998
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1998
>
1/27/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:56 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:34:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/27/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
Ir <br />-I <br />600K IN PAGE 220 <br />Granting the proposed request would result in development on the subject properties that is <br />compatible with surrounding areas. Typically, land use impacts are most significant where <br />reswenuai ueveiopment aouts commercial, inausmat aeveiopment. i nose Impacts can incivae noise. <br />lights, and aesthetic concerns. For the proposed amendment, such impacts could occur along the <br />south, east, and west boundaries of Subject Property 2. In such situations, county land development <br />regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site design and by requiring <br />commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers. <br />In this case, the legally binding DRI Development Order provides assurance that land to the south <br />and east, and the land along the south ±843 feet of the west boundary of Subject Property 2 will be <br />developed with conservation, recreation and/or open space uses. The remaining land west of Subject <br />Property 2 consists of a citrus grove. Although currently zoned A-1, that land is designated for <br />residential development. Therefore, granting the proposed amendment would result in ±485 feet <br />where commercial and residential land development would be most likely to impact each other. That <br />is a substantial decrease from the existing ±1,300 feet. <br />Several factors, however, work to mitigate the potential impacts of commercial development on land <br />to the west of Subject Property 2. In addition to required buffers and the provisions of the SR 60 <br />Corridor Plan, the DRI Development Order requires that a parking area, rather than buildings, be <br />placed in that portion of Subject Property 2. Another mitigating factor is physical separation. In this <br />case, additional separation is provided by 60 feet of Indian River Farms Water Control District right- <br />of-way. That right-of-way is used for a drainage ditch Finally, at nearly 40 acres, the property west <br />of Subject Property 2 is large enough to provide additional buffers if desired. <br />For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential <br />incompatibilities with surrounding areas. <br />_! •1t 4[!407}, <br />Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the <br />comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the <br />"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of <br />the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the <br />overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes <br />agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their <br />densities. <br />The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies <br />are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the <br />community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the <br />basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning <br />decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more <br />applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular <br />applicability for this request are the following policies. <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 <br />In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use <br />Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land <br />use amendment request. These criteria are: <br />• a mistake in the approved plan; <br />• an oversight in the approved plan; or <br />49 a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when evaluating land use amendment <br />requests to increase density or intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not <br />increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutinv. <br />In fact, the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the comprehensive plan recommends <br />adding a fourth criteria to Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. That criteria would specifically <br />allow future land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or <br />intensity. The EAR has been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and found sufficient <br />JANUARY 27, 1998 <br />-20- <br />0 0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.