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
boa 104 PAGE X4'1 <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries should provide for efficient land <br />uses and maximum use of transportation facilities while eliminating strip development. By adding <br />depth to the existing node, the proposed amendment works to limit strip commercial development <br />along SR 60. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use <br />Element Policy 1.21. <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed <br />with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The <br />intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed <br />amendment does not increase in the amount of C/I designated land in the subject node, Future Land <br />Use Element Policy 1.23's 70% developed standard does not apply to this amendment. <br />- Economic Development Element Policy 6.2 <br />Economic Development Element Policy 6.2 states that the county shall evaluate the configuration <br />of nodes to ensure they can properly provide for growth. Since the proposed amendment <br />reconfigures the subject node to better provide for growth, the proposed amendment implements <br />Economic Development Element Policy 6.2. <br />- Conservation Element Objective 5 <br />Conservation Element Objective 5 states that there will be no net loss of the natural functions <br />provided by wetlands or deepwater habitats in Indian River County. By redesignating Subject <br />Property 1 to C-1, the proposed amendment works to implement this objective by facilitating the <br />preservation of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands. <br />- Conservation Element Objective 7 <br />Conservation Element Objective 7 stresses the need to work with state, regional and federal agencies <br />to protect listed species and important habitat. The redesignation of Subject Property 1 to C- <br />I combined with other provisions of the DO (native upland plant community preservation, listed <br />species surveys, wetland creation, etc.) work to protect both species and habitat. For that reason, the <br />proposed amendment implements Conservation Element Objective 7. <br />As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon <br />this analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with <br />the comprehensive plan. <br />The development of Subject Property 2 will cause a loss of environmentally important wetlands. <br />To mitigate that loss, the applicant has agreed to enlarge and conserve a nearby wetland (Subject <br />Property 1). Thus. the negative environmental impacts of development on Subiect Pronertv 2 are <br />balanced by enhancement and conservation of Subject Property 1. For that reason. the proposed <br />amendment would have no significant negative environmental impact. <br />The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all <br />surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of <br />public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic <br />development while mitigating environmental impacts through habitat enhancement and conservation. <br />For these reasons, staff supports the request. <br />Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board <br />of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA. <br />JANUARY 27, 1998 <br />• -22- • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.