3/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated January 29, 1998), which planning staff received on February 2,1998. The DCA ORC Report did not contain any objections or comments relating to the proposed amendment. The main building currently on the site has been illegally converted from a barn to a packinghouse. Use of the building as a bam, a legally established non -conforming use on this site, was "grandfathered in" and would have been allowed to continue if it had not been converted. Use of the building as a packinghouse, however, is not permitted within the Medium -Density Residential land use designation and the residential zoning district. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to establish the packinghouse as a legal and conforming use. Not wishing to discontinue the packinghouse use, the applicant is working with planning staff to legalize the use. In so doing, staff and the applicant identified two methods to correct the problem. The first method is to amend the comprehensive plan policy governing permitted uses within the Medium -Density Residential land use designation to allow agricultural uses within those areas. The other method is to change the land use designation of the site to C/I, a designation which permits packinghouses. In this case, the applicant originally chose both methods. He applied for a comprehensive plan text amendment to allow agricultural uses within the Medium -Density Residential land use designation. and he submitted the subject land use amendmentirezoning request. At the October 9,1997 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, however, a text amendment related concern was raised. That concern was that the proposed change would greatly increase incompatibilities by allowing agricultural businesses and packinghouses to operate in any M-1 or M-2 designated area of the county. Based on that concern, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 1 to deny the text amendment request. Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the text amendment request. Issues raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing also influenced planning stats s recommendation. At that hearing, planning staff recommended approval of the text amendment and denial of the land use designation amendment. Staff now recommends approval of the subject land use designation amendment. While staffs position has always been that the site is appropriate for commercial/industrial uses, the preferred residential to C/I land use designation amendment method, however, is a "swap -out." That method involves removing a separate 18.7 acre tract from the node while simultaneously adding the subject property (18.7 acres) to the node. Unable to find C/I designated land that could be swapped in a financially feasible manner, the applicant submitted the subject request. Although staff considered that the preferred swap -out method was not the only acceptable method, staff nevertheless recommended that the request be denied. At the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, however, several issues were discussed. These included the fact that the site is located within an airport noise impact zone; that the adjacent land within the City of Vero Beach city limits could be developed industrially; and that residential development on the site may not be feasible. In discussing this matter, the planning and Zoning Commission expressed significant concern about those issues. Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's concern about those issues, staffs position is that a "swap -out" is not necessary to approve the subject request. Commercial/industrial nodes are intended to be contiguous areas. The Gifford Node in the area of the subject property, however, consists of several non-contiguous tracts. That node, located along 41' Street, is depicted on attachments 5 and 6. The land use designation history of the area indicates why the node is not contiguous. Prior to the 1990 adoption of the current comprehensive plan, the county's comprehensive plan included a Mixed land use designation. That land use designation was given to several areas of the county where the existing land use patter consisted of a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses. The Mixed land use designation allowed residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts. In 1990, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the mix of land uses in those areas resulted in many compatibility problems. To avoid further compatibility problems, the Mixed land use designation was eliminated when the current plan was adopted. In the Gifford area, new land use designations were assigned to areas previously designated Mixed, based on the existing zoning MARCH 109 1998 -19- BOOK 1-04SCC