3/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• The most feasible residential development scenario for the subject property involves lower cost or affordable housing. That is due to the following factors: • The site is designated for up to 10 unitstacre, the county's most dense residential land use designation; 0 The site is located in an area of the county with a high proportion of low and very low income households; and • The site is located near several employment centers that generate a demand for nearby affordable housing. Those employment centers include The Vero Beach Municipal Airport, The Sheriffs Administration/County Jail Complex, Dodgertown, Indian River Memorial Hospital, the Gifford CommerciaVindustrial Node, and the SR 60/58th Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. Even though the added cost associated with development within noise impact zones is not significant, that cost may be enough to impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project. Therefore, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that reason, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 13.3. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed, or approved for development, with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise warranted. The ,intent of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 is to establish specific criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent The 701/6 standard, then, is a measure of whether a node needs to be expanded. According to the County's Commercial/Industrial Data Source, the subject node is 32% developed. As stated in Policy 1.23, however, a node that is less than 70% developed may be considered for expansion if otherwise warranted. Policy 123 states that otherwise warranted may include but not be limited to changes in circumstances affecting property adjacent to a node. As described above, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Policy 1.23 also states that otherwise warranted may include but not be limited to instances where expansion of a node is necessary to include existing adjacent non -conforming commercial or industrial uses, and a finding is made by the Board of County Commissioners that the non- conforming uses cannot be otherwise eliminated. The packinghouse on the site constitutes an existing adjacent non -conforming use. Based on the analysis, staffs position is that the proposed land use amendment is the best method to eliminate that non -conformity. For those reasons, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.23. - Future Land Use Element Policies L15 and 1.17 Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.17 state that the commercial/industrial land use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for a wide range of commercial and industrial uses. Fronting a major road, adjacent to C/I designated land, and with urban services available, the subject property is appropriate for commercial/industrial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial/industrial development on the site. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.17. - Future Land Use Policy 121 This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate strip commercial development and urban sprawl, and to provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities. Given the land use designation pattern along 4111 Street, between 58' Avenue and US 1, the proposed amendment will not result in strip commercial development. Presently, non-residential/non-agricultural uses extend on the south side of 41s' Street from US 1 nearly to 581i Avenue, a distance of more than two miles. The exception is the M-2 designated subject property and adjacent land on the west That land abuts 41' Street for only 981feet. constituting a residential enclave in a non-residential/non-agricultural area. Redesignating this property will result in infill, rather than strip, development MARCH 109 1998 -27- e 1 [ UO�� m0 �� ! 1��J�