|
I U�FA` 7
<br />GE
<br />Based on the analysis, this staff report addresses DCA's ORC Report objections and provides
<br />justification for DCA to find the proposed amendment "in compliance" with state law.
<br />Both sites comprising this request are located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed
<br />suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for.
<br />Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation
<br />(Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the
<br />continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable
<br />standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new
<br />development be reviewed. For land use designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken
<br />as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process.
<br />As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Managemdnt Chapter of the County's Land
<br />Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land use density or intensity are exempt
<br />from concurrency requirements. For the subject request, the size of the C/I node will not change,
<br />although the node's shape will be reconfigured. Additionally, ±26.4 acres of M-1 designated land,
<br />with a development potential of 211 units (26.4 acres X 8 units/acre = 211 units), will be eliminated,
<br />while the same amount of C-1 designated land, with no development potential, will be added. That
<br />"swap" will result in an overall decrease in land use intensity of 211 units. Therefore, this land use
<br />amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation
<br />changes would not increase the potential land use intensity that the sites could accommodate.
<br />It is important to note that approval of this request will not affect service levels for any public
<br />facility. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis has been done in conjunction with the DRI
<br />application. That analysis addressed facility service levels and demand, and determined that
<br />minimum service levels will be met with site development.
<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 />residential development abuts commercial/industrial development. Those impacts can include 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 />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), FS." 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 />JUNE 291998
<br />• -26-
<br />
|