12/1/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I BOOK PAGE -j5 j All proposed improvements (e.g. parking) accommodate the referenced additional right-of- way acquisition from the site. However, acquisition of 10' from the site for additional 1° Street S.W. right-of-way will compound an already non -conforming frontyard building setback along 1° Street S.W. With acquisition of 1" Street S.W. right-of-way, the site's existing barn frontyard setback will be reduced from 18-26 to 826'. The minimum required building setback for agricultural zoning is 30'. However, it should be noted that, under county nonconformWes regulations, such an increase in a setback nonconformity does not burden the property owner with any obligation to rectify the setback encroachment. Since the proposed development is outside of the Urban Service Area, the applicant is not required to provide sidewalks or bikeways along the site's 5r Avenue or 1" Street frontages. 13. Site Related Non -Conformities: As stated above, the 47 x 73' structure identified on the site plan as an existing barn ( see attacbn= #3) does not satisfy the A 1 zoning district 30' minimum frontyard building setback requirement. In the recent past, the barn was apparently used as a packing house without proper site plan approval However, staff has determined that the structure was legally constructed as a barn on agricultural property. Therefore, the building setback encroachment is deemed a legally created site related non -conformity, provided the use of the structure is confined to a barn that serves onsite activities. Under the Wits, no non -conformity shall be changed to a different non -conformity that results in an increase in the degree of the non -conformity. Since a packing house or agricultural business generates more daily trips than a barn, the proposed conversion of the barn to a packing house would represent an increase in the degree of nonconformity on the site. It is staffs position that the existing barn cannot be used as a packing house or agricultural business as defined in the LI)Rs. Therefore, the proposal to convert the existing barn structure to a packing house should be denied. 14. Concurrency: The applicant has obtained a conditional concurrency certificate. This satisfies concurrency requirements for minor site plan and special exception use applications. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to the minor site plan and special exception use approval have been satisfied IS. Environmental Issues: Since the site is less than 5 acres, the native upland set-aside requirements of section 929.05 do not apply. 16. Landscaping, Buffers and Setbacks: For this site, no special buffering is prescribed by the specific land use criteria for either the proposed agricultural business or packing house uses. The county may require buffering through the special exception use process. It is staffs position that the existing and proposed number of trees and other plant material surpass minimum landscaping requirements. Therefore, no buffers are proposed The site plan satisfies the general landscaping requirements by supplementing existing landscaping with additional trees and hedges were necessary. 17. Specific Land Use Criteria: • Agricultural Business The applicant must satisfy all applicable criteria for an agricultural business. The agricultural business criteria are as follows: Additional information requirements: A site plan meeting all of the requirements of Chapter 914; 2. A statement describing the nature of the business and the rationale for its location within an agricultural district Note: The applicant has provided a statement detailing the scope and nature of the proposed agricultural business and packing house on the site (see attachment #4). Criteria for agricultural business: 1. Agricultural businesses may be allowed to hate within the A-1, A-2, or A-3 districts only upon a finding by the reviewing body that such businesses are directly related to or provide services for active agricultural operations and that such uses would not be more appropriately located in a commercial or industrial zoning district; Note: It is staffs opinion that the county should = find that the proposed citrus brokerage is more appropriately located in an agricultural area rather than in a commercial district The proposed citrus brokerage is principally an office use that involves some employee time in groves and packing houses to check on fruit quality issues. However, the bulk of the citrus brokerage activity is office activity that is not DECEMBER 1, 1998 0 -24- 0