3/21/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed land use amendment meets the policy's third criterion. On February 13, 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, Subject Property 1 was under private ownership and control. At that time, Subject Property 1 was correctly designated for residential uses. Since then, a conservation easement transferring control of the site to the county has been placed on Subject Property 1. The placement of that easement giving control of Subject Property 1 to the countv ennstitutes a substantial change in circumstances affecting the site and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.5 and 1.6 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 states that the Conservation land use designations shall be applied to lands that play a vital or essential role in the functioning of the county's ecosystems and merit preservation. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.6 states that the C-1 designation can apply to environmentally important land that is owned or controlled by public entities for conservation purposes. Subject Property 1 consists of environmentally important estuarine wetlands associated with the Indian River Lagoon. Additionally, a conservation easement gives control of Subject Property 1 to the County. For those reasons, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policies 1.5 and 1.6. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area Since Subject Property 2 is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would allow residential uses no greater than the 6 units/acre permitted by the L-2 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12. While the above referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use amendment involving Subject Property 1 eliminates the development potential of that site. For that reason, no incompatibilities associated with that portion of the request are anticipated. Additionally, the following factors indicate that the proposed rezoning of Subject Property 2 will not increase incompatibilities with surrounding properties. Because of the site's relatively small size, it is not likely to be developed with more than one single-family house, regardless of the zoning district. • Due to the subject property's somewhat isolated location, the site has few neighbors that could be impacted by site development. March 21, 2000- 99