7/11/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comprehensive Plan Consistency Summary While the referenced objectives and 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 on that analysis, staff determined that the request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. In terms of noise, aesthetic concerns, and level of activity, the impacts of development under the C/I land use designation are greater than under the M-1 land use designation. That fact, however, does not imply that abutting commercial and residential developments are never compatible. In fact, it is inevitable that they abut in some areas. In those cases, several site design options, such as buffers, building orientation, and the placement of open space, can often mitigate impacts. Currently, commercial/industrial and residential land use designations abut along the subject property's south boundary. Because the site is a rectangularly shaped peninsula bounded on three sides by residentially designated land, granting the proposed amendment increases the length of the boundary between the commercial/indusVial and residential land use designations by ±2,600 feet. Since most incompatibilities occur at the border between land use designations, granting the request would likely result in an increase in incompatibilities. Additionally, because the subject property is currently undeveloped, new residential development on the subject property has site design options available to mitigate impacts from adjacent commercial development. In contrast, those site design options are not available to land abutting the subject property on the east because that land is already developed with single-family homes. Therefore, the proposed amendment would likely increase incompatibilities. Another negative impact from the proposed land use amendment involves more than the property itself; it relates to all undeveloped residentially designated areas within the SR 60 corridor, several of which currently abut existing residential development. Those areas include the 20 acre tract located approximately '/< mile west of 58" Avenue, on the south side of SR 60 (known as the Rodriguez Property); the 40 acre tract at the southeast comer of SR 60 and 66`h Avenue; and the 20 acre tract located at the southwest comer of SR 60 and Wh Avenue. Those areas would be affected because their circumstances are similar to those of the subject property. Each of those sites, including the subject property are: • located at or near an intersection of two major roads; • located near the Indian River Mall; • located adjacent to residentially designated land; • located adjacent to C/I designated land; • at least 20 acres in size; and • currently designated M-1. Because of the similarities among the sites, granting the requested change would provide an impetus for other property owners to request that their land use designation be changed to CIL Because the county must treat similar properties similarly, denying those requests would be difficult. The result would be C/I land use designations along most major roads within the SR 60 Corridor. This would allow a commercial strip development pattern. That type of development pattern not only is an indicator of urban sprawl, but also causes compatibility problems with adjacent residential areas. For these reasons, commercial/industrial development on the subject property would not be compatible with surrounding uses. JULY 11, 2000 M114PG130