7/11/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This is important because it means that, currently, there is a great deal of land within the urban service area that is served by public facilities and services, and is designated for residential uses, yet remains vacant. That is the land where the comprehensive plan intends for growth to occur. Developing a large portion of that land before expanding the urban service area is an example of infill development. Expanding the urban service area, as proposed by the subject amendment, discourages infill development (the development of land currently within the urban service area). Based on existing conditions, as well as existing population growth patterns, designating the subject property M-1 would be premature. Indian River County's RAR indicates that a need does not exist to redesignate the subject property to M-1. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 This policy states that "the Medium -Density Residential Land Use Designations are intended for areas which are suitable for urban scale development and intensities." Because the site is in an area of the county adjacent to both extensive agricultural development and residences on 10 -acre wooded lots, the site is not currently suitable for urban scale development and intensity. For these reasons, the subject property is not suitable for the M-1 land use designation; therefore, the request is not consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13. Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan While the referenced objective 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 upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding rea Staffs position is that granting the request to redesignate the subject property to M-1 could result in development that will be incompatible with surrounding areas. The subject property is adjacent to a citrus grove. Active agricultural operations involve noise, odors, and spraying, all of which can adversely impact residential development. If residential development were to occur on the subject property, nearby grove owners may be pressured to reduce or eliminate aerial spraying, limit the hours of ground spraying, relocate pumps, and reduce other impacts. Also, residential development adversely impacts agriculture by increasing incidences of trespassing, vandalism, and Carribean fruit fly host plants. Past experience suggests that incompatibilities are more likely to occur where residential land borders agricultural land. Lands bordering the subject property on the south and west are agriculturally designated. Granting the proposed amendment would increase, in several ways, the chances of incompatibilities occurring. First, the proposed amendment will lengthen the agricultural -residential border by approximately 740 feet. Additionally, under the proposed amendment, the county loses the 230 feet of separation between agriculturally designated land and residentially designated land that is provided by 58i° Avenue and the Lateral `B" Canal. Separation can often work to mitigate potential incompatibilities between land uses. An even more important point, however, also relates to physical separation. The location of the subject property, physically separated by roads and canals from urban designated areas to the north and east, naturally and logically groups the site with the agriculturally designated land abutting the site on the south and west. JULY 119 2000 -129- BK I1 PG 145