5/21/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- M M Once the -total node acreage.was established, it was necessary for the staff .to determine the percent developed. Again, the staff used the Property Appraiser's information to do this. Based upon tax and use codes, the staff determined which parcels were developed and then had the surveyor calculate the acreage of the developed parcels. Upon field verification, staff found three parcels with inaccurate use codes. In two cases parcels identified as developed/improved were vacant. Based upon the field information, the staff compiled an accurate list of developed parcels in the node. For purposes of this analysis, parcels were considered developed if they had a structure on them. Using this methodology, the vacant platted parcels of the Riverwalk II plat were not considered developed; the vacant parcel at the northwest corner of U.S. #1 and Roseland Road was not considered developed; and the unbuilt portion of the Humana Hospital site was not considered developed. Considering all built -on properties in the node (even those used residentially), the total developed acreage in the node totals 66.9 acres. This constitutes only 54% of the node acreage. Since 54% is much less than 70%, this amendment request is inconsistent with Policy 1.23. ALTERNATIVES. There are three ways that the applicant. could proceed with a development project in the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital - Commercial Node and be consistent with the comprehensive plan. First, .there are at least two other parcels already located within the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital -Commercial Node with sufficient acreage for the proposed development. One parcel is located on the east side of U.S. #1, opposite the Riverwalk Shopping Center. The second parcel* is located on the north side of Roseland Road, opposite the Riverwalk Shopping Center. These parcels have the size to accommodate a retail commercial development and have the appropriate commercial land use designation and do not require.a comprehensive plan amendment. .Second" -the Board of County Commissioners can approve an alternate land use change.. This would be an amendment to shift the node boundary, instead of expanding the node's size. With this alternative, land already in the node and comparable in size to the subject property would be removed from the node, and the subject_ property would be included within the node boundary. While this alternative'involves reconfiguring the node, it does not involve node expansion. Therefore, the 70% criterion of Future Land Use Policy 1.23 would not be applicable. ,. Third, the applicant can withdraw the - amendment request -.and resubmit it at a time when development of this node warrants expansion of the commercial node boundary. The 70% criterion from Future Land Use Policy 1.23 would then be met, and the additional development will have constituted a change in circumstances for the subject property consistent with Criterion Three of Future Land Use Policy 13.3. These proposed alternatives are consistent with the :goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. -Alternatives for the Board of County Commissioners There are three alternatives that the Board of County Commissioners can take concerning.the subject request. * The first would be the denial by the Board of County Commissioners of the transmittal of this request to the Department of Community Affairs. * The second is the approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs for their review. * The third alternative is for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the request with changes for the transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. This alternative will be applicable if the Board of County Commissioners directs staff to remove some existing properties from this node and add the subject property to the Roseland Road/U.S. #1 Hospital -Commercial Node. 25 MAY 1 1991 �Uo� � � F; �E 404