5/25/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MAY 2 5 199 Appropriateness of the C/I Land Use Designation The C/I land use designation is appropriate for the subject property. The site is bordered on two sides by C/I designated land. Also, two major roads border the subject property. Staff has raised the concern that the proposed amendment would be an impetus for land use designation amendment requests for C/I designations on the west side of Old Dixie Highway south of 8th Street. However, there are several factors that would prevent this. First, since 8th Street has a wider right-of-way and a higher functional classification than 9th Street, 8th Street is a more sensible terminus for C/I designations than is 9th Street. Additionally, most of the land south of 8th Street on the west side of Old Dixie Highway is already subdivided for and/or developed with residential uses. Therefore, the proposed land use change would better structure existing node boundaries rather than create strip commercial development. DCA Obiections The DCA had one objection to the proposed amendment. This objection involves the surplus of C/I designated land in the county. Currently, the county has approximately 5,500 acres of C/I designated land. However, population projections indicate only 2,800 acres of the C/I designated land will be needed by the year 2010. This fact indicates that no additional C/I designated land is needed at present. Staff's position is that when taken as whole, there is a surplus of C/I designated land in the county. However, this is due to largely vacant nodes in other parts of the county, such as those near I-95. However, in the area of the county near the subject property, there is a demand for additional C/I designated land. This demand is demonstrated by the fact that the C/I node adjacent to the subject property is already approximately 70% developed. That issue is specifically addressed in this staff report under the section relating to Future Land Use Policy 1.23. It is staff's position that the data and analysis provided in that section adequately address DCA's objection to this amendment. For that reason, staff feels that the proposed amendment may be approved by the Hoard of County Commissioners. Alternatives There are four alternatives which the Board of County Commissioners can take concerning this request. The first alternative is to deny the request. The second alternative is to approve this request with the applicant proposed CL zoning. The third alternative, as discussed at the transmittal public hearing, is to approve this request, but rezone the subject property to a different zoning district than requested, such as OCR. Staff supports this alternative. The fourth alternative is to deny rezone the subject property to a more present, L-2, land use designation. multiple -family zoning, such as RM -6, in density. 28 the land use amendment, but intense use allowed under the Practically, this would allow without allowing an increase