Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 91 Fa,r, 72 -1 <br />Economic Development Element Policy 1.1, and Capital Improvements <br />Element Policy 1.6. <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 <br />In evaluating any comprehensive plan amendment request, the most <br />important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. <br />This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in <br />order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria <br />are: <br />• a mistake in the approved plan; <br />• an oversight in the approved plan; or <br />• a substantial change in circumstances. <br />While some policies are particularly applicable to certain <br />comprehensive plan amendments, Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 <br />is applicable to all comprehensive plan amendments. <br />The following table shows how these comprehensive plan amendments <br />relate to Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. <br />CORRECT A CORRECT AN CHANGE IN <br />AMENDMENT MISTAKE OVERSIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE <br />S.R. 60 X <br />Roseland Road X <br />Aviation X <br />FLUE Table 2.30 X <br />FLUE Policy 1.25 X <br />Utilities X <br />CIE X <br />FLUE: Future Land Use Element CIE: Capital Improvement Element <br />- S.R. 60 west of I-95 <br />In the period since adoption of the comprehensive plan, there has <br />been a change in circumstances regarding S.R. 60 west of I-95. As <br />a major east -west corridor, S.R. 60 has been designated part of the <br />recently established Intrastate Highway System. State law requires <br />that roads which are part of this system be four -lane facilities. <br />This, therefore, constitutes a substantial change in circumstances <br />affecting S.R. 60 and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use <br />Element Policy 13.3. <br />- Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive <br />The segment of Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive <br />was mistakenly designated as a subdivision collector instead of a <br />collector in the adopted comprehensive plan. Since this segment <br />acts as a transition roadway, connecting an urban minor arterial <br />(programmed for expansion to four -lanes) to a two-lane subdivision <br />collector, the road should have been given the intermediate <br />"collector" designation. <br />Additionally, the characteristics of the U.S. 1/Roseland Road <br />intersection indicate that this segment of Roseland Road should <br />have been designated as a collector road when the comprehensive <br />plan was adopted. This intersection of two major roads is located <br />within a commercial/industrial node. Since each corner of this <br />intersection has commercial zoning which attracts a significant <br />volume of traffic, this segment of Roseland Road should have been <br />designated as a collector road in the comprehensive plan. <br />36 <br />