Laserfiche WebLink
M <br />3. . Request a land use designation amendment allowing more intense <br />development of the subject property. This is the alternative <br />the applicant has chosen. If this request is denied, the <br />applicant's other two options for site development remain. <br />With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has <br />two principal alternatives. The Board can approve or deny <br />transmittal of this amendment to DCA. <br />The Board can also direct staff to examine the land use designation <br />of the entire C.R. 510 corridor. Given changes, such as new <br />utility lines that have been installed in that area, such an <br />examination may be warranted. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land <br />use designation is compatible with surrounding areas, consistent <br />with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will <br />not increase the County's approved residential allocation ratio, <br />will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets <br />all applicable land use designation amendment criteria. Most <br />importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed <br />suited for low density residential uses. For these reasons, staff <br />supports the request to amend the land use designation of the <br />subject property from R to L-1. <br />Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of <br />County Commissioners approve transmittal of this land use amendment <br />to the Department of Community Affairs. <br />Community Development Director Robert Keating indicated the <br />various land uses on a map of the area. He explained that this <br />particular request does not meet concurrency requirements in the <br />areas of traffic and wastewater, but the developer can agree to <br />enter into developer agreements to comply with the requirements. <br />The traffic analysis projected that traffic generated by this <br />development would create a concurrency problem on a couple of <br />lengths. The developer can agree to enter into a developer's <br />agreement that at the time of development he would make the <br />necessary improvements to upgrade those lengths to accommodate the <br />anticipated traffic. Therefore, concurrency is not a problem, but <br />that is one thing the applicant would have to do before final <br />adoption of the final request. A similar situation exists with <br />respect to wastewater. The developer can agree to enter into a <br />developer's agreement to insure that capacity would be available at <br />the time development occurs. All the other concurrency related <br />facilities are adequate. There is sufficient capacity available to <br />accommodate this development if it is improved. Staff recommends <br />approval of the request. <br />M1 <br />BOOK91 P JC 143 <br />