Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 1: PROPOSED LAND USE POLICY AMENDMENT AND RELATED LAND USE FACTORS <br />ISSUES ADDRESSED <br />If approved, in addition to other Plan requirements, the County should produce analysis that demonstrates <br />that the proposed land use amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use <br />Element policies: <br />1. Criteria for Node Size. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.20 which provides criteria <br />for node size based on land use, population, existing land use, and other demand characteristics? <br />[Policy 1.20. Nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use classification and service area <br />population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics.] <br />2. Criteria for Node Expansion. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.23 which provides <br />criteria for node expansion? <br />[Polity 1.23. No Node should be considered for expansion unless 70016 of the land area (less rights-of-way) <br />is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non-residential and non-agricultural <br />development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development.] <br />3. State Coastal Management Policies. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with State policies for <br />managing development in coastal high hazard area (CHHA)? <br />State policy 9J-5.003(14) recently amended the definition of "coastal high hazard area" to include the evacuation <br />zone for the Category I hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the <br />local government. The Florida State Division of Emergency Management Computer Model indicates that the <br />CHHA is located in the vicinity of subject property #4 and extends westward to 46th Avenue and therefore <br />embraces the subject site. <br />4. Impact on Public Facilities. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 2.8 which mandates <br />that public facilities shall have capacities sufficient to meet levels of service established in the Plan and the <br />intensity of future development identified on the Future Land Use Map? <br />[Policy 28. Public services and facilities shall be designed with capacities sufficient to meet levels of service <br />established in this plan, support the needs of the projected population, and the intensity of future development <br />as identified on the Future Land Use Map.] <br />JUNE 139 1995 71 <br />Property #1 <br />Property #2 <br />Property #3 <br />Property #4 <br />SW comer of 87th St/ <br />N side 82nd <br />S side 82nd St. <br />Near NE <br />Location <br />55th Av <br />St. 178'+/- E <br />150'+/- E of US 1 <br />comer 85th <br />of US 1 <br />St/46th Av. <br />Size (acres) <br />15+/- acres <br />8.8+/- acres <br />.7+/- acres <br />5.5+/- acres <br />N: <br />Golf Course/RM-6 <br />Groves/RM-6 <br />Inactive Grove/A-1 <br />Groves/CG <br />MH Park/RM-6 <br />Adjacent Land _ <br />S: <br />SF DUs/RM-6 <br />Retail/CL <br />Groves/RM-6 <br />Use/Zoning <br />Vacant/II. & CL <br />E: <br />MH Park/IL <br />Groves/RM-6 <br />SF DUs/RM-6 <br />Groves,Wet- <br />lands/RM-6 <br />W: <br />Vacant/RM-6 <br />Vacant/CL <br />Retail/CL <br />Grove/CG,CL <br />Existing FLUM <br />C/I <br />M-1 <br />M-1 <br />M-1 <br />Existing Zoning <br />IL <br />A-1 <br />RM -6 <br />RM -6 <br />Proposed FLUM <br />M-1 <br />C/I <br />C/I <br />C/I <br />Proposed <br />RM -12 <br />CL <br />CL <br />CG <br />Zoning <br />ISSUES ADDRESSED <br />If approved, in addition to other Plan requirements, the County should produce analysis that demonstrates <br />that the proposed land use amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use <br />Element policies: <br />1. Criteria for Node Size. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.20 which provides criteria <br />for node size based on land use, population, existing land use, and other demand characteristics? <br />[Policy 1.20. Nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use classification and service area <br />population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics.] <br />2. Criteria for Node Expansion. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.23 which provides <br />criteria for node expansion? <br />[Polity 1.23. No Node should be considered for expansion unless 70016 of the land area (less rights-of-way) <br />is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non-residential and non-agricultural <br />development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development.] <br />3. State Coastal Management Policies. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with State policies for <br />managing development in coastal high hazard area (CHHA)? <br />State policy 9J-5.003(14) recently amended the definition of "coastal high hazard area" to include the evacuation <br />zone for the Category I hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the <br />local government. The Florida State Division of Emergency Management Computer Model indicates that the <br />CHHA is located in the vicinity of subject property #4 and extends westward to 46th Avenue and therefore <br />embraces the subject site. <br />4. Impact on Public Facilities. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 2.8 which mandates <br />that public facilities shall have capacities sufficient to meet levels of service established in the Plan and the <br />intensity of future development identified on the Future Land Use Map? <br />[Policy 28. Public services and facilities shall be designed with capacities sufficient to meet levels of service <br />established in this plan, support the needs of the projected population, and the intensity of future development <br />as identified on the Future Land Use Map.] <br />JUNE 139 1995 71 <br />