Laserfiche WebLink
F, <br />BOOK 99 f',ti�E2 <br />involving residentially designated land within the urban service <br />area have been approved. The effect of these amendments has been <br />a net decrease of 1,141 units in the county's build -out projection. <br />The following table depicts the information used to determine the <br />change in the number of units. Since the Commercial/ Industrial <br />(C/I), Regional Commercial (RC), and Conservation -1 (C-1) <br />designations are not intended for residential uses, land use <br />amendments redesignating land from residential to C/I, RC, or C-1 <br />reduce the number of units allowed. Similarly, land use amendments <br />redesignating land from one type of residential to a lower density <br />residential reduce the number of units allowed. <br />In contrast, amendments redesignating land from C/I, RC, or C-1 to <br />residential, or from one type of residential to a higher density <br />residential, increase the number of units allowed. Since staff <br />estimates that 25t of land designated for residential uses is used <br />for infrastructure such as roads and stormwater retention, the net <br />developable acreage of any residential land use plan amendment is <br />75% of the total acreage. <br />LAND <br />USE <br />AMENDMENTS <br />RESULTING <br />IN A NET <br />CHANGE <br />IN # OF UNITS <br />AMEND. <br />NETMAK. <br />UNITS/ <br />MAX. <br />NET CHANGE <br />NAME <br />FROM <br />ONITS/AC. <br />ACRES <br />ACRES <br />UNITS <br />TO <br />ACRE <br />OMITS <br />IN UNITS <br />Bailey <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />18.40 <br />13.80 <br />82 <br />M-1 <br />8/1 <br />110 <br />+28 <br />Oslo Park <br />C-2 <br />1/40 <br />233.00 <br />174.75 <br />4 <br />C-1 <br />0 <br />0 <br />-4 <br />M-2 <br />10/1 <br />65.00 <br />48.75 <br />487 <br />C-1 <br />0 <br />0 <br />-487 <br />Tarby <br />M-1 <br />8/1 <br />130.30 <br />97.73 <br />781 <br />RC <br />0 <br />0 <br />-781 <br />Rhodes <br />R <br />1/1 <br />159.00 <br />119.25 <br />119 <br />L-1 <br />3/1 <br />357 <br />+238 <br />Brewer <br />L-1 <br />3/1 <br />6.40 <br />4.80 <br />14 <br />AG -1 <br />1/5 <br />1 <br />-13 <br />K&R Groves <br />M-2 <br />8/1 <br />8.40 <br />6.30 <br />50 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-50 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />8.40 <br />6.30 <br />0 <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />37 <br />+37 <br />Korine <br />L-1 <br />3/1 <br />15.00 <br />11.25 <br />33 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-33 <br />Smith <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />1.86 <br />1.40 <br />8 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-8 <br />Koerner <br />M-1 <br />8/1 <br />0.31 <br />0.23 <br />1 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-1 <br />Feldman <br />AG -1 <br />1/5 <br />40.00 <br />30.00 <br />6 <br />R <br />1/1 <br />30 <br />+24 <br />Windsor <br />C/I <br />0 <br />15.33 <br />11.50 <br />0 <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />69 <br />+69 <br />Seb. Assoc. <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />4.00 <br />3.00 <br />18 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-18 <br />Seb. Assoc. <br />M-1 <br />6/1 <br />4.00 <br />3.00 <br />24 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-24 <br />Ames <br />L-1 <br />3/1 <br />20.00 <br />15.00 <br />45 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-45 <br />Rockwell <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />0.32 <br />0.24 <br />1 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-1 <br />McRae <br />M-2 <br />10/1 <br />6.80 <br />5.10 <br />51 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-51 <br />Oslo Plaza <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />4.83 <br />3.62 <br />21 <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-21 <br />TOTAL <br />-1141 <br />Because the comprehensive plan allowed over 119,000 units when it <br />was adopted, the 76 unit increase associated with the proposed <br />amendment would have a negligible impact on the county's RAR, even <br />if land use amendments had not lowered the number of units allowed <br />by the plan. When considering the 1,141 unit reduction in build- <br />out projections resulting from land use amendments, it is obvious <br />that the reduction more than compensates for the additional 76 <br />units associated with this request. For these reasons, the <br />proposed amendment's impact on the county's RAR is insignificant. <br />Consistency with Comprehensive Plan <br />Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for <br />consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per <br />section 800.07(1) of the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan may only be <br />amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of <br />the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." Amendments must <br />also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as <br />depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, <br />residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and <br />industrial land uses and their densities. <br />The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of <br />the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which <br />identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the <br />community's development. As courses of action committed to by the <br />county, policies provide the basis for all county land development <br />related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions. <br />NOVEMBER 12, 1996 58 <br />