3/18/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 100 PAGE 919 respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested land use designation. For conservation land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDR'a) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density allowed under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Maximum Number of Units with Existing Land Use Designation: 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: tlll acres L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) 666 C-1, Conservation -1 (zero density) S. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Land Use Designation: 0 As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review, because the requested land use designation would not increase the total number of potential units that the site could accommodate. It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of the proposed land use amendment. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Under the requested C-1 designation, there will be no development on the subject property except for minor facilities associated with passive recreation activities. For that reason, the subject request will enhance compatibility between development on the site and surrounding land uses. In contrast to the 666 units allowed under the existing land use designation and zoning district, development under the requested land use designation would be limited to conservation -uses and recreational uses. In terms of traffic, noise, and aesthetics, the impacts associated with uses allowed under the proposed C-1 designation will be significantly less than those that would occur with development under the existing land use designation. In fact, the recreational uses allowed under the requested land use designation will serve as an amenity for nearby residential uses. For these reasons, staff has determined that the requested land use designation and zoning district are compatible with the surrounding area. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Chapter 163.3177(2) F. S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating -a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: MARCH 18, 1997 46 a