Laserfiche WebLink
LAND USE AMENDMENTS RESULTING IN A NET CBANGE IN # OF UNITS <br />AMsl®. <br />Bsr <br />MAX. <br />=I <br />D9IT8/ <br />MAX. <br />idiP CSASiiF <br />WAME <br />FROM <br />UNM AC. <br />ACRES <br />ACRES <br />To <br />ACBE <br />.oxlTs <br />nv oNITs <br />Salley <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />18.40 <br />13.60 <br />82 <br />M-1 <br />8/1 <br />110 <br />+26 <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 />Tarty <br />M-1 <br />8/1 <br />130.30 <br />97.73 <br />781 <br />RC <br />0 <br />0 <br />-761 <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 />KAR Groves <br />M-2 <br />8/1 <br />8.40 <br />6.30 <br />50 <br />_C/1 <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 />Xorine <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 />Sob. Assoc. <br />L-2 <br />6/1 <br />4.00 <br />3.00 <br />IB <br />C/I <br />0 <br />0 <br />-18 <br />Seb. Assoc. <br />M-1 <br />8/1 <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 />CJI <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 Comnrehensive 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 />While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, <br />some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan <br />amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for <br />this request are the following objectives and policies. <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 <br />In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important <br />consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy <br />requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a <br />land use amendment request. These criteria are: <br />• a mistake in the approved plan; <br />• an oversight in the approved plan; or <br />• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject <br />property. <br />Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use <br />amendment meets policy 13.3's second and third criteria. <br />The subject property is located approximately one mile from the SR <br />60 and 58th Avenue Commercial/industrial Node. On July 19, 1994, <br />the Board of County Commissioners approved a land use amendment <br />that enlarged that node by 130.3 acres. That land use amendment <br />was associated with the Indian River Mall Development of Regional <br />Impact (DRI) for a regional shopping center consisting of <br />approximately 1.5 million square feet of retail space. A <br />Development Order for that DRI was also approved by the Board of <br />County Commissioners on July 19, 1994. On June 8, 1995, <br />approximately 1.275 million square feet of that shopping center <br />received site plan approval from the county. <br />MARCH 18, 1997 77 a <br />BOOK PAGE "'D <br />