6/10/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6001K 10i PAGE uses which are generally less than the requirement for the sum of "stand-alone" uses of the same type. C. Health & Fitness Center: Presently, there is no "Health & Fitness Center" use listed in the parking requirements. Thus, staff has had to make policy decisions on how to apply the parking code for such uses. Staff has applied a one space per 200 square foot rate where the entire facility is indoors such as World Gym or the Fitness Connection. For facilities such as Twin Oaks Tennis Club or the Jungle Club, staff has applied a rate of one space per 300 square feet of building area plus the required parking for each outdoor structure creating parking demand (e.g. tennis courts, racquet ball courts). The proposed changes will formalize the policy staff has been implementing. This formal amendment will ensure consistent application of these requirements. In staff's opinion, the rates have proven to provide for an appropriate amount of parking. PSAC Recommendation: At its March 14, 1997 meeting, the PSAC voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the proposed parking changes. PZC Recommendation: At its April 24th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board approve the proposed parking ordinance amendments. 3. Concurrency Management Regulations *Changes in Concurrency Requirements & Allowances One of the principal components of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 was a requirement that each local government in the state include a concurrency management plan as part of its capital improvements element. As enacted, the state planning law defined concurrency strictly, essentially requiring that adequate facilities (for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks, and roads) be available concurrent with the impacts of new development. In 1995, however, the legislature amended the concurrency law, providing local governments more flexibility in implementing the concurrency requirement. On March 19, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that allowed the county to take advantage of that increased flexibility. The proposed LDR amendment would formally codify the provisions of that plan amendment, thus bringing the concurrency LDRs into conformance with the comprehensive plan's latest concurrency policy changes. Although six types of facilities are subject to the state's concurrency mandate, the major focus is on transportation. Statewide, lack of adequate roads has been the primary factor which has delayed or eliminated development projects. This has occurred not only because of the cost of building new roads or widening existing roads, but also because of the long lag time between identification of a roadway level -of -service problem and completing a major roadway improvement project. For these reasons, the legislature, in 1995, modified several provisions of the state concurrency law. Among those changes, the most significant was a modification of when a capacity - enhancing roadway improvement would have to be in place to 22 June 10, 1997 � i �