1/6/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• N Pursuant to FS 380.06 which governs DRIs, the county may determine that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation. It should be noted that, in staffs opinion, the request does not constitute a substantial deviation. If such a determination is made by the Board of County Commissioners, then the request will be treated as a proposed change or "minor amendment". As a minor amendment, a change in an approved D.O. can be made by the Board of County Commissioners without a formal recommendation from the Regional Planning Council. The Board of County Commissioners is now to determine whether the request does or does not constitute a substantial deviation. If the Board determines that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation, then the Board is also to take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed D.O. amendment. This request is being made in conjunction with a PD plan request that is scheduled for Board consideration immediately following this DRI modification request. ANALYSIS: •Determination: Not a Substantial Deviation Request The requested change could result in an increase in the maximum number of dwelling units allowed within Grand Harbor (from 2,553 to 3,206 or an increase of 25.6%). However, under the requested change, no such increase in residential units could be made without a corresponding decrease in previously approved office and/or commercial uses. The net effect would be a simultaneous increase in one use and decrease in another use. Under the proposed change, such a swapping -out of uses would be required to result in no net increase in traffic generation/attraction. In support of this proposed swap -out arrangement, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis that demonstrates no net increase in impacts resulting from the request. DCA, TCRPC, and county staff have reviewed and accepted the traffic analysis. Criteria for determining whether or not the request constitutes a substantial deviation are found in F.S. 380.06(19). Those criteria state that a request to increase the number of dwelling units by 5 percent or more (as is the case with Grand Harbor's request) shall constitute a substantial deviation. However, the criteria also state that for multi -use projects (such as Grand Harbor) a "substantial' increase in dwelling units that is off -set by a simultaneous decrease in another use is presumed to be a substantial deviation that may be "rebutted by clear and convincing evidence". In the opinion of DCA, TCRPC, and county planning staff, the applicant has presented such evidence by structuring a limitation of no net increase in project traffic that is fully supported by a traffic analysis prepared by a traffic engineer and accepted by reviewing traffic engineers. Therefore, in staff s opinion, this request should not be considered a substantial deviation because: 1. The request seeks a build -out date extension of less than 5 years [below the presumptive threshold for extension timeframes specified in F.S. 380.06(19)], that is supported by an accepted traffic analysis that shows no adverse impacts from the extension. 2. The request seeks no increase in project intensity as measured by traffic generation/attraction, and is supported by an accepted traffic analysis demonstrating that the simultaneous increase in residential units and decrease in office and commercial uses, as proposed, would create no adverse impacts. Thus, in staffs opinion, the Board should determine that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation. January 6, 1998 BOOK 104 PAGE 23