5/22/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Transportation System Subject Property 1 abuts US 1, which is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. The segment of US 1 that is adjacent to Subject Property 1 is a four lane road with 120 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of US 1. Subject Property 1 is bounded on the north Road on the future roadway thoroughfare Subject Property 1 is a two lane road with by 53`d Street. Classified as an Urban Principal Arterial plan map, the segment of 53rd Street that is adjacent to 120 feet to 150 feet of public road right-of-way. Indian River Boulevard forms the eastern border of and provides access to Subject Property 2. That segment of Indian River Boulevard, classified as an Urban Principal Arterial Road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, is a four lane road way with 200 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of Indian River Boulevard. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. Plan Amendment Review Standards Unlike most land use designation amendment requests. this request does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a commercial/industrial node reconfiguration and a ±1.33 acre decrease in node size, rather than an expansion of a node. For this reason. the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As such. the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis. The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing a density or intensity increase, the subject amendment involves only a locational shift in future land uses and an overall decrease in land use intensity. These different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan. a high standard of review is justified For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and that many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. May 22, 2001 42 BK • i E 8 Ft 8 AN