LPA Reso 2007-48 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR)-BASED AMENDMENTS address this Objection, DCA recommended that the City provide data and analysis evaluating the impacts of the proposed amendment on evacuation times and levels of service for public facilities, and provide for mitigation of these impacts. It is not the City's intent to increase its residential development capacity beyond what is currently provided for in the Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. The proposed amendment to Future Land Use Policy 15A. (Application No.1, Future Land Use Element Amendment 32, pp. 8 - 9) has been revised to remove the reference to 75 units per acre and 3.5 F.A.R., and other language that might be interpreted to suggest that the City is increasing densities and intensities in the District beyond what is presently allowed. Objection 2. Inadequate Specification of Affordable Housing Measures DCA and the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) objected to the proposed Housing Element amendments because the revised policies lacked specificity. The proposed amendments to the Housing Element (Application No.3, Housing Element amendments 2 - 6, pp. 17 - 18) have been revised and strengthened in response to these concerns. Objection 3. Protection of Road Rights of Way from Encroachment DCA and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) objected to the amendment because it does not include an objective calling for the protection of road rights-of-way from building encroachments. The reviewers overlooked Objective 10 of the adopted Transportation Element and its implementing policies, which address protection of road rights-of-way from encroachment. There is no need to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include an Objective that already exists. Please see Transportation Element Objective 10 on Page 38 of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. In addition, FDOT recommended inclusion of a Policy addressing coordination with the District Permits Engineer on access management issues. Although not included in DCA's report, the City is addressing this recommendation through the addition of new Transportation Element Policy 10E. (Application No.2, Amendment 13, Page 16). Objection 4. Updating of Concurrency Requirements DCA objected to the proposed amendment because it did not include a concurrency management system, or fully address recent changes to State growth management requirements regarding concurrency and a financially feasible five year capital improvement program. The objection suggests that a concurrency management system is not provided for in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. On the contrary, Objective 5 of the Capital Improvements Element and its implementing policies address the City's concurrency management system (see pp. 57 - 59 of the adopted Comprehensive Plan). Proposed amendments 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 to the Capital Improvements Element have been revised to more clearly address recent changes to the State's growth management requirements (Application No.5, pp. 21 -22). Objection 5. Lack of Coordination on Water Supply DCA, SFRPC, and the SFWMD object to the proposed amendment because it did not provide for the development of a ten year water supply workplan at the City level, or adequately address coordination with the SFWMD on the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan update. The proposed amendments to the Capital Improvements Element (Application No., 5, Amendment 7, Policy 2F, P.21), Infrastructure Element (Application No.7, Amendment 1, Policy 30, P. 24), Conservation Element (Application No.9, Amendment 2, 3