Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />Summary of Changes to Address DCA's Objections <br />Subsequent to receipt of the DCA ORC Report, planning staff <br />assessed DCA's objections and coordinated with the DCA staff <br />regarding their resolution. In this case, DCA's objections were <br />not substantive in nature. Rather, the objections related to <br />technical aspects of the transportation analysis. Consequently, <br />staff revised the transportation analysis to incorporate the <br />specific data requested by DCA and DOT. <br />Listed below is a summary of each of the revisions staff made to <br />the transportation analysis, in order to address DCA's objections. <br />o The total p.m. peak hour, peak direction traffic impacts <br />have been indicated in the transportation portion of the <br />concurrency review. <br />o The methodology used to distribute volumes to the <br />impacted roadways, as shown on the Impacted Roadway <br />Segment chart, has been specified in the paragraph before <br />the chart. <br />o Exiting trips and entering trips have been analyzed <br />separately to identify the distribution of trips to <br />and/or from the site to each TAZ and to identify the <br />assignment of these trips to the available roadway <br />network. This methodology is described in the Traffic <br />Analysis section (page five) of this staff report. <br />The revisions referenced above address three of the five components <br />of the principal DCA objection. It is staff's position that the <br />other two components of that objection were adequately addressed <br />in the staff report transmitted to DCA. Staff feels that the <br />methodology used to derive project demand data for each segment and <br />the procedure used to calculate new trips are adequately addressed <br />on pages 5-7 of this staff report. <br />With the revisions and explanations referenced above, DCA's <br />principal objection and its state plan inconsistency objection have <br />been addressed. <br />Concurrency -of Public Facilities <br />This site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an <br />area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive <br />plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, <br />Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use <br />Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary <br />to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. <br />The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be <br />reviewed to ensure that the minimum level of service standards for <br />these services and facilities are maintained. <br />Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that -no <br />development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the <br />concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements <br />Element. For comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests, <br />conditional concurrency review is required. <br />As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations, <br />conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of <br />each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since <br />comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning requests are not <br />projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be <br />based upon the most intense use -of the subject property based upon <br />the requested zoning district or land use designation. For <br />hospital/commercial comprehensive plan amendment requests, the most <br />intense use (according to the county's LDR's) is retail commercial <br />with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land <br />39 <br />MAY 0 5 1992 <br />