5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

® s � staff report. Specifically, staff has explained why it is logical, rational, and efficient to ensure that the urban service area includes land on both sides of roadways serving as major utility (water and sewer lines) corridors. In order to ensure that a consistent approach is taken countywide regarding the establishment of urban service area boundaries in the Proximity of utility corridor roadways, planning staff and DCA proposed policy 1.37. As structured, this policy satisfies DCA's concerns regarding urban service area expansion and urban sprawl. Another of DCA's objections related to the county's failure to justify its position that the proposed amendment satisfied the oversight criterion of Future Land Use Policy 13.3. Staff has addressed this objection by expanding the data and analysis section of this staff report. As revised, the staff report explains why failure to consider the effects of roadways serving as major utility corridors influences the location of the urban service area boundary and why that fact justifies approval of this amendment. DCA also objected to the proposed amendment based upon its effect on the county's residential allocation ratio. This objection has been addressed by revision of the data and analysis section of this staff report. Not only do those revisions indicate that the proposed amendment will have a negligible effect on the county's residential allocation ratio; but the revised staff report also explains that DCA's ORC Report references incorrect population figures as a basis for the allocation ratio objection. Besides the objections above, several others were included in the ORC Report. These related to the amendment's inconsistency with county plan policies to discourage development within agriculturally designated areas and with the propensity of the proposed amendment to encourage urban sprawl. These objections have been addressed by revisions to the staff report. As modified, the staff report explains that, because the proposed amendment is warranted based upon utility corridor reasons, there will be no adverse impact on agriculturally designated areas nor an encouragement of urban sprawl. It is staff's position that the changes referenced above not only address DCA's general objections but also address ORC Report objections relating to state plan and regional plan inconsistencies. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located outside of the County Urban Service Area (USA); however, part of this request involves an expansion of the USA to incorporate this property. The urban service area encompasses that portion of the county deemed suited for urban scale development and therefore higher residential densities. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. For that reason, the comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum level of service standards for these services and facilities are maintained. Future Land Use Policy 3.2 states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system. Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations requires a conditional concurrency review for land use amendment requests. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning requests 67