4/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 12 494 - 1100 approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way, this segment of 77th Street is programmed to be paved by 1995. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of node reconfiguration, the analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; • potential impact on environmental quality; and • alternatives. Discussion of Node Reconfiguration - Standard of Review Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request involves a -net decrease in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an expansion, of commercial/industrial nodes. Besides the commercial reconfiguration, this request involves removing 8.4 acres of M-1 designated land, with a density of up to 8 units/acre, while adding 8.4 acres of L-2 designated land, which has a density of up to 6 units/acre. The net result is a decrease of 2 units/acre for 8.4 acres. 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 density or intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a locational shift in future land uses with a net density decrease. Staff's position is that 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, in fact, many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. - Land Use Efficiency The proposed amendment involves reconfiguring two commercial/ industrial nodes. While the node containing Subject Property 2 focuses principally on the U.S. #1 Corridor, the node containing Subject Property 1 is positioned to serve both the U.S. #1 and the C.R. 510 Corridors. Several factors suggest that there is a greater need for more commercially designated land along the C.R. 510 Corridor than along the U.S. #1 Corridor. These factors include: population growth on the northern portion of the barrier island and along the C.R. 510 44 M -