6/13/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 95 PAGE 365 Road is not programmed at this time. A comprehensive plan amendment that would designate 82nd Avenue as the route of the proposed citrus highway through Indian River County, however, is currently in the adoption process. That amendment would program 82nd Avenue, south of Oslo Road, as a two lane arterial road with 110 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. 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; and • potential impact on environmental quality. Discussion -of Node Reconfiguration - Standard of Review Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an expansion, of commercial/industrial nodes. 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 no change in overall land use density or intensity. 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. Another consideration involves the purpose of the county's three C/I nodes along I-95. In contrast to other nodes which are located and sized based on market area, these nodes were established for economic development purposes to attract industry and manufacturing employment to the county. Since these nodes, in aggregate, serve the entire county, they function as one node with a countywide market area. For that reason, shifting land between these nodes without updating the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan is acceptable. JUNE 139 1995 25 M M M