6/13/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

500K 95 PAGE 393 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. Concurrency of Public Facilities All four tracts comprising this request are located within the County Urban Service Area, an -area deemed suited for urban scale development. 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. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed. For land use designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDR), conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested land use designation. For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use ( according to County LDR' s ) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1, the portion of the proposed amendment to be residentially designated, is as follows: 1. Size of Area.to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: JUNE 139 1995 53 M M ±15 acres C/I,- Commercial/ Industrial Node 150,000 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). - M