10/24/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M ® M ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of plan amendment review standards, 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 • the ORC Report comment and staff's response. Plan Amendment Review Standards Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve a net increase in land use intensity, As proposed, the request involves a minor reconf iguration, *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 signif icantly * 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. 95 October 24, 1995 door 96 PACE 479