10/24/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

paved road with 60 feet of existing public road right-of-way and is classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Oslo Road is programmed for expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. The portion of 13th Street S.W. that abuts the site is a two-lane unpaved road with 30 feet of existing public road right-of-way and is classified as a collector on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 13th Street S.W. is programmed for expansion to 60 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. Currently, 82nd Avenue does not extend south of Oslo Road, although 60 feet of undeveloped public road right-of-way does extend from Oslo Road, south to I-95. Extension of 82nd Avenue south of Oslo 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; • potential impact on environmental quality; and • the ORC Report comment and staff's response. 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 ohel.lenging 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 53 October 24, 1995 BOOK '6 FAf�E•)