Laserfiche WebLink
sooK 97 PnGF 618 <br />For the reasons identified above, the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County <br />Commissioners not take full advantage of the state's more flexible <br />concurrency requirements. Recognizing that allowing roadways to <br />operate below minimum acceptable levels of service for more than <br />three years would adversely affect the quality of life in the <br />county, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the <br />three year concurrency allowance be changed to one year. <br />At the transmittal public hearing the Board of. County Commissioners <br />agreed that allowing roadways to operate below minimum acceptable <br />levels of service for more than three years would adversely affect <br />the quality of life in the county. The Board, however, indicated <br />a preference for more flexibility than the one year concurrency <br />allowance recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. For <br />that reason, the Board voted to transmit the proposed amendment <br />with a two year concurrency allowance. <br />Given those considerations, staff's position is that adopting the <br />two year concurrency allowance will be sufficient. While giving <br />the county less than the maximum concurrency flexibility allowed by <br />state law, this alternative will ensure that any traffic congestion <br />and quality of life impacts will be of shorter duration. At the <br />same time, development projects can be approved, and growth will <br />not be restricted. And over a longer timeframe, level -of -service <br />standards will be adequate. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The proposed amendments will enhance the plan by updating the <br />Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvement Elements to reflect new <br />conditions and information, as well as changes to state law. The <br />analysis also demonstrates that these amendments will maintain the <br />plan's internal consistency. For these reasons, staff supports the <br />adoption of the proposed amendments. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County <br />Commissioners adopt the attached ordinance amendmening the <br />comprehensive plan. <br />ATTACHMENTS <br />1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application <br />2. Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan <br />3. Approved Minutes of the October 26, 1995 Planning and Zoning <br />Commission -Meeting <br />4. Approved Minutes of the November 21, 1995 Board of County <br />Commissioners Meeting <br />5. DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report <br />6. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance <br />Director Keating advised that Table 13.24 shows several <br />roadways that are close to capacity and could be a problem sometime <br />_ in the future. Public Works Department has indicated they feel <br />comfortable with the projected dates for these projects. He <br />explained that there could be development projects coming in that <br />might put one of these roadways over capacity and the Board would <br />have the discretion of approving that development project as long <br />78 <br />March 19, 1996 <br />