Laserfiche WebLink
F-1 <br />LJ <br />ANS <br />In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a <br />discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following: <br />• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities; <br />• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the surrounding areas; <br />• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan;and <br />• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. <br />Plan Amendment Review Standards <br />Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve an increase in <br />land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an <br />expansion, of the commercial/industrial node. <br />ror tnis reason. the suoiect request can oe cnaractenzea aurerentiv trom most pian amendments. <br />Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As <br />such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use <br />patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high <br />standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires <br />justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis. <br />The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request. <br />Instead of proposing density or intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a locational <br />shift in future land uses with an overall decrease in land use intensity. <br />Staffs position is that these different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of <br />review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the Projections, <br />need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan, a high standard of review is <br />justified For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less <br />justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and, that many <br />variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. <br />In fact, the county is in the process of updating the comprehensive plan to specifically allow future <br />land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. <br />That change was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (FAR), <br />which was found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation, have <br />been transmitted to DCA for review. Based on DCA's review of the EAR, no objections to that <br />change are anticipated. <br />Both sites comprising this request are located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed <br />suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: <br />Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation (Future Land <br />Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued <br />quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for <br />these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new development <br />be reviewed For land use designation amendment requests. this review is undertaken as part of the <br />conditional concurrency determination application process. <br />As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land <br />Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land use density or intensity are exempt <br />from concurrency requirements. For the subject request, the size of the C/I node will not change, <br />although the node's shape will be reconfigured. Additionally, 46.4 acres of M-1 designated land <br />with a development potential of 211 units (26.4 acres X 8 units/am = 211 units), will be eliminated, <br />while the same amount of C-1 designated land, with no development potential, will be added. That <br />"swap" will result in an overall decrease in land use intensity of 211 units. Therefore, this land use <br />amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation <br />changes would not increase the potential land use intensity that the sites could accommodate. <br />It is important to note that approval of this request will not affect service levels for any public <br />facility. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site <br />development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. <br />r� <br />L <br />JANUARY 27, 1998 <br />-19- BOOK 104, PAGE:, <br />L <br />