|
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 />For this reason, the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan 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 has recently amended its comprehensive plan to specifically allow future land use
<br />map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. That change
<br />was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was
<br />found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation, have been
<br />adopted by the county and found "in compliance" by DCA.
<br />Because Objections 2, 3, and 4 of DCA's ORC Report are related, the county's response will be
<br />divided into two sections. The first section will address Objection 1, while the second section will
<br />address Objections 2, 3, and 4 together.
<br />- Objection 1
<br />DCA's first ORC Report objection is that the county's comprehensive plan does not contain land
<br />use intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. While density, usually
<br />reported in unitsiacre, measures residential land use intensity, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) measures non-
<br />residential land use intensity. FAR indicates the ratio of building floor space to parcel size. For
<br />example, a 10,000 square foot building on a 1 acre parcel has a.23 FAR (10,000/43,560 =.23). Add
<br />a 5,000 square foot second story and the FAR increases to .34 (15,000/43,560 = .34).
<br />Because Objection 1 does not apply specifically to the proposed amendment, the appropriateness of
<br />that objection within an ORC Report for the proposed amendment is questionable. A clearly more
<br />appropriate opportunity to raise that objection would have been during the recently completed
<br />evaluation and appraisal of the entire comprehensive plan.
<br />Nevertheless, two points are particularly relevant to this objection. The first point is that, until DCA
<br />reviewed the proposed amendment, this objection had never been raised. That DCA has had
<br />numerous opportunities to raise this objection is demonstrated by the fact that the comprehensive
<br />plan was adopted in 1990, found "in compliance" in 1991, amended 38 times since adoption, and
<br />been the subject of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report that was determined to be -sufficient by DCA.
<br />In effect, DCA has found the existing comprehensive plan "in compliance" numerous times,
<br />although the plan has no established C/I intensities.
<br />A more important point is that the comprehensive plan does, in fact, indirectly set intensity standards
<br />for development within the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Future Land Use Element
<br />Policies 1.16 and 1.18 state that county land development regulations shall provide performance
<br />standards for commercial/indusuW development which at a minimum address gross floor area, open
<br />space, impervious surface ratios, buffering, landscaping, and parking. Consistent with those policies,
<br />county land development regulations do set such standards.
<br />To address the first ORC Report objection, the "Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan" section
<br />of this staff report has been expanded to include a discussion of Future Land Use Element Policies
<br />1.16 and 1.18.
<br />Additionally, planning staff proposes one other action to address the first objection in DCA's ORC
<br />Report. During the next comprehensive plan amendment application window, which is the month
<br />of July 1998, planning staff will initiate a comprehensive plan text amendment to specifically set
<br />land use intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial land use designation.
<br />JUNE 291998
<br />0
<br />-24- .
<br />
|