12/7/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Either 36" Street or 37`" Street could provide access to the subject properties. Classified as an urban collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, the segment of 37' Street that is east of US 1 is a two-lane paved road with approximately 110 feet of existing public road right-of- way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of 37t' Street. Thirty Sixth Street is a two lane local road with 80 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of 36h Street. In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. 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 a commercial industrial node. 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 without an increase in land use 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 that many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. In fact, in March 1998, the county amended its comprehensive plan to specifically allow future land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. That change was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation, were adopted by the county and found "in compliance" by DCA. Both sites 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, Stormwater Management, 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. December 7, 1999 61 BOOK ih PAGE 1 •