I am currently working on two master plans in the same jurisdiction. The jurisdiction has a general plan that shows a generalized location of land uses for areas that are targeted for new growth outside of its City Limits, but within its Sphere of Influence. When formulating the land use concepts for both the master plans, we took the general acreages for the higher density residential uses, and re-arranged them in the Plan Area. In addition, we moved the neighborhood commercial location from the center of the plan area and expanded it to server the greater area rather than specific neighborhood as the area was lacking a neighborhood center that could accommodate a grocery store / drug store combo.
Everything was going well until the a new planning director was hired, and thus stalling each project. Although some of the policy changes have been for the better, he believes that floating "land uses" do not exist, and thus wants to re-evaluate the land uses and make them into the shape that is shown on the general plan, thus losing the integration we have creating for medium density, low density, and high density within the neighborhood in favor of the separation of uses along the outer edge of the Plan Area as shown in the City's general plan. So the question is, as planners, specifically my fellow colleagues in the public sector, do you give your comp plans a literal interpretation as this? This includes circles for parks, general location for future schools etc?