4/10/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 101990 Fd ,r �� BOOK FAGS In eliminating the MXD designation, staff's intent was to provide for a reasonable and orderly development pattern, accommodate those uses which have been legitimately and legally established and remove the uncertainty inherent in the MXD designation. In its analysis of this area, staff reviewed the existing land use and development pattern, zoning pattern and overall land use distribution in the county. This review consisted of mapping non -residentially zoned areas, determining the existing uses of these areas, and classifying the existing uses as either commercial, industrial, government, residential, agriculture or vacant land. To identify the existing uses, the staff used the property appraisers use classification system, property appraisers use data, and field survey results. Based on this review, staff identified all existing uses which were consistent with the zoning of the property on which they were located, and the staff assigned such property a land use designation consistent with its use. Map B shows the existing generalized development pattern of this area. The staff's intent was to not create non -conformities. •Properties with uses which were inconsistent with their non-residential zoning designations (vacant and residential) were reviewed by the staff. Staff examined surrounding uses, surrounding zoning and development potential. As a result some properties with commercial or industrial zoning were redesignated to a residential land use category. Properties which were zoned for residential were generally assigned the M-2 Residential designation. Alternatives & Analysis Since it has been brought to the attention of staff that mistakes may have been made or irregularities exist, staff has again reviewed the land uses in the area between 58th and 43rd Avenues, south of 45th Street, and one parcel on the south side of 41st Street just west of the FEC Railroad. Based on this more in depth review, staff concedes that several errors or ommissions had occurred and that several changes to the land use map are warranted based on the staff intent and determination. Map C shows the land use designations which would be consistent with the original criteria and intent of staff. The county Attorney's Office has reviewed this matter and has issued an opinion whereby in certain instances the county may administratively make adjustments to the land use map. These are limited to those cases where an error or oversight occurred and the resulting correction would be consistent with the overall intent of the plan and the resulting change would not negate the concurrency requirements of the plan. Several alternatives are available to correct this oversight. The first of these is to direct staff to correct the land use map shown on Map C and report these changes to the Department of Community Affairs during the next plan amendment submission timeframe. The second alternative is to direct staff to initiate an amendment during the next submission timeframe. Lastly, the commission may take no action thereby requiring any individual property owner to seek an amendment during. the July submission timeframe. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners concur with staf intent to correct the land use map as shown and direct staff to notify the Department of Community Affairs of these corrections as an Evaluation and Appraisal Report during the next plan amendment submission timeframe. 40