5/21/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Scurlock interrupted to ask about the 1.9 MG capacity mentioned in the memo, which he considered incorrect. Director Keating agreed that the figure 1.9 MG includes existing capacity as well as proposed expansion, which should not be considered until it is constructed, and that detail will be corrected. Director Keating directed the attention of the Board members to the CONCLUSION portion of the above memo, where he wanted to correct a mistake pointed out by the applicant. Staff had said any inconsistencies between the amendment and the Plan's concurrency policy would prohibit you from approving this request, and that is not true because the wording in here is that you should consider, or should not consider for expansion; therefore, it is not a prohibitory statement. He apologized for that mistake. He emphasized that the State agencies are looking over our shoulder, and we -must keep in mind, in evaluating comp plans, one criterion in justifying expansion is whether it is consistent, even when the wording is should and not shall. He explained his contention regarding the inconsistencies as established in Policy 13.3 and Future Land Use Policy 1.23, the 70% criterion. He then went over in detail exactly how staff established the node size and calculated the percentage that was developed, but further noted that staff now agrees with the applicant that the lots that were platted in Riverwalk Commercial Subdivision should be considered as developed even though there is nothing on them. Commissioner Eggert asked, in the recalculation of that acreage, what the new total was and Director Keating answered it increased from 54% to 58% developed. Commissioner Scurlock felt there is a basic question of whether the node should be expanded even if it were 100% developed. This expansion would create another piece of property which would be bordered on two sides by commercial and one side by road frontage and his concern is whether commercial property should be allowed to encroach further to the west under any circumstances. Director Keating agreed there are two issues to be addressed: one, is the size appropriate or does it need to be expanded; and, two, is the configuration adequate the way it is or should it be changed. When the policy was adopted it was assumed that the node acreage was set at the correct amount, and the 70% criterion was based on the fact that when the node gets full, in order to keep the market going, there would need to be an expansion. So the question of expansion of the node under any circumstances is an issue the Board could address. 27 POfK �� ,, � 9J MAY C d9`1