6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-Other Plan Policies Besides Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3, several other policies have* applicability to this amendment request. These include Policies 1.23, 1.21, and 10.1, all of the Future Land Use Element. Future Land Use Policy 1.23 requires 70% of the land area in a node or commercial/ industrial corridor area to be developed or approved for development before the node or corridor can be considered for expansion. Under typical circumstances Future Land Use Policy 1.23 is a major consideration in deciding whether land use and zoning changes are warranted; however, due to the previous oversight in the rezoning and land use change made in 1985, the 70% criterion stated in Policy 1.23 is not applicable. Similarly, policies 10.1 and 1.21 are not applicable because of the oversight. According to policy 10.1, non -conforming uses are to be amortized and eventually eliminated. In this case, however, it was an oversight that made the referenced uses non -conforming. It is staff's position that if the uses on Block "U" had been considered in detail, the block would have been designated commercial and the existing uses not made non -conformities by the plan. That would have been consistent with the plan preparation methodology of recognizing the predominant land use pattern in an area by assigning a land use designation consistent with that pattern. With respect to Policy 1.21 which provides for discouraging strip commercial development, staff feels that the proposed amendment would not be inconsistent. Since Block "U" is substantially developed already, allowing the remaining lot to be used non - residentially will not promote strip commercial development. Given the compact nature of Block "U" and a recognition that Block "T" is appropriately designated residential, approval of the subject amendment request will not promote strip commercial development in this area. The comprehensive plan policies referenced above were adopted to guide the county's -future growth and development. As such, their intent was to encourage or discourage certain types of development in certain areas. The policies were not designed to effectively preclude the use of certain properties. In this case, the small size of the subject property, its limited developability as residential, and the existing uses in Block "U" warrant approval of the request. DCA Objections Despite the nature and intent of DCA's objections to the subject amendment request, staff feels that the preceeding analysis adequately addresses the state's concerns. These concerns extended beyond the subject -property, itself, and reflected DCA's concerns that a similar rationale would be used to justify extending the commercial land use designation to adjacent tracts. It is staff's position that the analysis section of this staff report establishes that an oversight occurred during the plan preparation process. It also indicates that approval of the amendment request would not be inconsistent with established plan policies. With the more detailed concurrency analysis based upon the most intense use of the property under the proposed land use designation, staff feels that all of DCA's concerns have been adequately addressed. CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses. The subject property is located in an area designated for low density - single -family residential development; however, the property's MIN 1991:` r, d 1,07 117 �ooK