|
Hmv 12 19911
<br />Boor 84 FADE 746
<br />have been used by applicants and staff. The result has been an
<br />emphasis on methodology disagreements, instead of an analysis of
<br />substantive criteria based on accepted data, information and
<br />calculations.
<br />- New Policy 1.35 for Minor Node Boundary Adjustment
<br />On its Future Land Use Map, the County assigned
<br />commercial/ industrial land use designations to various parcels.
<br />All of these parcels were then included within
<br />commercial/industrial node boundaries. During the comprehensive
<br />plan preparation process, however, staff did not have adequate time
<br />to examine each node in sufficient detail to make certain that all
<br />node boundaries corresponded to property boundaries. Consequently,
<br />there are instances in which node boundaries split smnall •properticc.
<br />or, due to the scale of the future land use map, the node boundary
<br />does not clearly identify which parcels are included in a node and
<br />which are not. When a node boundary divides small parcels of land,
<br />the portion of the parcel within the node has a non-residential
<br />designation and the portion of the parcel outside of the node has
<br />a residential designation. In these cases, development of such a
<br />parcel becomes impossible. Also, undefined node boundaries create
<br />many problems for both applicants and staff.
<br />16
<br />To rectify this problem, staff has revised policy 1.23 to
<br />incorporate a methodology to be used to asses node expansion
<br />requests. As reflected in the revised policy, the changes involve
<br />-
<br />specification of information sources (current node boundary map,
<br />and property appraiser's map) and identification of.a development
<br />area determination methodology. With these changes, policy 1.23
<br />will be more easily understood and applied by the planning and
<br />zoning commission, board of county commissioners, staff, and
<br />applicants:
<br />While policy 1.23 has a specific 70 percent node expansion
<br />criterion, the policy also has the "otherwise warranted" catch-all
<br />phrase. Although that phrase had been included to provide
<br />flexibility, it has not served that purpose. Instead, DCA has
<br />reviewed node expansion requests strictly - using the 70 percent
<br />factor.and generally discounting the unless "otherwise warranted"...*
<br />phrase because of its lack of specificity. Consequently, DCA had
<br />suggested that the policy be revised to delete the phrase or to
<br />,.,more
<br />specifically define it.
<br />Since staff has addressed several node expansion requests, various'
<br />circumstances warranting expansion without a 70 percent or more
<br />buildout have been identified. These include: a need to
<br />.accommodate
<br />a use where no suitable sites for expansion exist in
<br />Y�
<br />-of-waYexisting nodes; a need to compensate for Planned right
<br />acquisition; a need to address changes in circumstances making land
<br />;
<br />outside of a node unsuitable for residential development; and a"i
<br />need to accommodate existing non -conforming uses. By incorporating
<br />these criteria as a further definition of otherwise warranted,;',
<br />y
<br />policy 1.23 will be more specific, •yet provide the flexibility
<br />Mrs`
<br />necessary to accommodate node expansion in certain cases.
<br />r'
<br />In summary, revised policy 1.23 will provide clarity, consistent
<br />k
<br />results and uniform methodology.As a result, node expansion
<br />*,
<br />decisions can be made based on ubstantive criteria supported by,.;
<br />r
<br />adequate data and analysis..;
<br />r
<br />There'are several alternatives available to the county -in. -relation -
<br />yd
<br />to policy 1.23. Generally, these are to keep the existing policy
<br />1.23, recognizing that there will be problems and ambiguities for
<br />k
<br />each node expansion request; to delete policy 1.23 and have no node
<br />V
<br />expansion criteria; to approve policy 1.23, as revised, for
<br />transmittal to the DCA; or to approve policy 1.23, with additional`
<br />-
<br />revisions and transmit it to DCA.
<br />- New Policy 1.35 for Minor Node Boundary Adjustment
<br />On its Future Land Use Map, the County assigned
<br />commercial/ industrial land use designations to various parcels.
<br />All of these parcels were then included within
<br />commercial/industrial node boundaries. During the comprehensive
<br />plan preparation process, however, staff did not have adequate time
<br />to examine each node in sufficient detail to make certain that all
<br />node boundaries corresponded to property boundaries. Consequently,
<br />there are instances in which node boundaries split smnall •properticc.
<br />or, due to the scale of the future land use map, the node boundary
<br />does not clearly identify which parcels are included in a node and
<br />which are not. When a node boundary divides small parcels of land,
<br />the portion of the parcel within the node has a non-residential
<br />designation and the portion of the parcel outside of the node has
<br />a residential designation. In these cases, development of such a
<br />parcel becomes impossible. Also, undefined node boundaries create
<br />many problems for both applicants and staff.
<br />16
<br />
|