Laserfiche WebLink
In cases of imprecise node boundaries or split parcels, the node <br />boundary should be adjusted or clarified. At present, the county <br />has only one option to make minor node boundary adjustments. This <br />is to take each node adjustment through the standard comprehensive <br />plan amendment process. This procedure results in a long process <br />with substantial delays to applicants desiring to develop their <br />property. Since node boundary adjustments are minor, involving <br />only portions of parcels, streamlining the process would benefit <br />;..both applicants and the county. <br />To accomplish this change, staff has drafteda proposed amendment <br />that would allow minor administrative adjustments of node <br />boundaries in conjunction with the rezoning of affected parcels. <br />The minor node boundary adjustment would be, applicable when the <br />total acreage of designated commercial/industrial land is not <br />;:increased.. As part of this new policy, the County would notify the <br />>DCA of any node boundary adjustment through an -annual report. <br />.There are several alternatives available to the county with respect <br />-to this issue. . one .is to take no action and not transmit new <br />policy 1.35 to the DCA for their review. Anther option is to <br />'approve proposed policy 1.35 and transmit it to the DCA. A third <br />..option would be to amend proposed policy 1.35 and transmit the <br />`revised policy to DCA. <br />�` <br />ew Policy 1.36 Agricultural/Residential Buffer <br />- <br />. During Compliance` Agreement negotiations with DCA regarding the <br />alternative 1 (Poppel).amendment to. -the comprehensive plan, DCA <br />.expressed - concern . that the county's plan had no <br />;:agricultural/residential buffering requirement. To address DCA's <br />.concerns, the staff assured DCA that the county would consider a <br />?buffer amendment at its next plan amendment submittal window. <br />The county through its land development regulations has already <br />"addressed the issue of requiring new residential developments to <br />provide buffers from active agricultural operations. When the <br />LDR's were prepared, this issue was addressed in detail, and <br />adequate criteria were developed. The proposed new policy would <br />essentially just ..incorporate those criteria within the <br />comprehensive plan. 'i'.. <br />:" There are several alternatives available to the county- First, the <br />`county can opt to take no action and not transmit this new policy <br />to <br />this policy -and 1.36 to the DCA. The second is approve P Y -and transmit <br />it to the DCA. Finally, the county can revise the policy and <br />transmit the revised policy to DCA. <br />Policies 1.19 and 4.3 <br />As referenced -in policies 1.19 and 4.3, the County has designated <br />commercial/industrial land uses within nodes on its comprehensive <br />plan. In assigning all commercial/ industrial land to nodes, the <br />county eliminated the MXD (mixed use) designation that was used in <br />the earlier county plan. When the new plan was created, the former <br />MXD areas were referred to as corridors. In reality, there is no <br />difference between nodes and corridors, and the corridor <br />designation has been a source of confusion. In order to eliminate <br />this confusion, it is staff's recommendation to utilize the term <br />node and to remove the wuid corrldo-L- f coift -pulicies 1.19- and 4.3 of - <br />the Future Land Use Element. <br />The County's alternatives with reference to these proposed changes <br />are to approve as recommended and transmit to DCA, revise and <br />transmit to DCA, or not to transmit and retain the existing <br />wording. <br />Policy 2.4 <br />Policy 2.4, as worded, has incorrect terminology. This policy <br />17 <br />NOV 12 ISM <br />L_ <br />BOOK 84 Pr�Gr 9 d7 <br />