Laserfiche WebLink
- M <br />would not significantly affect the 4.48 residential allocation <br />ratio, these changes would provide justification for adjacent <br />property owners immediately to the north, south and west to request <br />a higher residential land use designation and inclusion in the <br />urban service area. This would prompt other property owners <br />located within the 58th Avenue to 74th Avenue and 82nd Avenue area <br />- <br />to request land use designation changes and extensions to the urban <br />service area. Such changes would significantly increase the total <br />number of dwelling units allowed in the urban service area, with <br />the effect being an increase in the residential allocation ratio. <br />Since there is sufficient land within the' USA to accommodate <br />projected development well past the 20 year timeframe of the plan, <br />there -is no need to expand the USA. Therefore, this land use <br />amendment -is *inconsistent; with Policy 6.1. <br />Drainage Policy, 8.1 <br />Drainage Policy 8.1 states that only low density and low intensity <br />uses .are allowed in flood prone areas.. The only exception is for <br />existing platted subdivisions. The purpose of this policy is to <br />promote adequate drainage and prevent flood damage to property in <br />low lying lands. The subject property lies in a flood prone area <br />``and therefore should be developed with low density development. <br />The agricultural land use designation of the subject property is <br />consistent with drainage policy 8.1. While a change in land use <br />designation to rural would still be consistent with this low <br />.: <br />`density policy, it is staff's opinion that density increases should <br />�- <br />not be encouraged in flood hazard areas. <br />—Alternatives <br />' Staf f has reviewed the proposed amendment and has several concerns. <br />has <br /><<It is`staff's position that the proposed use is incompatible with <br />surrounding uses and is inconsistent with several policies of the <br />; <br />'adopted comprehensive plan. Given that position, -staff has. <br />i ;identified several alternatives available to the applicant and}�� <br />alternatives available to the Board of County Commissioners. <br />t <br />�4 <br />•^ <br />Alternatives to the Proposed Amendment <br />aC <br />1, <br />' Based upon staff review, it is staff's position that the applicant <br />r has several alternatives for development of the subject property. <br />' <br />These are as follows: <br />y' <br />1. Develop the subject property with the current agricultural <br />land use density as a cluster development. <br />2. Wait until infill development promotes expansion of the USA <br />before developing at a higher density. <br />3. Pursue the land use amendment request. <br />'.- As provided for by Future Land Use Policy 5.8, the subject property <br />can be developed as a planned development with the present <br />agriculture designation. Future Land Use Policy 5.8 gives three <br />criteria for development as a planned development in an agriculture <br />-land use designation. The first criterion is that the density of <br />the project cannot exceed the maximum density of the agriculture <br />land use designation. The second criterion limits lot size; lots <br />create3 through the Ylar�rau develormGnt process cannot exceed one <br />acre in size. The third criterion is that open space areas must be <br />retained as natural or as agricultural uses with certain allowances <br />for open space as recreational areas. <br />Based upon these three criteria, the subject property could be <br />developed in a cluster of eight, one acre or smaller lots. The <br />advantage to developing this property as a planned development <br />would be that a portion of the property could be developed at this <br />time in a manner that would allow its further development if and <br />when future conditions warrant an increase in density. <br />75 <br />�- �?. BOOK. <br />