11/12/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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