11/12/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF_ Nov. Boor 4 i,�,Uc806 If the subject property were developed as a cluster development, the applicant could wait to develop the remaining 32 acres at a higher density at that point in the future when the urban service area is expanded and the density increased. There is the possibility that increased development and the extension of utility lines adjacent to the urban service area might justify an expansion of the urban service area and an increase in the property's density in the future. Since the county reviews the comprehensive plan every .five years, the possibility exists for a county initiated expansion of the urban service area in 1994. Alternatives for the County I There are two alternatives which the Board of County Commissioners can take concerning the applicant's request The first would be to deny transmittal of this request to the Department of Community Affairs. * The second would be to approve the transmittal of the request to the Department of Community Affairs. j 4 Conclusion It is staff's that the applicant's request is inconsistent position with adopted comprehensive plan policies in the Future Land Use�v,;: Element and other elements in the plan. These are described in detail in the above analysis section. This inconsistency warrants ={a= --denial of the proposed land use amendment. Presently, the subject property is,in an area designated for agricultural and low density x��h -: -residential-._development and, based upon staff's analysis, this request does not warrant a change in that designation. ,ter E No! RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION Based upon its anal sis, staff recommends that'the Board of Co P Y unty Commissioners deny transmittal of this land use amendment to : they" Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and deny the request to rezone the property. 76 W W