5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F, MM 0 51992 BOOK existing nodes; a need to compensate for planned right-of-way acquisition; a need to address changes in circumstances making land outside of a node unsuitable for residential development; and a need to accommodate existing non -conforming uses. By incorporating these criteria as a further definition of otherwise warranted, policy 1.23 will be more specific, yet provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate node expansion in certain cases. In summary, revised policy 1.23 will provide clarity, consistent results, and uniform methodology. As a result, node expansion decisions can be made based on substantive criteria supported by adequate data and analysis. There are several alternatives available to the county in relation to policy 1.23. Generally, these are to keep the existing policy 1.23, recognizing that there will be problems and.ambiguities for each node expansion request; to delete policy 1.23 and have no node expansion criteria; to adopt policy 1.23, as revised; or to adopt policy 1.23 with additional revisions. New Policy 1.35 for Node Boundary Interpretation On its generalized Future Land Use Map, the County assigned commercial/ industrial land use designations to various parcels. All of these parcels were then included within commercial/ industrial node boundaries., During the comprehensive plan preparation process, however, staff did not have adequate time to examine each node in sufficient detail to make certain that all node boundaries corresponded to property boundaries. Consequently, there are instances in which node boundaries split small properties or, due to the scale of the future land use map, the node boundary does not clearly identify which parcels are included irr�a node and which are not. When a node boundary divides small parcels of land, the portion of the parcel within the node has a non-residential designation, and the portion of the parcel outside of the node=`has a residential designation. In these cases, development of such a parcel becomes impossible. Also, undefined node boundaries create many problems for both applicants and staff. In cases of imprecise node boundaries or split parcels, the node boundary should be clarified. At present, the county has only one option to make node boundary interpretations. This is to take each node adjustment through the standard comprehensive plan amendment process. This procedure results in a long process with substantial delays to applicants desiring to develop their property. Since node boundary interpretations are minor, involving only portions of parcels, streamlining the process would benefit both applicants and the county. To accomplish this change, staff drafted a proposed amendment that would allow minor administrative adjustments of node boundaries in conjunction with the rezoning of affected parcels. Upon its review of this proposed amendment, DCA determined that node "adjustments" could not occur without formal plan amendments. DCA also expressed concern that the proposed amendment did not indicate that parcels split by node boundaries could be excluded from the node as well as included within the node. While DCA's objection to proposed policy 1.35 seemed to be unresolvable, that proved not to be the case. Through coordination, county planning staff and DCA staff modified proposed policy 1.35 to make it acceptable to the state and useful for the county. The major change to proposed policy 1.35 involved changing terminology from node boundary "adjustment" to node boundary "interpretation." As an interpretation, the action would not involve a change in the plan; therefore, a plan amendment would be unnecessary. Because of the scale of the county's future land use map, identifying a node boundary really is an interpretation. 124 M