5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Besides the adjustment/interpretation change, policy 1.35 was also modified to more specifically state that parcels split by node boundaries could be excluded from the node or included within the node. As revised, policy 1.35 sets general criteria for inclusion or exclusion. It is planning staff's position that proposed policy 1.35, as revised, satisfies DCA's objections and meets the county's objectives. Staff supports the modified policy. There are several alternatives available to the county with respect to this issue. one is to take no action and not adopt new policy 1.35. Another option is to adopt proposed policy 1.35. A third option would be to amend proposed policy 1.35. New Policy 1.36, Aaricultural/Residential Buffer During Compliance Agreement negotiations with DCA regarding the alternative 1 (Poppel) amendment to the comprehensive plan, DCA expressed concern that the county's plan had no agricultural/residential buffering requirement. To address DCA's concerns, the staff assured DCA that the county would consider a buffer amendment at its next plan amendment submittal window. The county through its land development regulations has already addressed the issue of requiring new residential developments to provide buffers from active agricultural operations. When the LDR's were prepared, this issue was addressed in detail, and adequate criteria were developed. The proposed new policy would essentially just incorporate those criteria within the comprehensive plan. There are several alternatives available to the county. First, the county can opt to take no action and not adopt this new policy 1.36. The second is to adopt this policy. Finally, the county can revise the policy and adopt the revised policy. Policies 1.19 and 4.3 As referenced in policies 1.19 and 4.3, the County has designated commercial/industrial land uses within nodes on its comprehensive plan. In assigning all commercial/industrial land to nodes, the county eliminated the MW (mixed use) designation that was used in the earlier county plan. When the new plan was created, the former MXD areas were referred to as corridors. In reality, there is no difference between nodes and corridors, and the corridor designation, has been a source of confusion. In order to eliminate this confusion, it is staff's recommendation to utilize the term node and to remove the word corridor from policies 1.19 and 4.3 of the Future Land Use Element. The County's alternatives with reference to these proposed changes are to adopt as recommended; revise and adopt the policies; or not to adopt and retain the existing wording. Policy 2.4 Policy 2.4, as worded, has incorrect terminology. This policy indicates that the Urban Service Area (USA) is shown as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map. That, however, is not the case; instead, the USA is part of the Future Land Use Map, not overlaid on it. Revision of this policy would add clarity and reduce confusion. With this policy change, the county has the options of adopting as recommended, as revised, or not adopting. Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements Water and Sewer Connection Matrix 125 I Y r10