5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 051992 BOOK 85 PAvt•�i Specifically, DCA stated that the proposed amendment was not consistent with the following: ° Future Land Use Policy 13.3 a. DCA stated that the county's justification for approving the subject land use amendment was not consistent with- the intent of the Urban Service Area (USA) concept. DCA noted that the purpose of the comprehensive plan is to provide infrastructure to serve land uses, not to designate land uses to serve infrastructure. b. According to the ORC Report, the county's oversight Justification was incorrect. DCA stated that the area around and including the subject property was considered during the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (SSA) negotiation process, and that no oversight was made in placing the subject property outside of the Urban Service Area (USA). ° Future Land Use Ob ective 6 and Policy 6.1 DCA stated that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the intent of Policy 6.1, which prohibits extension of public services and facilities that encourage the development of agriculturally designated lands. ° Housing Policy 2.2 DCA stated that the proposed amendment is -_not supported by an analysis of the need for increased residential development as it relates to the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population. ° Future Land Use Objective 1 and Policy 4.1 DCA stated that the proposed amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Besides the specific objections referenced above, DCA also determined that the subject land use plan amendment request is not consistent with the state plan nor with the comprehensive regional Policy plan. As indicated.An the ORC report, this inconsistency exists because the proposed amendment does not discourage urban sprawl and does not provide a balanced, well-planned mix of land uses. Planning staff has reviewed the DCA's objections, coordinated with DCA staff, and revised the analysis section of this staff report. In addition, staff has drafted a new land use policy to address issues related to the subject amendment request. With the changes proposed, planning staff feels that the proposed land use amendment will be acceptable to -the DCA. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is zoned RFD, Rural Fringe District (up to one unit per 2.5 acres), and consists of vacant undeveloped Property to the west of the subject P� land. Agriculture District, and containssinglefamily lots., most of which are t5 acres or larger. Properties to the south and north are zoned RFD, Rural Fringe District, and contain t2..5 acre single family lots. This RFD zoning is not consistent with the comprehensive plan's designation of the property as AG -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), and this RFD zoning will be changed to A-1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) with the upcoming administrative rezonings. To the east lies 58th Avenue and vacant District. land zoned A-1, Agriculture 64