Laserfiche WebLink
• a mistake in the approved plan; <br />• an oversight in the approved plan; or <br />• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject <br />property. <br />Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use <br />amendment meets policy 13.3's third criterion. <br />On February 13, 1990, when the current comprehensive plan was <br />adopted, the subject property was in private ownership. At that <br />time the site was correctly designated as L-2. Since then, the <br />site has been purchased for conservation purposes by the county. <br />The acquisition of the site by a public body constitutes a <br />substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property <br />and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy <br />13.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future <br />Land Use Element Policy 13.3. <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 states that the Conservation <br />land use designations are applied to lands which play a vital or <br />essential role in the normal functioning of ecosystems, or meri' <br />preservation as vestiges of once common county ecosystems. As <br />important part of the Scrub Habitat ecosystem, the subject prope <br />meets both of these criteria. For this reason, the reques' <br />consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4. <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 limits the C-1 land <br />designation to publicly owned land with conservation and <br />recreational uses. Since the site is publicly owned, and uses w. <br />be limited to conservation_ and recreation, the property is eligib <br />for the C-1 land use designation. For this reason, the request <br />consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5. <br />As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive <br />plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined <br />that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with <br />the comprehensive plan. <br />Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality <br />The site's existing land use designations offer limited <br />environmental protections. Residential development on the subject <br />property would be required to preserve only 15 percent of the site, <br />or 16.65 acres. In contrast, under the proposed amendment the <br />entire site would be preserved, and development would be limited to <br />conservation and compatible passive recreational uses. <br />Although the site is publicly owned and could be developed as a <br />public park under the existing land use designations and zoning <br />districts, the proposed amendment provides the site with additional <br />protection from development. By prohibiting most types of <br />development on the site, the proposed request will ensure that the <br />environmental quality of the site will be preserved. <br />For these reasons, the proposed amendment is anticipated to <br />positively impact the environmental quality of the subject <br />property. <br />Rezoning Requirements <br />As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff <br />report, state law requires that the Board of County Commissioners <br />hold two public hearings prior to approving county initiated <br />rezonings of more than ten acres. Although normally applied to <br />ensure public participation when a county initiates the rezoning of <br />privately owned land, this requirement also applies to county <br />initiated rezonings of publicly owned land. <br />The March 18, 1997 Board of County Commissioners meeting will meet <br />state requirements for one of the public hearings. The second <br />public hearing then must be held at least 10 days after the first <br />hearing. Additionally, state law requires that at least one of the <br />public hearings be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, unless four <br />Commissioners vote to conduct that hearing at another time of day. <br />In this case, several factors indicate that holding the second <br />rezoning public hearing at 9:05 a.m. at a regular Board of County <br />Commissioners meeting would be sufficient to ensure public <br />participation. Those factors include the following: <br />• although the state requirement for two public hearings is <br />normally intended for rezonings of privately owned land, the <br />subject property in this case is publicly owned; and <br />MARCH 189 1997 47 <br />aoox 100PAGE 920 <br />