Laserfiche WebLink
r I <br />BOOK PAGE,356 <br />Service Area then that property must be at least 1,200 acres. In this case, the subject property, which <br />is approximately one mile from the Urban Service Boundary, is only 18.8 acres. Therefore, <br />consolidating the subject property with other lands would be necessary to consider establishing a <br />mixed use land use designation on the subject property. <br />Both alternatives, the agricultural PD and the mixed use district, illustrate the ability of the <br />Comprehensive Plan to accommodate land owners of agriculturally designated land. These <br />alternatives provide another option, in addition to agricultural operations, for land owners to use to <br />obtain an acceptable rate of return on their land. Additionally, broth alternatives while providing for <br />development of agricultural designated lands, do not create urban sprawl. <br />Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment <br />conflicts with the comprehensive plan; specifically, the request conflicts with Future Land Use <br />Objectives 1 and 2 as well as Future Land Use Policies 1.1, 1.13, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 13.3. Most <br />importantly, the subject property is located in an area that is not suited for medium -density single- <br />family residential uses. <br />For these reasons, staff does not support the request to change the subject property's current land use <br />designation. <br />Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that <br />the Board of County Commissioners deny this request to change the land use designation of the <br />subject property and direct staff not to transmit this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the <br />state Department of Community Affairs. <br />NOVEMBER 4, 1997 60 <br />