7/11/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: do • The proposed amendment will convect a mistake in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment is wan -anted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject Property; or • The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. The proposed land use amendment meets the policy's second and third criteria. On February 13, 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, Subject Properties 1, 2, and 3 were privately owned. At that time, those sites were correctly designated for agricultural or residential uses. Since then, those sites have been purchased for conservation purposes. The acquisition of Subject Properties 1, 2, and 3 by public agencies constitutes a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject properties and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. In contrast to the other sites which were privately owned when the plan was adopted, Subject Property 4 has been owned by the county since 1939. Due to an oversight, however, Subject Property 4 was designated L-2 instead of C-1. By designating the site C-1, the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan and meets Policy 14.3s second criterion. For those reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. JULY 119 2000 -89- BK 114 PG 105