10/9/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Alternative 1 This alternative expands the urban service area by 30.8 acres to initially add only the Clontz site. Of the alternatives involving urban service area expansion, Alternative 1 proposes the smallest expansion. Therefore, this request, at least initially, will have the least impact on the surrounding areas and on the county's overall development pattern. Alternative 2 This alternative expands the urban service area by approximately 600 acres to initially add only parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and abut a road that serves as an urban service area boundary. Alternative 3 This alternative expands the urban service area by approximately 330 acres to initially add only parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and abut 58s' Avenue, between the Main Canal and 13" Street, SW. Of all the alternatives that expand the urban service area beyond the Clontz site, this one limits urban area expansion to the parcels most similar to the Clontz site., Alternative 4 This alterative expands the urban service area by approximately 3,000 acres to initially add only parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and are located near a road that serves as an urban service area boundary. Alternative 5 This alternative expands the urban service area by approximately 440 acres to initially add only parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and abut 58' Avenue, between the Main Canal and 1P Street, SW. Alternative 6 This alternative is no urban service area expansion. Although it does not provide relief to Mr. Clontz, it is based on, as was the Board's July 11, 2000, denial of Mr. Clontz's original request, the fact that urban service area expansion is not wan -anted at this time. This alternative is also based on the reasonable belief that agricultural uses are feasible on the site. Staff supports this alternative. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Although there is no one alternative which will further all of the county's goals of a compact land use pattern, efficient service delivery, compatible development, agriculture preservation, and relief for Mr. Clontz, the Board must chose an alternative. In doing so, two factors should be considered. The first of those factors is whether or not Mr. Clontz can spray and maintain his grove. The analysis indicates that both state law and Sheriffs policy allow Mr. Clontz to spray. Because Mr. Clontz can spray his grove, his need for relief is questionable. The second factor that should be considered is the county's present need for additional urban land. The analysis indicates that existing vacant land in the urban service area can accommodate growth well beyond 2020. For that reason, expanding the urban service area is not necessary to accommodate growth. October 9, 2000 11 r •