12/12/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_, at a previous meeting when the Board considered a comprehensive plan amendment to expand the urban service azea and change the land use designation for a parcel owned by Gerald Clontz. At the workshop meeting, several questions arose regarding the location of utility lines and flood prone areas. As a result, the Board instructed staff to provide that information at a future meeting. This staff report contains the information requested by the Baazd. Also at the October 9`" meeting, Mr. Clontz's attorney, Michael O'Haire, presented a proposal to the Board for creating a "transitional" area far land meeting certain criteria. Recognizing that such a proposal needed technical analysis, the Board instructed staff to review, analyze, and "clean-up" the proposal; and report back to the Board. This staff report discusses Mr. O'Haire's proposal and several other alternatives. Attachment 7, at the end of this staff report, is a matrix summarizing the alternatives. At this time, the Boazd is to detet�rtine whether or not the county should initiate a comprehensive plan amendment during the January comprehensive plan amendment application submittal window. If the Board decides to initiate a plan amendment, the Board must provide staff with general direction regarding the characteristics of the amendment. BACKGROUND On Juiy i I, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners considered Mr. Clontz's request to amend the comprehensive plan future land use map designation of his property from AG -I, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unitl5 acres), to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 {up to 8 unitsiacre); and to expand the urban service area to include his property. Although the Board denied the request by a 5 to 0 vote, the Board indicated a desire to "find some relief for Mr. Clontz." The Board also acknowledged that, because the circumstances affecting the Clontz property were similar to the circumstances affecting many other properties in the county, action taken on the Clontz property would have countywide implications. For those reasons, the Board instructed staff to continue to study the issue and present alternatives to the Board. Those alternatives were presented to the Board and discussed at the October 9, 2000, workshop meeting mentioned above. At the October 9`� workshop, staff presented several land use and urban service area alternatives. In addition to staff s alternatives, Mr. O'Haire presented a proposal to the Board. Attachment I is the specific proposal presented by Mr. O'Haire. That proposal gives relief to Mr. Clontz by increasing the number of residential units that could be built on his property. Specifically, the proposal is to allow land currently designated AG -1, Agricultural -1 {up to 1 unit/5 acres), to be developed at a density of up to I unit/acre or, if developed as a Planned Development (PD), up to 3 unitsiacre, provided the following criteria are met: I) The property must abut the urban service area; 2) The property must abut acommercial/industrial node; 3) The property must front on an arterial road; 4) Utilities -water and sewer -must be available at the properly boundary; and 5) The property must be at Least 20 acres THE CLONTZ PROPERTY Depicted in Figure 1 below, Mr. Clontz's property is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of the Main Canal and 58`� Avenue (Kings Highway}. Two parcels, one � 12? acres in size and the other tl$.b acres in size, comprise the sits which contains a citrus grove and a residence. Because both the Main Canal and 58`h Avenue are urban service area boundaries in that area of the county, the site abuts the urban service area on two sides. December 12, 2400 105 � • ii