|
The criterion that sets a minimum size, for example, does not benefit the owners of sm�.11er tracts
<br />that are least suitable for agricultural use and, therefore, most in need of relief. To the contrary, the
<br />proposal benefits only owners of large tracts ofland--those least in need of relief.
<br />The criterion that requires that a parcel be located adjacent to a commercial/industrial no 3e further
<br />illustrates that the proposal is structured to provide relief only to Mr. O'Haire's clients. In fact, it
<br />is more difficult to farm, and more incompatibilities occur, where agricultural uses are near
<br />residential uses than where agricultural uses are near commerciaUindustrial uses. Noise, odor and
<br />spray drift have a greater negative impact on residences than on commerciaUindustrial lane l that may
<br />generate similar impacts and may operate at more compatible hours. For that reason, providing relief
<br />to the owners of property near residential areas is more logical.
<br />Another concern is the absence of provisions, such as required buffers, to reduce potential
<br />incompatibilities caused by moving the urban service area boundary.
<br />The final concern relates to the proposed allowed density. Although Mr. O'Haire's proposal
<br />indicates that a density of one unit/acre is sufficient to provide relief for Mr. Clontz, the proposal
<br />contains a provision allowing a density bonus of up to three units/acre for Planned Developments
<br />(PDs). The proposal, however, contains no PD standards or criteria; therefore, such a PD could be
<br />developed exactly like a regular subdivision. For that reason, the purpose of including the PD
<br />provision is not clear.
<br />As structured, the proposal limits non -PD development to a maximum density of one unit/dcre. Past
<br />experience, however, indicates that development at one unit acre or less is not feasible, especially
<br />when water and sewer connections are involved. In fact, where a one uniUacre designation currently
<br />exists in the county, there has been no development other than farmhouses, since the plan was
<br />adopted. For those reasons, allowing densities of up to three units, rather than one unit, per acre
<br />without a PD requirement is logical.
<br />■ Affected Areas
<br />Based on existing parcel size and configuration conditions, as well as existing water and s ewer line
<br />placement, staff has determined that this alternative currently could be applied to up to 150 acres.
<br />Those 150 acres, shown on Attachment 5, include the Clontz site. This assumes that the two Clontz
<br />parcels will be combined to meet the 20 acre minimum size requirement.
<br />There are also two other parcels that currently meet all of the proposal's criteria. One of those
<br />parcels is f80 acres in size and is located at the northeast comer of 82nd Avenue and 5`'' S� reef, SW
<br />(Rebel Road). Extending a half a mile north of Sd' Street, SW and a quarter mile east of 82"` Avenue,
<br />that parcel is owned by Beuttell Development, Inc. In January, 2000, Beuttell Development,
<br />represented by Mr. O'Haire, applied for a comprehensive plan future land use designation map
<br />amendment to redesignate its property to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 unitsiac'e). That
<br />request was withdrawn after the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend
<br />denial.
<br />The other parcel that meets the proposal's criteria is f40 acres in size and is located at the northeast
<br />corner of 13`h Street, SW (Kelly Road) and 74`h Avenue (Range Line Road).
<br />■ Summary of Alternative 1
<br />Mr. O'Haire's proposal, as structured, provides relief almost exclusively to his clients (M�r. Clontz
<br />and Mr. Beuttell). While other properties may be more difficult to farm, and other propert, ✓owners
<br />may have a greater need for relief, they would not qualify for such relief under the proposal' s narrow
<br />December 12, 2000
<br />108
<br />BK ! 1 � gG � 3 8
<br />
|