|
, r. t ;. r
<br /> ";: . , : s , �
<br /> s . , __} Yk . S:< q , t,: 4, ...,t .a _ '.+ .. '+ v..«s"^. i }-. S "r >• r c •r : .,c
<br /> : r 3 ,r};'
<br /> -
<br /> d�R # '�. ri ;°i :,F. 4 o- d i'r 5 tur }* ;.e % x r a } ` r 1 T ix t L iN , r✓ dy'
<br />SY».s - Y P
<br /> �.y
<br /> 1 z,. $%. # 4•r :,y� ''" ti f a": +`7A;.r 5v . xu x , r r z 3
<br /> ; 5
<br /> o- x
<br /> ti3,sIf-
<br /> If
<br /> Background
<br /> In January 2000. Clontz and Beuttell submitted land use designation amendments to redesignate their
<br /> separate properties . Mr. Clontz ' s land use amendment request was to redesignate his property from
<br /> AG - 1 . Agricultural - 1 ( up to 1 unit/5 acres ) , to M - 1 . Medium - Density Residential - 1 ( up to
<br /> 8
<br /> units/acre ) . Beuttell ' s land use amendment request was to redesignate his property from AG - 1 to
<br /> L- 1 , Low - Density Residential - 1 ( up to 3 units/acre ) . Both amendment applications also included
<br /> requests to expand the USA to include their properties . Both applicants , apparently coincidentally ,
<br /> retained attorney Micheal O ' Haire to present their requests to the Planning and Zoning Commission
<br /> and to the Board of County Commissioners .
<br /> On Mav 11 , 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of the
<br /> Beuttell request which was subsequently withdrawn . Also on May 11 , 2000, the Planning and
<br /> Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of the Clontz request.
<br /> 9
<br /> t
<br /> Despite the negative recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. the Clontz request
<br /> was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners which, on July 11 , 2000, voted 5 to 0 to deny
<br /> the request. Although the Board denied the request, the Board indicated a desire to "find some relief , _ .
<br /> for Mr. Clontz . " The Board also acknowledged that , because the circumstances affectins the Clontz
<br /> property were similar to the circumstances affecting many other properties in the county, action taken
<br /> on the Clontz property would have countywide implications . For those reasons , the Board instructed
<br /> staff to continue to study the issue and present alternatives to the Board . Those alternatives were t
<br /> presented to the Board and discussed at an October 9 , 2000, workshop meeting .
<br /> At the October 9' workshop , staff presented several land use and urban service area alternatives .
<br /> In addition to staffs alternatives , Mr. O ' Haire presented a proposal to the Board . That proposal
<br /> gives relief to Mr. Clontz by increasing the number of residential units that could be built on his
<br /> property . Specifically , the proposal is to establish a new T, Transitional Residential , land use
<br /> designation. This new designation would apply to land currently designated AG- 1 , Agricultural - 1
<br /> ( up to 1 unit/5 acres ) , provided the following criteria are met :
<br /> 1 ) The property must abut the urban service area ;
<br /> 2 ) The property must abut a commercial/industrial node ;
<br /> 3 ) The property must front on an arterial road ;
<br /> 4) Utilities - water and sewer - must be available at the property boundary ; and
<br /> 5 ) The property must be at least 20 acres
<br /> c
<br /> Mr. O ' Haire ' s proposal allows T designated land to be developed with residential uses at a density
<br /> of up to 1 unit/acre, or up to 3 units/acre if the project is developed as a Planned Development ( PD ) .
<br /> Recognizing that such a proposal needed technical analysis . the Board instructed staff to review ,
<br /> analyze , and "clean-up" the proposal ; and report back to the Board . 1
<br /> z
<br /> On December 12 , 2000, staff reported back to the Board. One of staff s findings was that only three
<br /> properties in the county met all of the criteria of Mr. O ' Haire ' s proposal . Those properties are the
<br /> subject properties .
<br /> At the December 12 ' meeting , staff presented several alternatives , including Mr. O ' Haire ' s proposal ,
<br /> to the Board . Another alternative presented to the Board was an alternative new T. Transitional
<br /> Residential , land use designation developed by staff. The staffs T designation was structured to
<br /> more broadly address the issue of agriculturally designated land abutting boundary USA bound t
<br /> roads where
<br /> utility lines exist in the right-of-way of those roads . That alternative was intended to give relief not
<br /> only to Mr. Clontz, but also to similarly situated property owners . For that reason, the staffs T
<br /> designation alternative would apply to ±892 acres , a significantly larger area than the ± 164 . 1 acres
<br /> the O ' Haire alternative would apply to . 1
<br /> JUNE 59 2001 _
<br /> - 85 -
<br /> .. bY •ZY �,>t� e� ,� S dlig r ,.ry x yi a '?s .ri rr ^r + : .. xf rx } rFi
<br /> w `" �, §b,y;, " `ux r c* 'f"a .} ."Yr-'�?"'ti•r ,?,a .y .'19it } .r + t � �, s s 1
<br /> r 5 r �a. " � +�. :tae a ?c'
<br /> s. '. 1 v ' "- a ' r3r
<br /> Abe c e k c`, 3?
<br /> Gt, > `,3=, `h rW `' If
<br /> r`T F'' v","Fx's 3: '-n're'el„ kasx:h.'dN# ..; .,5 p '.c=. asJ�.l`s zt* .« ;r z r � 'T ✓ t - t t
<br /> 3 -t s " •w b ,:,?i ,r y
<br /> a a
<br /> r far #, a ,,
<br /> , r
<br /> s
<br /> . ,, . . .. '# z. . . . . as . .. + .,�.., rc#� x ,., ...1 .,4" m `..-.c, 4 r x
<br /> ,_ .. ... . . ., .
<br />
|