7/16/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In addition to several agricultural, recreational, and institutional site development options, the applicant has the following four residential site development options. 1) The applicant can create a subdivision or apply for an affidavit of exemption to create 16 five -acre lots. 2) The applicant can create an agricultural planned development with 16 one -acre or smaller lots clustered together on a portion ofthe site The remainder of the site could be used for agriculture or open space, with a portion available for recreational uses. 3) The applicant can work with adjacent property owners to the west and south, within the urban service area, to create a Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project. The county's TND option was created based on the recommendations of the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The EAR identified TNDs as a preferred development option for the county Additionally, the EAR recognized that since expansion of the urban service area would be premature for the foreseeable future allowing TNDs to straddle the urban service area boundary could be used as an incentive for the development of TNDs and as an alternative to urban service area expansion. 4) The applicant can work with other owners ofland outside ofthe urban service area and proximate to the subject property to consolidate land holdings and develop a new town project as allowed by comprehensive plan policy 1.34. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staffhas determined that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment conflicts with the comprehensive plan, specifically, the request conflicts with Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policies 1.1, 1.11, 14.3, and 4.1; Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1, and Housing Element Policy 1.2. The analysis also indicates that the proposed amendment increases the likelihood of the occurrence ofland use mcompatibihties. By granting the proposed amendment request, the county would encourage similar requests in the future and lose its opportunity to create an efficient, non - sprawl development pattern in the future. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area that currently is suited for agricultural or other non -urban uses, not urban density residential development. For these reasons, staff does not support the request to change the subj ect property's current land use designation. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staffrecommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny this request to change the land use designation and zoning of the subject property and to expand the urban service area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary Page 2. "Beutell Justification for Land Use Designation Change" 3. Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Applications 4. Minutes of the April 11, 2002 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission 5. Transmittal resolution JULY 16, 2002 -74- of (rr