September 5, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M and Analysis: sty Council has recently directed Staff to process a City Council -initiated Com Amendment for the subject 13+ acres to reclassify the Plan land use from PF tp stent with the surrounding lands. The Council also initiated a eomplimen t(::) sive ;ess for the site to reclassify zoning from PF to RR — again consistent with su RAD perties. The property owner (and pro e rezoning ,tified of the proposed actions. p rt owners within 350 feet of the site mounding hive been Jamprehensive Plan amendments are generally based on one or both of the following: I. A change of conditions regarding the subject site, or the surrounding area 2. An error in the existing plan classification. Staff review of the substantial records regarding the 1988/1989 proceedings that lead rezoning of this site from RR to PF reveal (as noted above) that there was no Comprehensive PIan amendment except the reference to the "zoning discussion Of the to the Zoning Ordinance. No findings regarding either change of conditions ore or supported se othe f amendment — rather, a basic determination of whether it wactit the City based on a substantially different understanding of the importance oas the "right,' or "f comprehensive wrong on b that cities are required by Statute to adopt in 2006. Y the Plans Staff concedes the advantages of 20/20 hindsight as we address the land use . There were no specific findings (reflected in guiding and zoning of this site today — 17 years after the action support of the 1989 action to assist in c determining the reasons for the actions _Minutes) in applicant's ownership of the site — no error cleaned, nor any change of conditions claimed the than site ownership), Today, that alone could easily be construed as and the basis to return the site to RAD land use classification and an error in the 1989 actron prior to the 1989 action to rezone (and automatically reclassify in the Comp p n). that the site held As the City has witnessed during the recent consideration of the Lakewood Church COMP Amendment and rezoning applications, PF land useguiding that is not easily addressed by Planningthol and zoning tends to be a special case geographic placement of the PF_ s or practice. Predeterming the need for and accomplished, except in the case ofar e ps�as or Plans are prepared is seldom the project alone may suggest PF needs as school) and eve church sites b hundreds of acres). In those cases scale. Beyond that, PF land use decisions (other than accommodating existing PF uses a project an ad hoc practice based as much on judgment y mere protect circumstances. J gment by planners and policy makers as on factual Findings and Recommendations: Staff suggests the following Findings application for amendment of the Comprehhe considered regarding the City Council initid ateensive PIan to reclassify this site from PF to RAD: 1. The subject site is a 13 acre "island" of PF surrounded by RAD land use guide essentially "spot guiding' with no factual basis to support the existing pp classification and RAD land use g ' guiding continues to surround the site an 3 sides.