Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Refinement Plan Amendment - TRS 18-03-03-2-3, Tax Lots 199, 200, 300 January 13, 2004 Page 12 Findings: As noted above, the Applicants have been advised that the subject property is, as a practical matter, undevelopable for residential uses. The existing power lines pose physical, psychological and economic constraints on the subject property so that development for residential uses is impracticable. Consequently, the subject property is and will remain vacant unless it can be put to some other productive use. That is not an efficient use of urban land. Maintaining an inapprOpriate plan designation for a parcel such that the property can not be put to the use it is planned for is not in the public interest. The public has a strong interest in sound and effective land use planning policies and practices. The situation that currently exists with the subject property represents neither a sound nor an effective land use practice. Amending the applicable refinement plan, so that the plan designation for the subject property is one that will allow it to be effectively developed, represents an efficient use of urban land and is in the public interest. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this Metro Plan provision. (Obiective) Coordinate residential land use and housing planning with other elements of this plan and with locally adopted plans. (III-A-3) Findings: One of the purposes of the East Laurel Hill Area portion of the Laurel Hill Plan is to develop guidelines for development of a commercial/residential node as noted in the Metro Plan. That node locates commercial and medium density residential uses in a concentrated area in East Laurel Hill, adjacent to the subject property. As such, it coordinated the residential land use and house planning with the economic elements of the Metro Plan. Unfortunately the refinement plan did not recognize the site constraints, located on the subject property, that prohibit development of the site for residential land uses. In this particular instance, the locally adopted plan did not effectively coordinate residential use and house planning with economic factors. Land that is plan designated residential, but can never be developed for that use does not benefit either the housing planning or economic use elements of the Metro Plan. Amending the refinement plan as proposed corrects this flaw. While it does not add property for residential uses, the proposal recognizes that there is land in the City that is not appropriate for residential housing and that sUch land should be plan designated for other appropriate uses for which it can be developed. Thus, the proposal relates effective housing planning and other elements of the Metro Plan. Consistency with the locally adopted plan, the Laurel Hill Plan, is addressed in detail below. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this Metro Plan provision. II-B-12