Ordinance No. 19953 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Metro Plan Amendment Criteria #2 -Adoption of Metro Plan amendments must not make the Plan internally inconsistent. This proposed Metro Pian diagram amendment will not make the Plan internally inconsistent. Inconsistency could result if the diagram reflected a land use that was inconsistent with a fundamental principle of the Metro Plan or a policy directed, a particular property or area. Inconsistency could also result from a significant shift in land inventories for a particular land use category creating a discrepancy between supply and demand. This proposed Metro Plan amendment is consistent with the fundamental principles and policies of the plan. As noted in the discussion of Goal 9, this amendment as recommended by staff involves only 13 acres and will not significantly change the inventory of industrial or residential land. There are no policies that relate directly to this specific area. Many Metro Plan policies are generally applicable to this request. The consistency of this request with those polices is demonstrated by the examples provided below, Residential Lands and Housin Element Policy 23, page II-B-7 states that to accomplish the fundamental principle of compact urban growth, low-density residential development should average six units per acre on a metropolitan-wide basis. This residential area is significantly below the average density at 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Development of this area has been anticipated since the subdivision was platted in 1946 and has not occurred due to construction of Beltline Hwy and surrounding industrial uses. Re-configuration of the area is an opportunity to increase residential densities in this area which is already within the urban growth boundary. Public investment in the service systems have ahead been made to su rt increased residential develo meet - Y pPo p in this area. Policy 12, page III-A-S promotes compatibility between residentially zoned land and adjacent areas. The site review criteria proposed for this site exceed the current standards in the code for industrial areas that abut residential areas. Policy 20, page III-A supports conservation of existing housing in stable neighborhoods. The neighborhood has undergone significant change since it was platted in 1946. Re- conFguration of the neighborhood in response to the changes has never occurred and as a result, the level of residential development that was planned for this area has not been achieved. The re-orientat;.on of the neighborhood away from the industrial uses and Beltline Hwy and the buffering proposed in the site review criteria will maintain and enhance the residential viability of this neighborhood. Policy 26, page III-A-7 encourages in-fill development on existing subdivision Tots within the urban growth boundary. Altering the land use patterns in this area will encourage the fang anticipated development of this subdivision. Exhibit B -Findings - 8