Ordinance No. 19762 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy insofar as it continues to provide for low-density residential development on a portion of the property. It might also be noted that the Bethel-Daneba Refinement Plan does discuss a type of mixed-use designation f or a portion of the Bethel Triangle area. Proposal #S at page 22 of the plan contains the following statement: "In light of the deterioration of existing development and residential quality in the immediate vicinity of Qgle, Madera, and Allane Streets, consideration should be given to revitalization of the area. This may involve development of a mixed-use cottage industry district, allowing continued industrial and residential uses of existing structures and potential for joint residential/ cottage xndustr~al use of residences." The concept of a mixed-use designation for property is not inconsistent with other portions of the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Pian. when considering the issue of consistency of the amendment with other portions of the refinement plan, it is pertinent to note the following provision from page I-5 of the Metropolitan Plan: "In all cases, the Metropolitan Plan is the guiding document, and refinement plans and policies must be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan." The Metropolitan Plan expressly authorizes application of a mixedwuse designation in certain circumstances. As shown above, use of a mixed-use designation in the present instance is consistent with the Metropolitan Plan. By virtue of that f a.ct, it is also consistent with the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan, particularly in view of the absence of any explicit treatment to the contrary for the subject property. Section 9.1 ~S(l }~c~. ~'he plan amendment is found to address one or more o f the following; 1. An error in the publication o f the plan; Z. A change o f circumstances in a substantial manner not antr'ci pated in the plan; 3. Incorporation into the plan o f new inventory material which relates to a statewide goal; or 4. A change in public policy. Df the four alternative standards listed above, the third standard is not applicable because there is no new inventory material related to a statewide goal at issue here. The fourth standard also appears inapplicable since there is no apparent change in public policy that is relevant to this situation. However, the first two standards are relevant, as indicated by the following: 1. Use of the subject property for nonresidential purposes was acknow- Application for Amendment to the Bethel-Daneba Refinement Plan, Page 7 of Z 1