Laserfiche WebLink
� � r <br />UPDATE ON DISCUSSION W/DCA RE COMP PLAN NON-COMPLIANCE <br />Community Development Director Keating reported that at the <br />meeting with the DCA staff yesterday, most of the time was spent <br />talking about the disagreement we had with the Land Use Map. He <br />referred to the map on display, which is the one staff had <br />brought to Tallahassee and thought we had initial agreement with <br />them,_ noting that it brings in the AG area a little further east - <br />of 1-95. He explained that prior to yesterday's meeting, staff <br />did a lot of number crunching and actually went in and defined <br />our Land Use designated areas a lot tighter. They made sure they <br />had extracted all the commercial and industrial designated areas <br />and all that are institutional uses - every school, every church, <br />all the recreational acreage. Then they convinced the DCA that <br />it is really necessary to take into consideration infrastructure <br />acreage - R/Ws, canal R/Ws, etc., and they consented to allow us <br />a 25% reduction for that. Then staff also convinced them that we <br />should just look at the area inside the urban service area to <br />come up with this magic ratio or factor that they look for. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if any thought was given to the <br />fact that with our Land Use regulations it is literally impos- <br />sible to develop at the densities that are stated on the map. <br />Director Keating confirmed it was explained to them that <br />most of the time that was the case. But if someone goes PD, they <br />can get their maximum density, and the problem is that DCA only <br />looks at the maximum, and they were reluctant to work with <br />anything else. They contended that given our residential pattern <br />the amount of land we have designated for the 2010 period would <br />accommodate more than 41 times the number of dwelling units we <br />have projected to need, and the DCA generally does not like a <br />factor that high. Their position has been that to prevent urban <br />sprawl, you only should provide for the building of about 1.25 <br />times the number of dwellings you need over a 20 year period. <br />We did get down to 4.5, and he believed the DCA staff was rela- <br />tively happy and will present it to Secretary Pelham today. <br />SEP 11 X990 <br />L_ <br />