12/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 111990 C Internal Inconsistency Among Plan Elements There are several minor changes to the data and analysis portion of the plan to addressinaccuracies and typing mistakes. There are also changes_ -to� -£die' data and analysis portions of various plan elements to justify various policy changes and to address internal consistency. These changes are identified in attachment "A". On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the request as presented by the staff to the Board of County Commissioners and to recommend transmittal of this request~to the DCA. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the changes will be presented. The analysis will identify the general advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments and will evaluate alternatives. Residential Land Use Designation As indicated in the description section of this item, one of the major reasons for the DCA finding the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan not in compliance was the amount of land designated for residential development on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This residentially designated land can accommodate many more residential units than are needed based on the plan's population projections. To reduce the number of units allowed, the county agreed to reduce the density in the agricultural areas west of I-95, to reduce the size of the Urban Service Area by moving its boundaries to the east, and to reduce the density of areas falling outside of the USA. In evaluating the proposed amendments, it is useful to contrast the technique used by the county to prepare its land use plan map and that followed by DCA. While the county focused almost exclusively on natural constraints and- man-made conditions, DCA used a population based approach. Under its method, the county identified the limits of urban service provision and designated land within those limits, assigning different densities based on existing densities, natural constraints, and proximity to services. According to the DCA's land use policy, a community's population projection is the most important factor in land use designation. With this method, the population projection becomes a cap, and only that amount of land needed to serve the projected population receives an urban designation. With urban land uses confined to compact areas, more efficient provision of facilities and services can occur. Revision of the future land use map, as proposed, will leave the county somewhere between these two techniques. The county does propose to pull back its Urban Service Area, reduce densities in the. agricultural areas, and reduce densities in the central and southern portions of the county. However, the county still has an ample supply of land to accommodate the full range of land uses for a period well beyond the planning horizon, and this density reduction would not preclude future development in the county. The proposed new USA boundary has been established by excluding active agricultural land furthest from existing developed areas and other land that does --not have access to urban services. The result of this reduction to the USA will be more infill development. The total amount of growth and development is not expected to be 46