5/21/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 2 11991 my 83 A review of the attached matrix shows that many of DCA's objections relate to a' lack of data and analysis to support the proposed amendments. In most cases staff feels that supporting data and analysis were. included either as part of the amendment, itself, or the backup material submitted. To resolve most of those Inadequate -data objections, staff must expand its justification, include more supporting data, or in many cases just reword statements to clarify. While many of DCA's objections can, in staff's opinion, be easily resolved, some of the others involve substantive policy objections from DCA, which cannot be addressed through minor revisions to backup information. of the nine amendment requests, staff feels that three cannot be modified to adequately address DCA's objections. These three are: Alternative 1 to the stipulated settlement agreement; the McRae request to designate property on the west side of Indian River Boulevard and north of 4th Street to commercial; and the Diamond Wedge (McQueen) amendment to expand the urban service area west of I-95. Since receipt of DCA's objections, -the Diamond Wedge amendment has been withdrawn, because changes proposed for the I-95/SR 60 area and incorporated in the stipulated settlement agreement.satisfy the applicant's concerns. With withdrawal of the Diamond Wedge request, only two of the remaining amendments appear to have DCA objections which cannot be resolved. In the case of Alternative 1, DCA's objections relate to urban sprawl, premature conversion of agricultural land, and inappropriately located residential development.. These are not Issues which can be resolved with minor changes to the proposed amendment or with an expansion of the data and analysis -supporting the request. Since DCA objects to this amendment because.of its conflict with the stipulated settlement agreement, there appears to be no way to modify the request to make it acceptable to DCA, and staff recommends that it be denied. The second of the two remaining amendment requests also received substantive objections from DCA. These relate to inconsistencies with a number of policies in the plan, specifically inconsistency with commercial node expansion criteria incorporated within several future land use element policies. While staff had attempted to justify this amendment as an oversight during the comprehensive plan preparation process, DCA's objections indicate that such justification is unacceptable. For those reasons staff recommends that this amendment request be denied. Staff feels that all of the other proposed amendments, except one, can be revised to address DCA's objections with only minor changes to the data and analysis portion of the amendment. The one exception involves the mixed use district amendment. With regard to this amendment, DCA had some substantive objections. In this case, however, the objections can be addressed by modifying the mixed use district criteria. This will involve establishing size, location, review, and other standards for approval of a mixed use project/district. In discussing these proposed changes with the attorney for the principal intervenor concerned with the mixed use amendment, staff found that the proposed changes would be generally acceptable'to the intervenor. e Summary DCA's review of the county's 1990 comprehensive plan amendments resulted in objections to each of the nine amendment requests. Many of these objections, however, are minor and easily, resolvable. Even those minor objections must be adequately resolved by the board of county commissioners with their actions at the final adoption hearing. Since there is no opportunity to make further changes after the action at the final adoption hearing, it is important that all of DCA's objections be adequately addressed at that time. For that 59