Laserfiche WebLink
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS <br />In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the changes <br />will- be presented. The analysis will identify the general <br />advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments and. will <br />-evaluate alternatives. The analysis will also address DCA's <br />objections. <br />DCA Objections <br />Each of the three DCA objections to this proposed amendment are <br />minor. Of the three, two relate to the fact that plan changes <br />incorporated in other elements were also included in the remedial <br />actions amendment. By eliminating reference to policy 1.31, the <br />proposed C-3 land use designation, and the proposed mixed use <br />district, DCA's objections will be resolved, and the remedial <br />actions amendment' -will conform to the stipulated settlement <br />agreement. Resolving the third DCA objection involves making minor <br />changes to the data and analysis portion of the future land use <br />element to state that the C-2 district applies to the St. Sebastian <br />River as well as the Indian River. <br />Staff have made the above -referenced changes to Attachment "A", <br />which is appended to this item. It is staff's position that those <br />..- changes will -resolve DCA's objections to this proposed amendment. <br />Residential Land Use Designation <br />As indicated in the description section of this item, one of the <br />major reasons for the DCA finding the Indian River County <br />Comprehensive Plan not in compliance was the amount of land <br />designated for residential development on the Future Land Use Map <br />(FLUM). This residentially designated land can accommodate many <br />more residential units than are needed based on the plan's <br />population projections. To reduce the number of units allowed, the <br />county agreed to reduce the density in the agricultural areas west <br />of I-95, to reduce the size of the Urban Service Area by moving its <br />boundaries to the east, and to reduce the density of areas falling <br />outside of the USA. <br />In evaluating the proposed amendments, it is useful to contrast the <br />technique used by the county to prepare its land use plan map and <br />that followed by DCA. While the county focused almost exclusively <br />on natural constraints and man-made conditions, DCA used a <br />population based approach. Under its method, the county identified <br />the limits of urban service provision and designated land within <br />those limits, assigning different densities based on existing <br />densities, natural constraints, and proximity to services. <br />According to the DCA's land use policy, a community's population <br />projection is the most important factor in land use designation. <br />With.this method, the population projection becomes a cap, and only <br />that amount of land needed to serve the- projected population <br />receives .an -urban designation. With urban land uses confined to <br />compact areas, more efficient provision of facilities and services <br />can occur. <br />Revision of*the future land use map, as proposed, will leave the <br />county somewhere between these two techniques. The county does <br />propose to pull back its Urban Service Area, reduce densities in <br />the agricultural areas, and reduce densities in the central and <br />southern portions of the county. However, the county still has an <br />ample supply of land to accommodate the full range of land uses for <br />a period well beyond the planning horizon, and this density <br />reduction would not preclude future development in the county. <br />The proposed new USA boundary has been established by excluding <br />active agricultural land furthest from existing developed areas and - <br />other land that does not have access to urban services. The result <br />41 <br />WN is 1991 <br />600K <br />�r.uG <br />1f <br />P <br />