6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would also reduce the overall number of units allowed in the area by 80 units. On April 19, 1991, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued its Objectives, Recommendations, and Comments -(ORC) 'report. The DCA had several objections to this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, all of which were substantive. Specifically, DCA objected to this amendment because the amendment provided for a USA expansion which would be inconsistent with the stipulated settlement agreement; because the amendment would result in a premature expansion of the USA into active agricultural areas; because the amendment would not discourage low density residential sprawl development;.and because the amendment would not encourage well planned and appropriately located residential development. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of "Alternative 1" will be presented. The potential impact on the environment, transportation, utilities, surrounding areas and future development potential will be considered. The analysis will also assess the request for consistency with the land use policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan and will address DCA's objections. DCA Objections DCA's objections to this amendment request were not only substantive; they seemed unresolvable. Since the objections focused on the proposed amendment's inconsistency with the stipulated settlement agreement as well as its inconsistency with urban sprawl prohibitions, it seemed that the objections could not be addressed. Subsequent to release of the ORC report, however, DCA staff contacted county staff and indicated that the ORC objections did not mean that any amendment to the stipulated settlement agreement would be prohibited— Instead, DCA staff indicated that the data - and analysis provided with the "Alternative 1" amendment request may satisfy DCA's concerns regarding the -amendment. To resolve the conflict between the DCA ORC report and the DCA'. staff verbal communications, county staff met with DCA staff. As a result of that meeting, DCA staff indicated that the data and analysis supporting the "Alternative 1" request would be sufficient to approve the request if the request were amended to reduce the urban service area expansion and related density increase. While DCA expressed concern with the county plan's agricultural/residential buffering requirements, it was agreed that those amendments could be addressed during a subsequent amendment cycle. With the revision of the "Alternative 1" amendment request as referenced above, staff feels that DCA's objections have adequately been addressed. Analysis This analysis is based upon the revised "Alternative 1" request. As depicted in Attachment "B", the revised "Alternative 1" request limits the urban service area expansion and density increase to an area from 43rd Avenue to o mile west of 43rd Avenue from 13th Stteet S.W. to the south county line. As revised, "Alternative 1" now involves expanding the urban service area by 240 acres instead of the original 400 acres. For those 240 acres, the density would be increased from 1 unit/5 acres to 3 units/acre. The 400 acres on the east side of 43rd Avenue to be redesignated from 6 units/acre to 3 units/acre would remain as proposed in the original "Alternative 111. 61 POCK r JUN 18 119,91