6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

— M With respect to the inadequate need justification objection, DCA noted that the county already has an over allocation of residential land, and increasing the density for mixed use projects would further increase that over allocation. Related to that issue was another objection; that was that the proposed amendment does not include any limitation on the number of mixed use projects that could be established. It was DCA's position that without such a limitation the residential over allocation would be increased even more. Besides the population need issue, the DCA objected to several mixed use project standards. These included the size, the composition, the amount of affordable housing, the protection of agriculture and natural resources, and the method of establishing* - mixed use, districts. While some of those objections reflected a lack of data and analysis to support the standard, others were more substantive, referencing a conflict between the standards and the objective of the proposed mixed use designation. -ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of current and future land uses in the agricultural areas and potential impacts qn the other plan elements. Current and Future Land Uses in the Agricultural Areas At present, there is no mechanism in the adopted comprehensive plan other than density limitations to control the development of agricultural lands: ' Agricultural land may now be developed in large lot patterns which could lead to ranchette type development and rural sprawl. This ranchette type development could potentially absorb large portions of agricultural land area for non-agricultural uses and adversely affect active' agricultural operations by limiting aerial spraying and restricting other agricultural activities. Provisions identified in the proposed remedial actions amendment to the plan, however, will resolve this problem by requiring non-agricultural uses within areas having an agricultural land use designation to be clustered. AAs identified in Policy 1.7 of the Future Land Use Element, the agricultural use category was established for several purposes; these are to ensure continuation of the agricultural industry, to protect agricultural lands from urban encroachment, and to provide natural open space. The clustered, non-agricultural development requirement which has been incorporated in the proposed remedial actions plan amendment will ensure that the intent of Policy 1.7 of the Future Land Use Element will be met. However, the proposed remedial actions do not provide for development of multi -use projects in the 'agricultural areas. Such multi -use projects functioning as self-sufficient communities could be established - without creating urban sprawl through the mechanism of a mixed use designation. The mixed use concept is one of several development control options for agricultural areas. The others are large lot zoning, transfer of development rights, and density limitation with required clustering. Essentially, the mixed use designation is a variation of the last of those techniques. While the mixed use designation limits density and requires clustering, this concept also imposes additional -restrictions designed to produce a self -contained - community type of project. Historically, the large lot zoning and the transfer of development rights land use control methods have not met the objectives of protecting. agriculture while providing for limited development. While the large lot zoning method has the effect of dispersing development .and inefficiently using resources, the transfer of development rights method has seldom been successful because of its need for an active market, high demand, and limited land availability. Despite these drawbacks, the county does provide for the transfer of development rights from agriculturally designated land. 71 JUN 1 1991 BoxFet)- E� L