Laserfiche WebLink
M M <br />the recommendation was to set the density at 1 unit/5 acres with <br />required development clustering and extended setbacks; the main <br />difference between the applicant's request and staff's <br />recommendation was the development density (1 unit/5 acres vs. 1 <br />unit/2.5 acres). <br />On December 11, 1990, a public hearing was held by the Board of <br />Codnty Commissioners concerning the proposed amendment. The Board <br />approved staff's recommendation for transmittal to the State <br />Department of Community Affairs (DCA), proposing the creation of <br />the C-3 conservation land use designation, with a density of 1 <br />unit/5 acres applying to xeric scrub adjacent to the St. Sebastian <br />River. The Board made the following modification to staff's - <br />recommendation: <br />Within the C-3 district, the total area of <br />xeric scrub disturbed by a planned development <br />project shall not exceed 20% of the total <br />xeric scrub area occurring on site. <br />On April 22, 1991, the county received DCA's ORC (Objections, <br />Recommendations and Comments) report pertaining to this and other <br />proposed comprehensive plan amendments. The ORC report contained <br />a number of objections relating to the Coraci/C-3 amendment (CPA <br />#116), which are paraphrased and summarized as follows: <br />1. L.U.E. Policy 1.31 does not define <br />"environmentally sensitive" or <br />"environmentally important"; environmental <br />survey criteria are not specified. <br />2. L.U.E. Policy 1.31 is not supported by <br />sufficient data and analysis to demonstrate <br />that the 1 unit per acre for non -scrub uplands <br />east of the St. Sebastian River is <br />appropriate. <br />3. Sewer and water impacts are not fully <br />addressed; Orsino and Electrasoils may <br />necessitate central sewer and potable water <br />. facilities. <br />4. The character and magnitude of vacant land <br />within the C-3 has not been sufficiently <br />analyzed. <br />5. The item is not supported by an analysis of <br />potential residential development vs. <br />projected population needs. (ref. Housing <br />Policy 2.2), <br />6. The proposed C-3 is not consistent with <br />Conservation Policy 6.2, in that the St. <br />Sebastian River area xeric scrub is to be <br />considered for acquisition. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />This analysis section consists of two parts: a general overall <br />analysis of the proposed amendment; and additional analysis and <br />alternatives to address concerns raised by the DCA. <br />BOOK <br />JUN �. 1991 83 F'.1uc I U <br />I <br />