Laserfiche WebLink
County cutting back on the number of units that can be built on <br />each acre. He pointed out that this would not bestow any benefit <br />to the County or prevent any harm to the public. <br />Director Keating explained that the County prepared a plan <br />consistent with Chapter 163 of the Code as mandated by the State <br />and made sure that our plan was consistent with the State <br />Comprehensive Plan which has certain requirements relating to urban <br />sprawl. That was a consideration in approving our plan and having <br />it found in compliance. We did negotiate a stipulated settlement <br />agreement primarily relating to some of the DCA's findings in <br />relation to urban sprawl. We were not specifically directed to do <br />anything; it was a negotiated settlement to address one of the <br />parameters of the State Comprehensive Plan. Director Keating noted <br />that July is one of two windows to accept land use change amendment <br />applications: Another approach might be to pursue a specific <br />mechanism in the Comp Plan that actually allows you to get more <br />density. We have a Mixed -Use designation where if you meet those <br />requirements, you can have substantially more densities than 1 unit <br />per 20 acres. There are a lot of parameters that have to be met, <br />but essentially it is a mechanism where you simply create a new <br />community. <br />Director Keating emphasized that the action tonight is not <br />changing the effective density of this property one bit. The <br />actual density change took place a year ago when the new Comp Plan <br />was adopted. <br />Commissioner Bird recalled that we argued long and loud on <br />this with the State, but the bottom line was that they don't want <br />property that far out indicated at 1 unit per 5 acres because they <br />are afraid it might be sold off in 5 -acre pieces and create urban <br />sprawl. <br />Deputy County Attorney Will Collins wished to point out that <br />one of the indicators used by the DCA was that our county had a <br />population that would be built out under our submitted plan of it <br />times our projected growth over the next 20 years, and they simply <br />said that we are accommodating too many people and would have to <br />find ways to bring our land development plans more in line with our <br />growth projections. One of the ways that was addressed was through <br />increasing or decreasing allowable density on agricultural lands <br />that were remote from urban services. The DCA felt this revision <br />to the land use density was furthering the goal of preventing urban <br />sprawl by getting our land use patterns in line with the population <br />projections that we had. In fact we ended up with a land <br />development pattern that provides for approximately 4 times the <br />43 <br />