Laserfiche WebLink
W M <br />Through the provisions established as part of the mixed use land <br />use designaiton, Objective 6 and Policies 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the <br />Future Land Use Element will be implemented, and protection of the <br />agricultural industry in the county will be further enhanced. <br />Conclusion <br />In considering this request for establishment of a mixed use <br />designation, it is important to note that application of the mixed- <br />use designation process to agricultural areas is a relatively new <br />concept; there are few examples of similar successful efforts. <br />Through the staff analysis, it has been demonstrated that a mixed <br />use floating designation in the agriculturally designated portion <br />of the county will provide an opportunity for non-agricultural <br />development while protecting agricultural land. This floating <br />designation will create self-sufficient communities and provide for <br />county control over developments in agricultural areas through the <br />planned development process. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff <br />that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would be reasonable <br />and is compatible with the intent of the comprehensive plan and <br />will satisfy both the DCA and two of the intervenors in the <br />Comprehensive Plan administrative process. The criteria <br />established for a mixed use designation are restrictive and provide <br />for maximum county control over development in agricultural areas. <br />RECOMMENDATION , <br />Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of <br />County Commissioners approve this request, direct staff to transmit <br />this request to the Department of Community Affairs for their <br />review and announce their intention to hold a final public hearing <br />concerning this matter. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if this type project normally <br />would be a DRI, and Director Keating stated most likely it would <br />be because it is a minimum of 1,000 acres. He further noted <br />that even though we are dealing with one intervenor who is <br />representing 2 or 3 properties, this conceivably could be' <br />anywhere in the AG Districts. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted',that he really has some <br />difficulty with this business of requiring the developer to have <br />10/20% affordable housing, day care, etc., and Chairman Eggert <br />felt the problem is that we have.to be consistent with the TCRPC. <br />Commissioner Scurlock understood that but felt we should <br />voice our concerns about having to be consistent with something <br />that he feels is not responsible. He felt that this type of <br />thing actually is government's responsibility, and we should not <br />put this burden on individual developers. <br />t <br />DEC 111990 67 - <br />POOK 11A�Ik: r <br />