11/23/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M M Staff feels that the deletion of the Citrus Highway portion of the proposed amendment is appropriate. In fact, county staff has always felt that there was no reason to incorporate the Citrus Highway in the county's plan until MOT's corridor plan has been completed, the need for the road justified, and a specific alignment determined. While county staff acknowledged that the county's plan would need to be amended to incorporate the Citrus Highway before any physical improvements for the roadway could be programmed by FDOT, staff never saw the need to amend the plan to reflect a state funded study for the road. Apparently, the DCA now agrees that there will not be a comprehensive plan inconsistency if a state agency undertakes a study in a local government jurisdiction and that study is not reflected in the applicable local government's comprehensive plan. For those reasons, the Citrus Road portion of the proposed amendment has been deleted. DCA's other objection concerned the proposed changes to policies 1.3 of the Potable Water Sub -Element, 1.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, and 3.5 of the Capital Improvements Element. In its ORC report, DCA noted that the language of the proposed amendment would cause any subsequent change made to the County Utilities Ordinance to result in changes to the comprehensive plan, thus improperly amending the comprehensive plan. To address this objection, staff has revised the language of the proposed amendment to delete the phrase "based on County Ordinance 84-18". DCA's comment concerned Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25. This policy divides commercial/industrial nodes into five types. The proposed amendment eliminates these designations; in effect, identifying all nodes simply as commercial/ industrial nodes. To add clarity to the policy, staff has, as recommended by DCA, also deleted the first sentence of the policy. Staff's position is that the referenced changes satisfy DCA's concerns and adequately address the issues identified in the ORC report. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS, AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As part of the staff analysis, comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the action which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability to these requests are Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3, Traffic Circulation Element Policy 3.1, M1 NOV 23 1993 soak 9i f.sl 71