Laserfiche WebLink
800K 92 FAGC 141 <br />APR 121994 <br />- Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 <br />Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county <br />shall encourage the attraction of new businesses. The proposed <br />amendment will move C/I designated land from an area where it is <br />unlikely to be used to an area where it will be developed. The <br />location of Subject Property 1 on a major road in a fast growing <br />area is attractive to commercial businesses. Therefore, the <br />proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element <br />Policy 1.1. <br />As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive <br />plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined <br />that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with <br />the comprehensive plan. <br />Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality <br />Since Subject Property 1 is presently used for a grove, and <br />therefore has been disturbed, development of that site under either <br />the existing residential or the requested commercial/ industrial <br />land use designation would have no significant negative <br />environmental impacts. <br />While Subject Property 2 has also been disturbed, It does contain <br />some uplands communities and wetlands. County environmental <br />permitting requirements, including the 10$/15$ native upland plant <br />community set-aside requirement, -are the same under either the <br />existing commercial/ industrial or the requested residential land <br />use designation. However, compared to a commercial/ industrial use, <br />residential development may be more likely to preserve the native <br />habitat and wetland areas for their aesthetic value. <br />For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment would have no <br />significant detrimental effects on the environment at either site. <br />DCA Obiections <br />As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this <br />staff report, DCA did not have any objections to the proposed <br />amendment. <br />Alternatives <br />This land use designation amendment request involves two sites. In <br />order to meet the criteria of several comprehensive plan policies, <br />including Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23, the redesignation of <br />both sites must be considered jointly. Redesignating only one of <br />the subject sites would not be consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan and, therefore, is not an option available to the County. <br />With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has <br />three alternatives. The alternatives are: <br />1. Deny the request. <br />2. Approve the.request. <br />3. Approve the request, with changes. <br />50 <br />M M M <br />