My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/25/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
10/25/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:27 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 2:46:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/25/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
800X 'W PAa""61 <br />The herein described Conservation Element Policies and LDR <br />provisions apply to the subject property under either the existing <br />or proposed future land use designation. An exception is the <br />portion of the subject property presently zoned A-1 (which includes <br />the cabbage palm hammock that supports the endangered "hand adder's <br />tongue fern" colony). Because agricultural operations are largely <br />exempt from county environmental regulations, these areas would <br />actually be subject to more county environmental regulatory control <br />if rezoned to a commercial designation. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Conservation Element Policies and <br />County LDRs provide sufficient protection to ensure that the <br />proposed remedial amendments would have no substantial adverse <br />impact on environmental quality. The rezoning of* A-1 zoned <br />property to commercial zoning would provide more county <br />environmental regulatory control. The DRI Development Order <br />contains several provisions that enhance .. and ensure the <br />preservation of wetlands, native uplands, and endangered species. <br />Consistency with Comprehensive Plan <br />Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency <br />with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section <br />800.07(1) of the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be <br />amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of <br />the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Comprehensive plan <br />amendments. must also show consistency with the overall designation <br />of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes <br />agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and <br />commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. <br />The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of <br />the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which <br />identify the action which the county will take in order to direct <br />the community's development. As courses of action committed to by <br />the county, policies provide the basis for all county land <br />development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. <br />While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more <br />applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of <br />particular applicability for this request are the following <br />policies and objectives. <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 <br />The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan <br />amendment request for consistency with the county's comprehensive <br />plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires <br />that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a <br />comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria are: <br />• an oversight in the approved plan; <br />• a mistake in the approved plan; and <br />• a substantial change in circumstances. <br />Based on its analysis, staff believes that the proposed land use <br />amendment meets. the first criterion, while the proposed text <br />amendments meet the third criterion. <br />As noted in a previous section, the future land use map currently <br />depicts ohly+_one area with a size and configuration suitable for a <br />regional mall facility, other than the large nodes along the <br />interstate (which are not -suitable for a regional mall). Since <br />there is probably no one best site for such a -facility, and to <br />reduce the chances of land speculation, at least one other node <br />should have contained vacant land with enough area and in a <br />52 <br />October 25, 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.