3/16/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr_ BOOK M PAGE 6657 State law, however, provides several exceptions to the twice per calendar year limitation. One of those exceptions is for snail scale plan amendments. Consequently, a local government may adopt small scale amendments without regard for the twice per calendar year limitation. The proposed amendment sets additional measurable criteria for the use of the small scale plan amendment process. Adopting the additional criteria will work to prevent the use of the small scale plan amendment process to circumvent the typical plan amendment process for requests that warrant substantial public or reviewing agency input. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Recent changes to state rules require the proposed changes to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Section 163.3177(6)(h)3., FS, requires comprehensive plans to discuss Independent Special Districts. Consistent with that requirement, the proposed amendment adds that information to the comprehensive plan. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 3.9 commits the county to establishing a formal coordination mechanism with its municipalities and adjacent counties, by 2000. Consistent with recent changes to state law [163.3177(6)(h)l.a and 2., FS], the proposed amendment requires that mechanism to identify joint planning areas, and to address the identification of locally unwanted land uses. The analysis will discuss the county's response to DCA's ORC Report, the consistency of the Propos amendments with the comprehensive plan, and the reasonableness of each of the proposed amendments. DCA's ORC REPORT OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS This section addresses and responds to the three objections and two comments contained in DCA's ORC Report. Each objection or comment is addressed separately. Objection 1 DCA's first objection references Future Land Use Element Policies 1.6 (the Conservation Land Use Designations) and 1.9 (the Agricultural Land Use Designations). The reference to Policy 1.9 is a mistake and should be Policy 1.29 (the Recreation Land Use Designation). The objection calls for the policies to describe in more detail the type and intensity of recreational uses that are allowed within the Conservation and the Recreation land use designations. This objection has been addressed through additional minor revisions to Policies 1.6 and 1.29. Those changes are included on Attachment 2. Essentially, two additional changes to Policy 1.6 are recommended. The first additional change to Policy 1.6 specifically states that recreational uses within the Conservation Land Use Designations shall be passive uses such as nature centers, observation areas, hiking trails, canoe launches, picnic areas, and similar types of uses and support facilities. The other change sets a development intensity standard for recreational uses within the Conservation Land Use Designations. The proposed revisions to Policy 1.29 already set a development intensity standard for the Recreational Land Use Designation. Additional changes more specifically describe the types of uses allowed within the Recreational Land Use Designation. Objection 2 This objection calls for the county to establish intensity standards in Future Land Use Element Policies 1.12 (the Low -Density Residential Land Use Designations) and 1.14 (the Medium -Density Residential Land Use Designations) for non-residential land uses that are permitted within residential land use designations. Such uses include recreational uses, institutional uses, public facilities, schools, and limited office uses. This objection has been addressed by adding revisions that set the maximum intensity for non-residential uses within the residential land use designations at 0.35 FAR. MARCH 16,1999 -50- 0 0