3/16/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Objection 3 This objection is associated with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16. This policy lists the uses allowed in the Commercial/Industrial land use designation and the maximum permitted intensity or density for those uses. The objection recommends that the county revise this policy to: "establish a percentage distribution for the land uses permitted within the Commercial/Industrial land use category, or use another objective measure to determine the combination of commercial and industrial land uses allowed within the Commercial/Industrial land use category." Essentially, this objection is asking the county to regulate the amount of land dedicated to each land use permitted within the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Besides being impractical, this request is not consistent with state law. Review of the ORC Report indicates that DCA is incorrectly interpreting the Commercial/Industnal land use designation as a combination of two designations or a mixed designation. That the objection uses language from and cites Rule 9J -5.006(4)(c), FAC, which directly relates to (indeed encourages) mixed land use designations, demonstrates that point. Rule 9J -5.006(4)(c), FAG, is the only rule that specifically mentions a "percentage distribution" of land uses. The county, in fact, does have a Mixed land use designation. Established in Future Land Use Element Policies 1.34 and 1.35, the Mixed land use designation does contain a required percentage distribution of uses. In contrast to DCA's interpretation, the Commercial/Industrial land use designation is one designation. That designation allows several broad categories of uses listed in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16. A review of how the Commercial/Industrial land use designation was developed confirms that it is intended as one designation, not a combination of several distinct designations, nor a mixed designation. When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, it established a Commercial/bdustrial land use designation. Prior to that, the future land use map depicted nodes (intersections of major roads) and major road corridors that were labeled as either commercial, industrial, commercial/industrial, tourist, hospital, or mixed. The county found that system complicated, difficult to use, and redundant. For that reason, the Board of County Commissioners, in 1990, specifically developed one Commercial/Industrial land use designation. For those reasons, Rule 9J -5.006(4)(c), FAC, does not apply to the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Nevertheless, as required by state law, the data and analysis portion of the comprehensive plan contains a discussion of non-residential land needed to accommodate the county's projected 2020 population. That section, found on pages 61 and 62 of the Future Land Use Element, projects how much land will be needed in 2020 for commercial uses and for industrial uses. Additionally, DCA has indicated to staff a concern about mixed use projects in the Commercial/Industrial land use designation "stacking" uses within one development area. That concern has been addressed within a new paragraph that has been added to Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16. That paragraph requires applicants to assign a portion of the total development area to each use, with an exception for accessory residential development. That requirement makes stacking uses impossible. S ummary of the County's Ramose to DCA's Third Objection The following points summarize the County's response to Objection 3: • state law does not require a policy to specify the percentage distribution of uses permitted within the Commercialadustrial land use designation; • consistent with state law, the comprehensive plan contains an analysis of projected land needs for several land use categories, including commercial and industrial land uses; and • the additional revisions to Policy 1.16 address DCA's concern about "stacking" uses. Comment 1 With the addition of a new table to the Future Land Use Element, the numbering of Tables 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15 was somewhat confusing. Staff has coordinated with DCA, and included additional information in the amendment to clarify the changes in the numbering of the tables. MARCH 16, 1999 -51- BOOK 103 PAGE