9/28/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that more information was needed regarding commercial uses in a PD. Staff was directed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to research the issue and resubmit the proposed change in a future comprehensive plan amendment window. Professional Cenic s Advisory Committee On April 29, 1999, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed text amendment, with minor changes. to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. Transmittal Puhlir Hearing On May 18, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed text amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment. Obi tions, Reromm ndations.11nd Cornments (0E Report Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated August 5, 1999), which planning staff received on August 9, 1999. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 4) contained four objections to this proposed text amendment. Those objections, which all apply to Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1 are listed below. 1.) The policy as amended would allow residential and other uses in rural areas far removed from urban areas. This allowance of land uses through out the rural county does not discourage urban sprawl and fails to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities. This pattern of sprawl disproportionately increases the cost in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. The amendment does not maximize the use of existing and future public facilities and appears to allow urban development to occur in Waal areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. [Rule 9J-5.003(140), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(2); and Rule 9J -5.006(5)(g), F.A.C.] 2.) The data and analysis supplied with the amendment is insufficient to demonstrate that the amendment would not allow the premature conversion of rural land to other uses and that these mixed use and traditional neighborhood design developments are functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area. Rule 9J-5.005(2) 3.) The proposed policy appears to create some internal inconsistencies within the comprehensive plan. The proposed policy allows uses, such as non -agriculturally related businesses, within the Agricultural land use designation (Policy 1.10) that are inconsistent with the uses -allowed within that designation. It is also not clear whether accessory dwelling units allowed in traditional neighborhood developments will be included in the calculation of density. Additionally, it is not clear how the grid and interconnection to appropriate uses on adjacent site requirements of Policy 18.1 shall be applied to an isolated rural area. [Rule 9J -5.005(a), F 4.C., and Section 163.3177(2), F.S.) 4.) The proposed amendments are inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187.201, Florida Statutes): Goal 16 (Land Use), Policies 2., and 6. SEPTEMBER.28,1999 -53-