10/26/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Boa Ili F-nE i4d On March 8, 1999, at an advertised public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed text amendment, with the exception of policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element, to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. Proposed changes to policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element were presented by staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission at that March 8 public hearing. Staff proposed reducing the level of commercial development permitted in a residential planned development (PD) from 10% of the total project aha to 3% of the total project area. The Planning and Zoning Commission concluded 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. 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. 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. 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 area 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 rural 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) OCTOBER 26, 1999 • -28- •