10/26/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r � BOOK Ili PAGE 111GY-Wel"IeCT=Mv Ci Iii �� iii n i This section addresses and responds to the four objections and two comments contained in DCA's ORC Report. Objections 1, 2, 3, and 4 All four of DCA's ORC Report objections are related, and therefore will be addressed together. Specifically, objections 1, 2, 3, and 4 all relate to the fact that Future Land Use (FLUE) Policy 6.1 is being amended to include traditional neighborhood design (TND) and mixed use designated developments as exceptions to the prohibition of providing infrastructure outside of the urban service area. In its review, DCA misunderstood why the county proposed changes to FLUE Policy 6.1. DCA understood the changes to FLUE policy 6.1 as new justifications that would allow central services to be extended outside of the urban service area; however, other FLUE policies currently permit mixed use (new town) districts and TND projects to be located outside of the urban service area. FLUE policy 1.34 describes the mixed use (new town) land use designation as a floating zone which may be established only on the agricultural land use designations (A-1, A-2, and A-3). FLUE policy 18.3 allows for a portion of TND projects to be located outside the urban service area. Therefore, the revisions to policy 6.1 are not creating new justifications for expansion of central services outside of the urban service area, as understood by DCA, but rather are reinforcing existing justifications for expansion of central services outside of the urban service area. To address DCA's concerns, county staff coordinated with DCA staff, explained the reasons for the proposed changes, and made several minor amendments to revised FLUE Policy 6.1. Those changes involve referencing FLUE Policies 18.2 and 18.3, which address TND projects, and referencing FLUE Policies 1.34 and 1.35, which address mixed use (new town) district projects. With those minor revisions, DCA staff is satisfied that the revised FLUE policy 6.1 is only reinforcing existing justifications for expansion of central services outside of the urban service area. In addition, renaming the mixed use designation to new town designation will clarify the intent of FLUE policies 1.34 and 1.35. Comment 1 When this text amendment was initiated in January 1999, county staff was using the most current available version of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., which was dated July 1998. Since the text amendment was initiated, a new version of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. has been published In the new version, Rule 9J- 5.003(19) F.A.C. was re -numbered to (17). Therefore, the proposed amendment to CME Policy 5.1 has been revised to reflect the correct citation to the definition of coastal high hazard areas. Comment 2 Since nineteen polices are being deleted from the EDE and other polices are being reassigned within the EDE, county staff had planned on assigning a new policy number to Policy 7.2 as well as other polices of the EDE at the appropriate stage of the comprehensive plan amendment process, which is at the time of final adoption. EDE Policy 7.2 has been moved to EDE Policy 2.5. Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may be amended only in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to_ section 163.3177(2).F.S." - OCTOBER 26, 1999