My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/12/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
12/12/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2018 4:30:59 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 5:47:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/12/2000
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
if the Board decides to create a new Transitional land use designation (Alternative 1 or Alternative <br />2), there appears to be consensus that the such land should be located along arterial roads that serve <br />as urban service area boundaries and contain both water and sewer lines within the road right-of- <br />way. The Board, however, is not limited to the alternatives presented. If the Board decides to create <br />a Transitional land use designation, it can choose whether or not to use the criteria used in <br />Alternative 1, Alternative 2, some combination of those alternatives, or some other criteria. If the <br />Board chooses to create a new land use designation, then the Board must make a decision regarding <br />each of the following variables: <br />• Ln�atiQn -Should the new land use designation be limited to land south of SR 60? This is <br />the fast growing area that previously has been the primary focus of discussion. <br />• Density -What should be the maximum density permitted within the new land use <br />designation? Although both one unit/acre and three units/acre have been proposed, past <br />experience indicates that one unit/acre is not feasible to develop. <br />• )?� -How far from the arterial road should the new land use designation extend? <br />Generally, utilities are considered available to properties within a quarter mile of a line. <br />• Abutting cignation -Should the new land use designation be required to abut C/I <br />designated land? The need for a Transitional land use designation is greater for farms that <br />abut residences than for farms that abut C/I uses. <br />• Buffer Width - Should a buffer be required where the new land use designation abuts <br />agriculturally designated land, and if so, what type and now wide? A wide, dense buffer is <br />beneficial to mitigate potential agricultural/residential incompatibilities. <br />• ('arihbean Fruit Fly Host Plants -Should these be prohibited within the new land use <br />designation? These plants are currently prohibited in new subdivisions that are adjacent to <br />citrus groves, both inside and outside the urban service area. <br />• Notification Requirements -Within the new land use designation, should developers be <br />required to notify lotbuyers about surrounding uses and the Florida Right to Farm Act? The <br />county has a similar requirement for new development near airports. This may reduce <br />incompatibilities. <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners give direction to staff regarding the initiation <br />of a comprehensive plan amendment during the January 2001 plan amendment window. <br />1. Mr. O'Haire's Proposal for a Transitional Area <br />2. Water Lines and the Urban Service Area <br />3. Sewer Lines and the Urban Service Area <br />4. Flood Prone Areas and the Urban Service Area <br />5. Alternative 1 Affected Areas <br />6. Alternative 2 Affected Areas <br />7. Summary of Alternatives <br />December 12, 2000 <br />BK 116 PG 442 112 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.