09-1261 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (LPA 08--11)

Home Browse Search

OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDA nONS AND COMMENTS CITY OF CASSELBERRY (DCA No. 09-1ER) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT I. Consistency with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) The Department has completed its review of the proposed amendment to the City of Casselberry's Comprehensive Plan (DCA No. 09-1ER). The amendment addresses the recommendations of the City's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and also includes the annual update to the Five- Year Capital Improvements Schedule. The Department has the following objections and comments: 1. Objection: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.8 and 2.4. The revision of FLUE Policy 1.8 to allow residential uses, mixed use and office residential uses in the Commercial future land use category is desirable for good land use planning. The revision does not establish the allowable density for the proposed residential uses and is therefore, not meaningful or predictable. New FLUE Policy 2.4 inappropriately defers an assessment of the feasibility of density bonuses to the Land Development Code (LDC). The policy does not establish meaningful and predictable guidelines for the assessment of density bonuses. [Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(8) and (10), I 87,201(25)(b)3, 5 and 7, F.S.; Rules 9J-5.005(2), (5) and (6), 9J-5.006(3)(c)3, and 7, and (4)(c), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to FLUE Policy 1.8 to establish the allowable density tor residential uses. Provide a definition of the commercial, residential and office uses to be allowed within this mixed use category. Revise FLUE Policy 2.4 to establish meaningful and predictable guidelines for the application of density bonuses. 2. Objection: Water Source Protection. The revision to Conservation Policies 3.12, 3.5 and 3.8 does not ensure adequate protection of water quality through the restriction of activities and land uses known to have an adverse impact upon the quality of identified wellhead protection areas pursuant to Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)6, F.A.C. Conservation Policies 3.12, 3.5 and 3.8 provide inconsistent cxceptions tor Ihe use and development ofland proximate to wellhead protection areas. Conservation Policy 3.12. which establishes a 500 toot protection radius, does not demonstrate consistency with Potable Water Policy 6.2 establishing a wellhead protection area radius of 1,000 feel. [Sections 163.3177(1) and (2). 163.3177(6)(a). I 63.3 I 77(6)(d)1. I 87.20 I (7)(b)2 and 187.201 (I 5)(b)2. F.S.; Rules 9J-5.003(141). 9J-5.005(2). 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.005(6). 9J- 5.006( I )(b)I, 9J-5.006(3 )(c)6. 9J-5.006(4)(b)1. 9J-5.013(2)(b)2 and(c)l. F.A.C.}