My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/12/2006 (9)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
09/12/2006 (9)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2022 11:45:34 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:11:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/12/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3125
Book and Page
131, 318-364
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
3012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
Mr. Mora gave examples and explained why staff chose to go with p.m. trip counts only. <br /> <br />Mr. McMahon <br /> explained why he recommended using both roadway (link) traffic counts <br />\[morning (a.m.) and afternoon (p.m.) peak hour analyses\]. <br /> <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Davis, <br />SECONDED by Chairman Neuberger, to approve staff’s <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />David Hall <br />, Vero Beach, was concerned that the Board was making motions without <br />public input. He questioned the height limitation on buildings in the five counties, and the <br />densities of the overall acreage that resulted in the numbers mentioned. <br /> <br />Mr. McMahon <br /> replied they were not making recommendation on changing densities in <br />this county; they were looking at traffic methodologies only. <br /> <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION. The Board <br />unanimously approved to maintain Indian River County <br />current practices of P.M. trip counts only. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendations # 8, 9: <br /> Deminimis / Link Assignments <br /> <br />Mr. Mora explained the Consultant’s recommendation, which staff did not agree with. He <br />felt the County’s current practice is very restrictive in comparison to the Consultant’s <br />recommendation, which he described as “way too lenient”. Planning and Zoning Commission <br />voted 4-3 to maintain our current practice. Staff believed a compromise might be the better way to <br />September 12, 2006 <br />27 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.