My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/14/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
4/14/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:18 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:30:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/14/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
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
BOD)( F'1;E <br />12. The Plan's Transportation development impact policy statement <br />#1 says that for assessing the impact of additional proposed <br />development, the road design capacity of a four -lane divided <br />road is 24,000.22 <br />Comment: Adding the estimated 9450 additional trips generated <br />by the proposed general commercial use of this parcel to the <br />current 22,700 AADT23 would put 17th Street not only above <br />the Plan's design capacity, but above the level -of -service C <br />design capacity of 31,000 as set out in the 1986 Barton-Aschman <br />Study.24 <br />13. The Plan's Housing Element Objective is to encourage the <br />development of a safe and convenient housing supply which <br />is accessible to public services and facilities.—to satisfy <br />the needs of all income levels within the community.25 <br />Comment: A plan amendment which deletes property suitably <br />planned for Medium Density Residential development (up to <br />10 units/acre) does not further, but hinders the Housing <br />Element objectives. <br />14. The Plan's Intergovernmental Coordination element says the <br />County should establish an advisory committee representing all <br />governmental entities ... to interface plans.26 <br />Comment: Such coordination with Vero Beach would,show the <br />property adjacent to be residential, as the County.Plan <br />currently has the parcel proposed for amendment designated. <br />RULE 9 J-5 COMPLIANCE <br />15. Rule 9J-5.005(4) requires internal consistency between <br />plan elements. <br />Comment: Since this proposed plan amendment appears incon- <br />sistent with at least a dozen of the Comprehensive Plan's <br />statements, policies, objectives, etc., it is questionable <br />whether this minimum criteria can be achieved. <br />16. Rule 9J -5.006(2)(C) requires a Land Use Analysis of the <br />character of vacant or undeveloped land to.determine its <br />suitability for use. <br />Comment: An analysis of this site against the performance <br />standards of the Plan for medium density residential would <br />show the site suitable for that use.27 <br />17. Rule 9J-5.006(3) requires statements of goals and objectives. <br />Comment: We are unaware of this proposed plan amendment <br />furthering any of the Plan's stated goals and objectives. <br />In view of the inventory of vacant sites planned for commercial <br />use,28 we suggest no public goals or objectives would.be <br />furthered by this proposed plan amendment. <br />18. Rule 9J -5.007(3)(b)(2) requires coordination of the traffic <br />circulation system with the future land uses shown on the <br />future land use map. <br />Comment: Rather than coordinating land uses with the traffic <br />system objectives,29, this proposed amendment would result <br />in the gobbling up of great chunks of road capacity by in- <br />creasing trip generations by 10 times over currently planned. <br />uses (multiple residential) or other alternative uses <br />(professional offices) for this parcel. <br />t' <br />5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.