2/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L-1 �J citizens. The Sukr-Committee's initial focus was to review the county's comprehensive plan for the purpose of identifying potential opportunities and constraints to future industrial growth and to suggest text changes consistent with the overall objectives of the growth management plan. These observations and recommendations are respectfully submitted for your review and consideration on behalf of the Indian River Chamber of Commerce, the Council of 100 and the members and participants of the New Industry Technical Sub - Committee.. The comments contained herein are presented in sequence, by element, as found in the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Risinger then went through the executive summary element by element. Under the Land Use Element, he advised that they suggest Policy 1.22 and 1.23 be deleted. They feel the distance between commercial nodes, as set out in Policy 1.22 should be considered on a case by case basis and also that the 70% developed rule for expansion of existing nodes under Policy 1.23 is an unnecessary restriction and that also should be considered on a case by case basis. Re the Governor's Task Force recommen- dations for containing Urban Growth Patterns, the first recommen- dation speaks to the creation of urban service areas as well as urban expansion areas, which are those areas in which future development can occur, and they would encourage that the Land Use Element consider future opportunities for the creation of compact mixed use urban villages out in the western part of the county. They see the need for industrial opportunities within the I-95 corridor being critical to the creation of a planned industrial park district to allow us to get the industrial growth off of the U.S.I corridor where much of it is currently designated. In terms of allowing industrial development to occur along the 1-95 corridor, they are suggesting special policy zones. In the Water and Sewer element, they felt there was not enough recognition of industrial needs. They also felt more planning should be done for non-residential producers of hazardous waste. In the Traffic Element, under revised Policy 9.2, it appears the County is going to promote rural R/W sections for future transportation corridors where possibly in order to FED 13 1990 75 1 L_