My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/12/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
4/12/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:24 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:55:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/12/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
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
APR 12 M4 <br />BOOK 92 u,,�'185 <br />On the demand side, estimates and projections are more difficult to <br />determine. Not only does growth on the unincorporated county <br />portion of the barrier island affect hurricane evacuation; growth <br />in Vero Beach, Indian River Shores, and Orchid affect evacuation <br />times. Even growth and development in Brevard and St. Lucie <br />Counties affect evacuation times in Indian River County. <br />It is anticipated that, between the 1991 update of the CIP and the <br />present, the population of the barrier island portion of the county <br />(both incorporated and unincorporated areas) increased by only 1044 <br />residents. This is based upon 1990 census data and county <br />projections. <br />Based upon the estimated increase of barrier island residents, the <br />impact on evacuation times will be minimal. Therefore, it is <br />staff's position that no additional capital improvements are <br />necessary to accommodate hurricane evacuation needs. <br />The above Hurricane Evacuation Time Analysis satisfies the <br />requirements of Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3. Therefore, <br />the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element <br />Policy 11.3. <br />Based on the analysis performed, staff's position is that the <br />proposed amendment is consistent with all comprehensive plan goals, <br />objectives and policies. <br />With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has <br />three alternatives. The alternatives are: <br />1. Deny the request. <br />2. Approve the request. <br />3. Approve the request with changes. <br />CONCLUSION <br />As indicated in this report, the originally proposed amendments <br />have been modified to address the objections raised in RCA's ORC <br />Report. Even with these changes, the original intent of the <br />amendments will be maintained. <br />Staff's position is that these proposed amendments to the county's <br />comprehensive plan will enhance the plan by providing for the <br />efficient provision of utility service to lands within and adjacent <br />to the USA, and by updating the CIP as required. As has been <br />demonstrated, these amendments will maintain the plan's internal <br />consistency. For those reasons, staff feels that the proposed <br />amendments should be adopted. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />The staff recommends <br />these amendments to <br />attachment 3. <br />that the Board of County Commissioners approve <br />the comprehensive plan as identified in <br />94 <br />kk <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.