11/21/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed additions and deletions to, the plan are shown on attachment 2. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined. Maps and Tables are labeled as either existing or proposed. On October 26, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed amendment,_with one modification, to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. The modification recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission involves the proposed changes to the Capital Improvements Element. While the proposed amendment would have allowed up to a three year period between the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for a development project and the construction of roads needed to serve that development, the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the three year "lag" period was too long and that a one year "lag" period was more reasonable. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to DCA for their review. DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will be discussed. The purpose is to identify the various portions of the plan needing amendment and to present justification for the amendment requests— Traffic equests— Traffic Circulation Element Since the 1990 adoption of the current comprehensive plan, Vero Beach and the densely developed area surrounding it have been designated "urban" by the Census, and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has been established. Consisting of representatives from each local government in the county, the MPO is the primary transportation planning agency for the county. On June 14, 1995, after substantial public participation, the MPO adopted a 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. That plan is based on the latest and best available data. While working on the transportation element of the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), county staff discovered several minor inconsistencies between the MPO plan and the county comprehensive plan. Consistency between these plans facilitates their implementation and administration. Additionally, state and federal regulations require such consistency. To ensure consistency between the comprehensive plan and the MPO plan, this amendment request was initiated. The Traffic Circulation Element amendment consists of adding new Table 4.7.4, which consists of improvements scheduled for 1996-2010 in the MPO plan, and new Policy 1.5 which adopts Table 4-.7.4 and gives that table priority where it conflicts with other tables in the element. In the future, all tables in the Traffic Circulation Element will be updated and revised. This will be done in conjunction with plan amendments associated with the county's comprehensive plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The proposed amendment to the Traffic Circulation Element will also update Figure 4.5.2, the Existing Roadway Functional Classification Map, and Figure 4.13.2, the Future Roadway Functional Classification Map. The proposed amendments to these maps involve changing the functional classification of the portion of S.R. 60 between I-95 and 100th Avenue from Rural Principal Arterial to Urban Principal Arterial. This change will reflect the urbanized area designation established after the 1990 census. Capital Improvements Element One of the principal components of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 was a requirement that each local government in the state include a concurrency management plan as part of its capital improvements element. As enacted, the state planning law defined concurrency strictly, essentially requiring that adequate facilities (for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks, and roads) be available concurrent with the impacts of new development. Recently, however, the legislature amended the concurrency law, providing local governments more flexibility in implementing the NOVEMBER 21, 1995 31 bm 96 PA1,JE 634