02/09/2007 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(1) to look at E+40 and project how long it would take us (maybe 10 years down the road assuming everything stays the same); or to get aggressive with comprehensive changes to encourage rezoning. He remarked that it was crazy not having amenities on the beach for people who live there to stay there and shop. Commissioner Bowden interjected that it was the choice of the people on the beach. Mr. Schulke felt the point was there are a lot of changes we could consider in this County that could deflect/redirect traffic to alleviate this problem. He would hate to see US 1 a 6 -lane highway and thought maybe timing of opening and closing of businesses could help alleviate traffic problem. David Hetteras, Sea Hawk Lane, suggested the Board do volume and design calculations to figure out what they wanted to do on US 1. He too did not think there was a problem on US 1 and did not think adding lanes may be the solution we want. He suggested the Board plan and take time to think about it rather than have a "knee jerk statistical reaction" based on a model that may not make sense. Mr. Paladin questioned whether, on proportionate share, developer's agreements, and Senate Bill 360 (SB 360) these agreements and SB 360 were for the purpose of going forward and creating concurrency, or could we do proportionate share agreements and have the developer's agreement slanted towards better redesign of roads, and better lifestyles, and could that be incorporated into the same premise as trying to use proportionate share to get concurrency. Director Davis replied, "Yes," and explained that in all of our projects we are incorporating landscaping and aesthetics improvements along that corridor no matter which project it is. Further, all the proportionate share agreement projects would have input with landscape architect and environmental specialists that advises us on landscaping and aesthetics. February 9, 2007 14 Public Workshop