7/9/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

KENNETH R. SCHINDLER Mr. W.W. Sie',-ert, Jr. Chairnan Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Vero Beach, FL 32960 June 25, 1980 Dear Mr. Siebert: I am requesting to be placed on the agenda at the next regular meeting, which I understand is to be July 9th, 1980, for a further discussion of the traffic situation that exists at the corner of 6th Avunue and U.S. #1. So that you may recall, I appeared before the County Com- mission for approval of the site plan for the construction of a group of shops on property owned by me, on the corner of 6th Avenue and U.S. _-1. This approval was placed in abeyance and the Commission requested that I take further action towards the solution of the 6th Avenue situation. At this time I wish to offer a solution both temporary and permanent to this problem as follows; 1. A deceleration lane installed at my expense according to the State D.O.T. specifications on the south (U.S.# 1) boundry, allowing only entry to my property. Exit from the site to be on 6th Avenue only. (See exhibit 1.) 2. Proposed closing of 6th Avenue and the new access to be by way of existing Right of Way, 8th St. between U.S.wl and 6th Avenue. (See Exhibit 2.) 3. Relocation of my entry and exit if and when no 2. is adopted. (See exhibit 3.) Very truly ours, Kenneth R. Schindler July 1, 1980 MEMO TO: Board of Count Co ssioners FROM: avid Rever, Planning and Zoning Director SUBJECT: Schindler development proposal and related 6th Avenue - U.S. #1 intersection problems This memo and related graphic materials were felt necessary to supplement the Schindler request to come before the Board at the July 9, 1980 Commission meeting. This request stems from Mr. Schindler's desire to resolve the stale- mate which has delayed his attempts to develop the small shopping complex on the approximately two acre site immediately east of the dangerous 6th Avenue - U.S. #1 intersection. The two attached alternates are provided as additional reference material which relate to Exhibits 1 - 3 provided by the developer. We have briefly looked at the 3 exhibits and as a result developed the detail sheets shown as Alternates 1 and 2. Essentially the developer is requesting consideration of the reconfiguration of 6th Avenue to one north bound lane (Exhibit 1) or the provision of an ingress -egress area for one/or both affected parcels if the southern most portion of 6th Avenue could be abandoned (Exhibit 3). We have tried to clar- ify those sketches with preliminary detail sheets outlining the basic design. In regards to the proposals it should be mentioned that the staff has reser- vations in both instances. There are some unresolved problems in both con- figurations primarily in the areas of disrupting a through -route with no nearby alternate collector, and safety hazards as well. Generally, however, it should be noted that of the two staff details Alternate #1 is favored as the least hazardous. As mentioned, there would of course need to be additional provisions as to access limitations along U.S.#1, joint driveway agreements and significant traffic facility modifications such as barricades, warning devices and sign- age. There is also concern about the method of disposing of the right-of- way and/or acquiring the suitable right-of-ways for future needs. Suffice it to say that the staff does strongly feel that the Commission should look toward adopting or endorsing a set policy on overall transportation needs in this area prior to final resolution of any 6th Avenue - U.S. #1 design change: J U L 91900 Bmx 44 Cr