2/13/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 13 1985 a way point. He felt this is a significantly different situation than we had at CR 510, where the distance from the intersection was only 1191, and it appears that Mr. Proctor is willing to agree to certain conditions. Planning Director Keating wished to make several points. He noted that now when site plans on U.S.I don't have access to a lower class roadway, staff encourages them to provide their access drive laterally along the front and establish a common access easement so we can eventually establish a marginal frontage road system as adjacent properties develop. This has been pretty successful, and the overall objective is to reduce the number of curb cuts. Staff further does not feel the median cut should be allowed because the left turn restriction has been found to be unworkable because people ignore it. In addition, staff anticipates the traffic attracted to this site will be mainly truck traffic and those who are going there for a specific purpose. Vice Chairman Scurlock believed the developer has agreed to allow access to the property to the north through their property, and he did not see how you can just allow access to the back of a project and not have a negative impact on a developer. Director Keating felt this development will be made up of contractor's offices or warehouses, but the Vice Chairman noted that there are other acceptable uses that could end up there. Public Works Director Davis asked if the Board wishes staff to adhere strictly to the 1/4 mile access spacing required by the Comprehensive Plan or possibly put in a temporary curb cut for temporary access? Vice Chairman Scurlock felt you just use common sense and address the existing situation and then look at the area as it develops and try to plan for common entrances. Director Davis believed if this can be worded so it is clear this is a temporary cut and that, in the future, as the marginal access road becomes connected up, we would have the flexibility 18