My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/5/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
4/5/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:49:42 AM
Creation date
6/5/2015 9:26:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/05/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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
1) A right-hand turn lane into 4th Street as you are coming <br />southbound on U.S. #1, which will help the capacity of that <br />intersection. <br />2) A dual left -turn lane coming from Indian River Boulevard <br />south onto U.S. #1. This improvement would be a very <br />involved and costly improvement as it could involve <br />right-of-way acquisition and expansion of the railroad <br />crossing at 4th Street. <br />Mr. Boling noted that when the P & Z Commission voted 4-2 to <br />deny the site plan, the main focus was on the level of service <br />(LOS) standards in the ordinance at the intersection of U.S. #1 <br />and 1st. Street. Right now, that intersection is at LOS "E01, <br />peak hour, peak season movements. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked that in the event the Board is going <br />to be presented with information this morning beyond what was <br />presented at the P & Z meeting, if it would be appropriate that <br />this matter go back to P & Z before coming to the Board. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission is an advisory body, and if they have not heard this <br />information, the Board may want to send it back to them for their <br />review and also that of the Technical Review Committee. <br />Chairman Scurlock had some serious questions about what <br />testimony the Board should be considering today, and Attorney <br />Vitunac felt the Board has the prerogative of sending it back for <br />full review if something different has happened since the P & Z <br />reviewed it. Secondly, if there are technical changes that have <br />not been run through the testing procedure of our staff, the TRC, <br />and the P & Z, the Board may want to have that testing done, <br />because any change on ist Street, 4th Street, or other roads may <br />attect the entire view of the site plan with regard to the <br />traffic impact of the proposed shopping center. The Board would <br />not be denying the site plan or the appeal at this moment, but <br />the Board would be saying that they need the full review before <br />it comes back up. In fact, if it goes through the P & Z after <br />the full review, it may be approved at that time. <br />Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we talk a lot about <br />property rights, and felt that the property rights we need to <br />27 <br />KPR, 51988 <br />Etoof 71 PACE 455 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.