4/5/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

consider in this case are threefold: 1) The adjacent residents, who are going to be affected by the project; 2) The owner of the property and his rights to develop that property; and 3) Future development along that corridor. The U.S. #1 corridor is extremely important to Indian River County, and there are certain limitations on how many lanes can be added to handle the increased traffic. He felt we have to consider traffic impact of future development, and not just totally consume the capacity on U.S. #1 tor this one project. Commissioner Eggert wanted to hear any new information that has come up since the P & Z meeting. She personally did not see how the situation with Indian River Boulevard and Vista Trails can be improved by putting a heavy commercial situation there. Further, she could not see approving a site plan that allowed commercial traffic to come out on the Boulevard through Vista Trail. Chairman Scurlock felt that a tremendous safety problem would be created by forcing the residential traffic to pass through the commercial area. He asked for clarification on what legal ability the Board has today to consider information that has not been presented before. Attorney Vitunac advised that if the applicant is willing to go ahead with an appeal on the exact site plan he presented to P & Z without any modifications that might help the site plan, he has the right to go through the appeal today, and the Board can either deny it or not. If the applicant wants to take advantage of some of the changes suggested by staff and others, such as prohibiting left turns off of U.S. #1, he may wish to postpone this right now and send it back for appropriate review by staff, the Technical Review Committee and the P & Z Commission. If he does, it will be a new site plan because of the new modifications and the P & Z could approve it, and then there may not be an appeal here. 27a APR 51988 BOO 71. N,F 456