4/5/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is not at L.O.S. "E" because it does not have signalization, but he could not quantify that at the moment. Lengthy discussion ensued about traffic coming out from Indian River Trail and not being able to turn left. Chairman Scurlock felt that, in his opinion, there is no way in the world that we can allow this property to develop at this intensity without it being a substantial problem, not for just a year or two years, but forever. As one Commissioner, he was willing to vote not to allow that to happen and to vote against the use of that access. In fact, if they go through this process, and they are right and we are wrong because we have misread it, and we have to condemn it, then so be it. At that point, even if it costs us some money, he felt the Board would be derelict in it responsibilities if it did not support a safe situation down there. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that the Board would not be saying that they could not come in with a lesser development or different access. Assistant County Attorney William Collins wished to ask Director Davis to reiterate some of the statements that he made earlier in this meeting in order to make a record since the County has the burden of proving by substantial, competent evidence that unsafe traffic conditions would result from the proposed development. Attorney Collins: Earlier in this meeting we were shown the 1st Street intersection where northbound turn movements of 35 trips across 4 -lane U.S. #1 was considered to make for a L.O.S. "E" at that intersection. If 35 left turns across U.S. #1 from 1st Street going east and turning north into U.S. #1 got us into a L.O.S. "E" there, would not 204 left-hand turn movements across 4 -lane Indian River Boulevard also result in a L.O.S. "E"? Director Davis: "The analysis indicated that would result in a L.O.S. "D" with the traffic volumes at present. The situation would be aggravated in the future by increased traffic APR 5198 37 Booty 71 FADE 467