4/5/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Scurlock said that he was talking about the main entrance signal, and Mr. Bird stated that the main entrance signal works. We need that. Chairman Scurlock understood though that they cannot meet the level of service if they don't have it, and asked Mr. Bird if that was correct. Mr. Bird felt that was a real interesting question, because if we don't have it, it means we are not generating near enough traffic, and Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we may have a conflict with the DOT, because they have their own rules, and he did not agree with the DOT in a lot of cases. Mr. Bird stated he did not either. The DOT has said that it is good spacing for future signalization, and there is no apparent reason why they would deny it if the traffic volumes are there. Attorney O'Haire emphasized that if the volumes were not there, then the projections in the volume of traffic are not there, and Mr. Bird answered, "Correct." Attorney O'Haire reiterated that the applicant has met all requirements of the ordinance, has very carefully analyzed the entire roadway, and has maintained what the ordinance requires. He stressed that they were not required to do anything more than that: He asked the Board to grant the appeal for denial of site plan approval and approve the site plan with the conditions that staff has outlined and that are acceptable to the applicant, and let them go on. Attorney Collins felt that it is important to clarify for the record that the 1st Street intersection was the principal reason why the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of the site plan as submitted. At that meeting he asked Mike Orr, the County Traffic Engineer, whether or not the 1st Street intersection at U.S. #1, which is within the study area of this site plan, would be able to operate at better than L.O.S. "E", and Mr. Orr indicated that it would not without a signal, which 41 APR 5 1988 Beg 71 PAGE 471