12/6/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 6 1938 BOOK 75 F' 6E 279 would be allowed under CL, and there could be something more than a 50% increase in the number of cars parked on site. Chairman Scurlock believed it is the intent of the developer to market the tract; so, at this point there actually is no way to determine exactly what is going to happen except within certain parameters, i.e., the low end and the high end. He wished to know it that is right. Mr. Park agreed that is about right. Chairman Scurlock asked if any analysis was done on the possibility of downsizing if it were possible not to allow co - mingling of traffic and how that would impact any development under either district. Mr. Park said they did not make such an analysis. He honestly felt the co -mingling of traffic would not be a consider- ation at all in an office development. - Michael Byrd, traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn, advised that he thoroughly analyzed this over the past year in conjunc- tion with staff. With the 101 acre site analysis, it showed that the entire site can load directly onto U.S.1. and no connection to Indian River Boulevard is needed to provide for an acceptable level of service. the little out parcel obviously would have to access the entrance drive and co -mingle. Chairman Scurlock asked if that was the case prior to the other rezoning, and Mr. Byrd stated that at one point it defin- itely was; they ran the numbers and the intersection worked without any improvements, but later the traffic volumes had increased significantly, and it did not work without major intersection improvements. They definitely do need the major improvements to develop the site, and with them, they can take the entire parcel and load it onto U.S.1 and meet the standards of the traffic ordinance. Chairman Scurlock asked if the county staff concurs. Public Works Director Davis advised that back when the initial plan was reviewed, there was still an issue re the 1st 28