12/6/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

St. SW connection to U.S.I, which is unsignalized. We did communicate with Kimley-Horn and ask what the effect would be of not utilizing that link on the system and diverting that traffic to the 4th St. corridor. He was not fully convinced that they had utilized the 4th St. corridor to the full extent, and further noted that this development plan did not anticipate the Oslo South development when they were running these numbers. The corridor is changing yearly. Mr. Byrd stated that at one point they did look at re- stricting movements on 1st St. because of the lack of signaliza- tion and loading 4th St. They did not look at the access road, and he contended it is a totally separate issue from the situation at the Boulevard. Director Davis explained that what we are looking at is diverting 1st St. traffic to 4th St. and deleting the connection from the Boulevard to the commercial parcel, and if both of these scenarios were reanalyzed, then staff could analyze whether the U.S.I connection can handle the commercial zoning in its entirety or not. He did not believe both scenarios were looked at together and did not believe all the interrelations were analyzed. Acting Administrator Collins pointed out that we cannot really look at this until a specific site plan is presented. We now are just dealing with the zoning issue and whether this is appropriate for OCR or CL, and everything still is hypothetical because we don't know if we will see a site plan with a 3 -story building or one story, etc., and he further noted that you can go to 35' in either the CL or OCR district. Chairman Scurlock commented that where he sees another controlling factor is the fact that what you maximally can do under either district is still limited by this transportation element. With the restriction of not co -mingling, he would like a simple comparison of what you could do under either district. 29 DEC 6 1988 KO 75 OLE 280