Laserfiche WebLink
- Commissioner Bowman asked how far they had reached for <br />impact, and Mr. Tramel advised that they went as far north as <br />17th Street and U.S. #1. <br />Commissioner Bowman was concerned..about the number of <br />traffic trips that would be generated by 600 units and the impact <br />that would have on U.S. #1, especially at the 4th Street <br />intersection where we know right now that we need a second <br />left -turn lane coming off of Indian River Boulevard and entering <br />US. #1. There is hardly enough space in there to add that <br />left -turn lane, and she couldn't see putting that extra traffic <br />at that particular intersection because it is going to be a <br />tremendous job to increase capacity there. <br />Attorney O'Haire noted that transportation did surface as an <br />issue in the P&Z meeting, and he had wished to address it, both <br />for purposes of the record and for the Commission's information. <br />In conclusion, and again reserving some time at the end for <br />rebuttal, Attorney O'Haire summarized that opposition to their <br />application has arisen from two areas, the Lab to the south of <br />them which is located in an RM -6 category, and Forest Park <br />Subdivision to the north. Basically, what the Lab is saying is <br />that any use of the subject property is going to affect the use <br />of their property. He doesn't argue that point, but his clients <br />are entitled to use their property and are entitled to a <br />reasonable use of it. He noted that the County's Planning staff <br />has identified a solution to their concern, which is a transition <br />area of buffering within the subject parcel, and they are <br />perfectly happy to live with that because it can all be done on a <br />PRD basis and coherently planned for the best interests of the <br />property owner and the community. <br />Commissioner Scurlock wished to make the following memo from <br />Attorney Collins a part of the official record, and Attorney <br />Vitunac pointed out that this memo goes into the same type of <br />issue that we just talked about. We thought we disagreed with <br />Attorney O'Haire, but he agrees with us. <br />35 <br />