My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/20/2013AP-B
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2013
>
08/20/2013AP-B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2018 2:27:24 PM
Creation date
3/23/2016 9:00:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Agenda Packet B
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
08/20/2013
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
393
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000F\S0004NK.tif
SmeadsoftID
14225
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
393
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
(W A resident of Waterway Village expressed his concern about the traffic <br /> impact at 53rd Street and 58th Avenue, and wondered why the applicant would <br /> not access exclusively from 53rd Street and 49th Street. <br /> Mr. Brian Good, Kimley-Horn and Associates, representing the applicant, <br /> explained there were two driveways being proposed on 58t Avenue; the <br /> northernmost driveway just south of 53rd Street with a right-in and right-out <br /> access and the southernmost driveway would be a full access that should not <br /> interfere with the intersection. <br /> Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Community Development Director, confirmed <br /> studies had shown even with the added traffic the levels of service would be <br /> maintained. <br /> Mr. Bob Walgaso, a resident of Waterway Village, said he would not like <br /> it to get to a point where the County would be forced to put a traffic light <br /> opposite the main entrance to the project coming off of 58th Avenue. He <br /> wanted to know if a traffic study had been done taking into consideration a full <br /> build-out of everything proposed in that area. <br /> Mr. Keating advised staff did not do a build-out traffic analysis; rather <br /> (W what they looked at was the developments already approved, existing trips on <br /> the road and trips from the proposed development. He explained how the IRC <br /> Metropolitan Planning Organization planned for future growth. <br /> Mr. McCoy related this was the first public hearing for conceptual <br /> approval of the plan and if it was approved by the IRC Board of County <br /> Commissioners (BCC) there would be public hearings later on as the plans <br /> were submitted. <br /> Mr. Walgaso stated he was not against the project per se but was <br /> concerned about the traffic impacts. <br /> Mr. Joseph Paladin, President of Black Swan Consulting and Entitlement, <br /> spoke in favor of the project and praised the individuals involved with the <br /> development. <br /> Mr. Jim Fallon, a resident of Lindsey Pines subdivision, wanted to know <br /> what would happen with 49th Street since it already had a lot of citrus traffic <br /> from U.S. Highway #1 and would be even busier when the proposed PD was <br /> built. <br /> LW <br /> PZC/Unapproved 3 July 11, 2013 <br /> ATTACHMENT 6 564 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.