6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN H 1991 Poor. 83 F'A,UE 724 appeared. Mr. Dill noted that to give his client the OCR would severely reduce the results they were looking for, especially since they were asking for GC to start with and only agreed to_ the CL based on discussions with the Commission. Chairman Bird noted that the question before the house appears to be OCR or CL as, other than that, we have a positive recommendation from staff. He personally did not have any problems with the CL. Commissioner Eggert stated that she has a problem with this whole thing. She did not have any problem with PRO, but she does have a problem with commercial. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard. Mrs. Kleinman, Vista Gardens Trail, wondered if, in review- ing this situation, staff has taken into consideration a private road that leads to Tropic Square. Traffic is horrendous in Tropic Square during the season; you have cars lined up to go to the Post Office; and if the Board allows any commercial to go in the subject area and leaves that private road as it is, you will have a tremendous traffic problem. Mrs. Kleinman clarified that she is referring to the road on the McRae property that leads into 6th Avenue. County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that is a site plan consideration. Mrs. Kleinman further stressed that when Indian River Boule- vard was discussed originally, it was described as a residential boulevard leading to the hospital easing U.S.I. and other main arteries, and if the Commi.ssion continues to allow commercial property on the Boulevard, it will no longer serve that purpose. Commissioner Eggert wished to clarify that while the Minutes of the transmittal hearing show a 5/0 vote to transmit the CL, the vote on the CL itself was 4/1. She voted against the CL, but when she saw how the Board voted, she then made the vote for transmittal unanimous. Chairman Bird did not feel there is a great deal of difference between OCR and CL, at least not when you are at the back door of Wa lMart. Attorney Dill referred back to the private road mentioned by Mrs. Kleinman, noting that it is an easement road; it is private to his clients; and if that property were ever sold, it would be removed anyway. He argued that staff's report is based on the highest and most intense commercial use of that property, which is CG, and staff says that even at CG, it still would provide adequate buffering as a transition. If staff can support CG, he did not see how CL use could not be supported. Mr. Dill continued to stress that they did amend their request to CL at 134 M