Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spine Road, John Anderson access and overpass dispute dominates public comment
Summary
Residents and the developer debated whether the Spine Road will relieve or worsen traffic on John Anderson, whether an overpass or other mitigation is required, and whether prior PUD commitments have been enforced; the exchange included litigation history and a denial of an allegation about gopher tortoises.
Traffic and safety on John Anderson and the proposed Spine Road drew sustained public comment and a debate among residents, the developer and attorneys over mitigation, historical PUD commitments and litigation.
John Tanner, attorney for Preserve Flagler Beach and Beulah Creek Inc., urged the city and developer to protect John Anderson, which he described as a state-designated scenic roadway. Tanner said the Spine Road connection should be designed to avoid directing significant new traffic onto John Anderson and that mitigation such as an overpass or underpass should be considered: "It was necessary then. It’s necessary now," he told the workshop, arguing the road’s rural character and sight-distance conditions raise health, safety and welfare concerns.
Developer representatives said the Spine Road has been studied for 15 years and is necessary to reduce traffic on John Anderson by providing a more direct connection to State Road 100 and the commercial node. A developer speaker said prior traffic analyses by the DOT, the Regional Planning Council, the TPO and traffic engineers support the Spine Road and that prior litigation found the commission did not require an overpass or underpass as part of the PUD.
Residents and attorneys disputed that account. One public speaker recalled that earlier concepts included an overpass and an earlier developer posted a $5,000,000 bond tied to a required bridge. Participants noted prior litigation and differences between plan concepts and commission requirements; Tanner and others said design features originally anticipated were not ultimately required.
The meeting also included a contentious allegation and denial. Developer-affiliated Ken Belshi addressed a claim that gopher tortoises were buried on the east side of the project; he called that claim "not true," emphasized that relocation requires permits and said relocation work was documented, noting relocation costs he cited as about $5,000 per tortoise.
No formal decision was made at the workshop. Commissioners said they would seek to convene city and developer representatives and will present further information to the commission at upcoming public meetings so the issues can be aired before the second reading in January.
