My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/23/2006 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
05/23/2006 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2022 11:16:50 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:01:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/23/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3123
Book and Page
130, 794-810
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
310
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
<br />IRC’s mitigation is similar to other counties, which includes roadway widening, retiming or <br />rephasing of signalized major intersections, and intersection improvements. IRC relies on the <br />Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) access management standards. Our driving <br />range standards are specific and they have an enumerated number of different uses, which is in <br />contrast to what other counties do. IRC has a set minimum for gated residential community <br />stacking lanes. <br />Mr. Kim <br /> explained the radius of influence as to what roads need to be analyzed. <br />He provided a graph (copy on file) using an example of five different levels of criteria to <br />establish a radius of influence. IRC now is the most conservative of the counties studied by <br />assuring a five-mile radius is reviewed to do their analysis. <br />Mr. McMahon <br /> provided an example to further explain how IRC requirements of <br />looking at a five-mile radius would affect a particular development. <br />Mr. Kim’s <br /> recommendations included that IRC should require an analysis of all <br />roadways where a project’s net new peak hour directional impact is 2% of its level of service <br />(LOS). IRC should analyze signalized intersections at both ends of a significantly impacted <br />roadway that is within 10 percent of reaching its adopted LOS. <br />Mr. McMahon <br /> said a 2% LOS makes it less restrictive, rather than liberal <br />conservative. It gives more latitude, but makes sure you catch those areas that will need <br />improvement. <br />Traffic Engineer Chris Mora commented that the consultants are proposing much <br />less than what we do now. Currently we only look at the project approach at the intersections. <br />Mr. Kim <br /> continued with his recommendations stating IRC should require, as a <br />minimum, AM and PM peak-hour, peak-season directional volumes. IRC should require a <br />different peak hour for large projects, whose impacts may change the peak hour of the adjacent <br />streets. <br />Commissioner Davis questioned if there is another alternative to staff doing two <br />programs. <br />MAY 23, 2006 <br />3 <br />JOINT WORKSHOP P&Z/BCC <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.