My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/28/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
10/28/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:20 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:12:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/28/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
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
SECTION 6 <br />Amend Section 10(c)(2) of Appendix B, Indian River <br />County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows: <br />(2) Minimum street widths. <br />9 <br />Marginal access roads 40 (ease- *20 <br />ment or right <br />-of-way <br />*The minimum required pavement width is 22' for two-way <br />streets servicing, projects requiring site plan approval. <br />Two-way streets and access roads servicing heavy commercial or <br />industrial uses shall have a minimum pavement width of 24'. <br />Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we want to acquire enough <br />right -o -f -way -at -least, and Commissioner Lyons believed that <br />"Minimum Right -of -Way" applies to acquired R/W, not paving. <br />Planner Boling informed the Board that the proposed footnote <br />would state 12" for each lane for arterial and primary and <br />secondary collector roads; if you are pretty far out and you do <br />have a primary collector street, it may only need to be two lane <br />for quite some time. Minor residential streefs and marginal <br />access roads would be 201. Director Keating noted that under <br />ITE standards 20' is really at the bare minimum. <br />Commissioner Wodtke brought up the problem involved with <br />minimum R/W width when you have a situation with canal district <br />R/W, and asked if the possibility of reserving but not dedicating <br />R/W "in that situation would be allowable under these standards. <br />Director Keating advised it would not be, but noted that <br />staff has made some amendments recently to the site plan <br />OCT 2 8 1986 31 BOOK 66 O;r 2 0 <br />Minimum <br />Minimum <br />Right -of -Way <br />Pavement <br />Width <br />Width <br />Street Types <br />(feet) <br />(feet) <br />Arterial <br />120 <br />48 <br />Primary collector streets <br />100 <br />48 <br />Secondary collector streets <br />80 <br />36 <br />Subdivision feeder roads <br />60 <br />24 <br />Minor or residential streets <br />60 <br />_ *20 <br />(with swale drainage) <br />Minor or residential streets <br />50 <br />*20 <br />(closed drainage, curb and <br />utter) <br />9 <br />Marginal access roads 40 (ease- *20 <br />ment or right <br />-of-way <br />*The minimum required pavement width is 22' for two-way <br />streets servicing, projects requiring site plan approval. <br />Two-way streets and access roads servicing heavy commercial or <br />industrial uses shall have a minimum pavement width of 24'. <br />Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we want to acquire enough <br />right -o -f -way -at -least, and Commissioner Lyons believed that <br />"Minimum Right -of -Way" applies to acquired R/W, not paving. <br />Planner Boling informed the Board that the proposed footnote <br />would state 12" for each lane for arterial and primary and <br />secondary collector roads; if you are pretty far out and you do <br />have a primary collector street, it may only need to be two lane <br />for quite some time. Minor residential streefs and marginal <br />access roads would be 201. Director Keating noted that under <br />ITE standards 20' is really at the bare minimum. <br />Commissioner Wodtke brought up the problem involved with <br />minimum R/W width when you have a situation with canal district <br />R/W, and asked if the possibility of reserving but not dedicating <br />R/W "in that situation would be allowable under these standards. <br />Director Keating advised it would not be, but noted that <br />staff has made some amendments recently to the site plan <br />OCT 2 8 1986 31 BOOK 66 O;r 2 0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.