Laserfiche WebLink
where the roadway link is stressed to capacity and the intersec- <br />tions are operating at LOS "C," then we do not request an impact <br />analysis. <br />OBJECTIVE 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REVIEW <br />A county transportation system review and evaluation will be <br />prepared on an annual basis. - NO COMMENT <br />OBJECTIVE 4 RIGHTS-OF-WAY <br />By 2010, the county will have secured the ultimate right-of-way <br />needed for all county collector and arterial roads within the <br />urban area. <br />Commissioner Bird felt we should have a map delineating <br />these R/Ws. <br />Director Keating noted that we have a map showing all the <br />Thoroughfare Plan roads, and we have listings by type of road of <br />how much R/W is required. <br />Mrs. Offutt noted that Policy 4.1 sets minimum R/W standards <br />for various type roads in urban areas and rural areas and wished <br />to know the difference between urban and rural. <br />Director_Davis explained that the difference between urban <br />and rural is predicated on a map the DOT prepares periodically <br />which describes the urban area. <br />Mrs. Offutt wished to know about the increase in the <br />proposed as compared to existing, and asked if this isn't asking <br />for a substantial increase. <br />Director Davis confirmed that the R/W with it is a substan- <br />tial increase, particularly in the rural section where we are not <br />going with curb and gutter drainage, but to meet water quality <br />standards, we are going with an open grass swale drainage system. <br />The necessity for the drainage treatment is what necessitates the <br />wider R/W width. <br />Director Keating explained that right now with our R/W <br />standards we classify arterials under one broad brush as needing <br />45 <br />P,00K d P4: r. -17U <br />