My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/5/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
9/5/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:01:03 PM
Creation date
6/15/2015 4:53:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/05/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
_I <br />'SEP 519897 <br />BOOK ( <br />Chairman Wheeler believed that diverting the traffic could <br />have an adverse effect also. He also felt possibly the environ- <br />mental people were not present to ask questions at that meeting. <br />Commissioner Bird believed there are two schools of thought <br />on the environmental side also. Some say some of the mitiga- <br />tion with Alternate #3 might be an improvement over certain <br />environmental aspects of the area. <br />Director Davis reported the DOT's consultant indicated that, <br />in their opinion, the environmental impacts were not paramount; <br />that there would be some shading effect beneath the bridge <br />itself, but that would be minor, and there would be minimal <br />mitigation due to about two acres of fill. <br />Administrator Chandler wished to point out that we have not <br />been directly involved in this other than monitoring it. We were <br />contacted by both the City and the DOT to see if Alternate #3 <br />went through, how that would fit in with our plans for the <br />Boulevard. <br />Board members agreed that the county has not been heavily <br />involved, and Commissioner Bird commented that he would hate for <br />us to start sending mixed signals to the DOT at this point unless <br />we had really strong feelings about this. We really need that <br />bridge and he did not want to jeopardize that project in any way. <br />Commissioner Bowman wished to know if we allowed enough <br />capacity for Alternate #3 in our specs for Indian River Boulevard <br />North extension. <br />Director Davis advised the RIW we are seeking is planned so <br />everything will be expandable to 6 lanes. If the bridge did "T" <br />into the Boulevard, there would be some intersection improvements <br />needed, probably some turn lanes, etc. We are not designing the <br />Boulevard assuming that the bridge will "T" in, but if it does, <br />it could be expanded to mitigate the intersection impacts. <br />Commissioner Bowman believed that would be at considerable <br />cost to the County, but Director Davis stated that it would not <br />cost the County; that would be within the DOT project. <br />42 <br />_ ' ' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.