Laserfiche WebLink
Department. There was discussion on the ultimate size of Indian River Boulevard and <br />Director Davis gave 10 years as his estimate for the completion of its 64anes. He noted that <br />it will be rural design. He described the reasons for the cost differential between rural and <br />urban sections of roadways, estimating that urban is about double the cost of rural. <br />Ms. Gillick urged the Board to encourage the philosophy of aesthetics with respect <br />to landscaping. <br />Discussion continued about aesthetics, and Mr. Hamner suggested the Board was <br />being asked to charge staff with being highly creative where possible. <br />Mr. Gibbs brought up the County having a nursery, and it was the consensus of the <br />Board that it was not a good idea. <br />Approved with flexibility; encourage more and bigger trees on rural road sections. <br />Chairman Eggert read Question #4: <br />4. DOES THE BOARD APPROVE THE FDOT ROADWAY PROJECT AND COUNTY <br />ROADWAY PROJECT LANDSCAPING DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES DESCRIBED <br />IN THE WORKSHOP REPORT, FOR DESIGNATED CORRIDORS? <br />With limited discussion, consensus of the Board was "yes". <br />Chairman Eggert read Question #5: <br />5. DOES THE BOARD WISH TO DESIGNATE CR 510, CR 512, SR 60, AND US 1 <br />(NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY ENTRANCES) AS ROADWAYS WHERE THE <br />COUNTY WILL CONSIDER SPECIAL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING <br />ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS? <br />There was a brief discussion and the following suggestions were made: <br />Include Indian River Boulevard <br />Consider CR -510 and CR -512 all the way to US# 1 <br />Possibly consider Oslo Road in the future on/off ramps from I-95 <br />19 <br />September 8, 1997 <br />BOJK 102PAGE 478 <br />