12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Tom Loach, Steve Runkle, and Jeff Werner
STAFF: Mark Graham and Wayne Cilimberg
1. Call to Order – Steve Runkle called to order at 12:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes from August 10, 2004 Meeting – The minutes were approved with the following changes:
a. The words, “and staff” were dropped from the last sentence of the first paragraph in Item 3 to read, “Mr. Rieley asked that the word ”gutter” be omitted from the description since gutters are not always mandatory and curbs without gutters are preferable to curbs with gutter in some circumstances. DISC II agreed.”
It was noted that deletion of gutters requires a waiver from VDOT.
b. Addition of a third criteria for administrative waivers when new lots are proposed on an existing rural cross-section: “The street will serve only single-family detached lots.”
c. Modification of the first criteria for an administrative waiver for a new street to say, “ The new street would connect to two existing rural cross-section streets.”
3. Discussion of Subdivision Text Amendment related to waivers for curb/sidewalk/street trees -- Mark Graham began the conversation by conveying the current development staff’s concerns about administrative waivers becoming “standards”. Staff believes that if an administrative waiver becomes “routine”, it is a defacto standard that should be written into the ordinance.
DISC II re-discussed its position on whether administrative waivers should be granted routinely when certain criteria are met. The group decided that the word “waiver” should be changed to “exception”. DISC II agreed that exceptions are to be granted on a case-by-case basis and the operative word still should be “may” rather than “shall” before the phrase, “grant exceptions”.
The group decided that there are five circumstances in which staff should be able to consider an administrative exception to the requirement for curbing and a closed drainage system for new or extended streets in a subdivision. The exception would only be available for single-family detached lots of 150’ or more in width, to maintain consistency with the existing neighborhood and if the street is not expected to expand development beyond the existing neighborhood.
The five circumstances were noted as follows:
1. Extension of an existing rural cross-section street that cannot be extended beyond this subdivision.
2. New lots are proposed on an existing rural cross-section street. *
3. Extension of an existing rural cross-section street that connects to another rural cross-section street. **
4. A new street that intersects with two existing rural cross-section streets.
5. Extension of an existing rural cross-section street that intersects with another rural cross-section street.
* doesn’t require 150’ street frontage
** doesn’t require 150’ street frontage if on the curve of a street (like a cul-de-sac)
Illustrations were developed at the meeting which the members said should be included with the ordinance.
4. Set Next Meeting Date – The next meeting date was scheduled for August 24 from 12 – 1:30 in Room 235.
5. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to executive summary