12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Will Rieley, and Steve Runkle.
STAFF: Elaine Echols and Mark Graham
1. Call to Order – Steve Runkle called to order at 12:15 p.m.
Approval of Minutes from August 31, 2004 Meeting – On a motion by Marilynn Gale, seconded by Bill Edgerton, the minutes were approved as written. Katie Hobbs asked staff to work with the County Attorney on whether or not “good engineering practice” is appropriate wording for the ordinance.
2. Discussion on Sidewalks and Street Trees – The Committee began its discussion sidewalks and concluded with the following comments:
a. For urban streets, concrete sidewalks should be required on both sides of the street. An exception to this rule would be allowed only where lots are proposed to be single-loaded; however, more work needs to be done on what “single-loaded” means.
b. A PC waiver should be available for the requirement to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street and for use of an asphalt path if there is an extraordinary situation. More work needs to be done to qualify what an extraordinary situation would be.
c. A statement should be added to the ordinance which states that staff may require a 10’ multi-use path if the use warrants the need for the path. This multi-use path would replace a sidewalk. Examples of a use warranting the path would be near a school where having bicycles off-road is preferable to on-road.
d. For rural cross-section streets, a PC waiver could be requested for building a sidewalk. Because pedestrian access is a high priority as a County goal, sidewalks would not be automatically waived.
f. In granting a waiver for sidewalks on both sides of the street or a waiver to the requirement altogether, the Planning Commission should consider:
1. the number of lots to be created
2. width of lots,
3. density of the development,
4. the existing pedestrian system within the surrounding area,
5. ability of the sidewalk to connect into an existing or future pedestrian system
6. whether an alternate pedestrian system could provide more appropriate access throughout the development
DISC II discussed construction standards (concrete or asphalt) for pedestrian access on rural streets including the pros and cons of each material. One proposal was to require concrete if the sidewalk is NOT to be maintained by VDOT because it has a longer life. Concrete or asphalt would be available if the walkway is to be maintained by VDOT. The group did not reach consensus and agreed to bring closure to the “materials” discussion for pedestrian access on rural streets at its next meeting as well as finish the discussion on planting strips and street trees.
4. Set Next Meeting Date – The next meeting date was scheduled for September 14, 2004.
5. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Go to September 14 minutes
Return to exec summary