1989-05-11 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Comp Plan Meeting Minutes page three May 11, 1989 page 34 - Trails - #21a. Don't believe we have room for an 8 foot wide path on each side of the road. (Neumann) Response: Mack noted that 8 feet would be the ideal situation, but that the key word would be "feasible ". Pelton noted that 8 feet is good, as two bikes can pass - or would be wide enough for pedestrian and bike traffic. She noted that the path should be wide enough that a bike or pedestrian would not have to step off the path on to collectors when it is necessary to pass. She advised that it may unrealistic to put a path on both sides of the street. She suggested one side of the street that can be physically separated with a curb, guard rail, buffer, etc. Welk noted that she would rather see 8 feet on one side versus 4 feet on each side of the street. Mack again advised that he felt that City flexibility was built into the statements as written. *Question: page 35 - Trails - #21c. Was under the impression we would have sidewalk or trial on one side of road in all new development. (Neumann) *Response: It appeared that the consensus of those present were in favor of amending the proposed plan as follows: page 35 - Trails - #21a. Shall be left as is. - #21b. Shall be amended to read a 5 foot minimum and that it shall be either concrete or bituminous. - #21c. Shall be amended to that a trail or sidewalk "may" be required. *Question: page 35 - Trails - #23 and #25. #23 - How would this be accomplished and at who's cost? #25 - Explain to include what type of travel. (L'Allier) *Response: Mack advised that this would depend upon the type of street or location and if the County or the City initiated the system. The plan advocates separation of the pedestrian and motor traffic. Mack noted that #25 was added per the recommendation of the Park and WW@Ati@fl @ ®mmLtt @@ for hiking, biking, or ©®®