<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Depotdazed &#187; vdot</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/tag/vdot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:10:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What is the Comprehensive Plan &#8211; A Short View from State Codes. Should changes be made?</title>
		<link>http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/2009/06/what-is-the-comprehensive-plan-a-short-view-from-state-codes-should-changes-be-made/</link>
		<comments>http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/2009/06/what-is-the-comprehensive-plan-a-short-view-from-state-codes-should-changes-be-made/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:13:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Land Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christiansburg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comprehensive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vdot]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/?p=1047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laws concerning what is required in the Comprehensive Plan, when they must be reviewed and modified might be on a collision path with new State Codes.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">This is just one small part of the Comprehensive Plan section of the State Codes. Note the use of the word future. How closely does the Town of Christiansburg come to meeting these criteria? (That has been the topic of multiple previous blogs and will be the catalyst for many more in the future.)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">(sections from § 15.2-2223. Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose.)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><em>In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the <span style="font-weight: bold">probable future requirements </span>of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a <span style="font-weight: bold">coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.</span></em></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p><em>The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shall show the locality&#8217;s long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. It may include, but need not be limited to: </em></p>
<p><em>1. The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of residential, including age-restricted, housing; business; industrial; agricultural; mineral resources; conservation; active and passive recreation; public service; <span style="font-weight: bold">flood plain and drainage;</span> and other areas; </em></p>
<p><em>2. <span style="font-weight: bold">The designation of a system of community service facilities such as parks, sports playing fields, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposal areas, and the like; </span></em></p>
<p><em>3. The <span style="font-weight: bold">designation of historical areas and areas for urban renewal or other treatment</span>; </em></p>
<p><em>4. The <span style="font-weight: bold">designation of areas for the implementation of reasonable ground water protection measures</span>; </em></p>
<p><em>5. <span style="font-weight: bold">A capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps</span>, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestal district maps, where applicable; </em></p>
<p><em>6. The location of existing or <span style="font-weight: bold">proposed recycling center</span>s; </em></p>
<p><em>7. The location of military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas; and </em></p>
<p><em>8. The designation of corridors or routes for electric transmission lines of 150 kilovolts or more. </em></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><em>The plan shall include: the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet the current and <span style="font-weight: bold">future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality</span> while considering the current and<span style="font-weight: bold"> future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated.<br />
</span></em></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The Christiansburg Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003, reviewed and readopted without change in 2007, and will not be up for full rewrite until 2013. The Town Council has the right to request a full review and update anytime it sees fit. There may be some resistance to doing that because there is now a State Statute that required that any changes in the Comprehensive Plan or any new versions of the Comprehensive Plan MUST be submitted to VDOT for approval. This means there would be some eyes outside of Town Government that would be taking a close look at traffic issues and where problems need to be addressed. (See: <a href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+15.2-2222.1+707131" target="_blank">15.2-2222.1. Coordination of state and local transportation planning.</a>)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">This might be a good issue to bring up with those candidates who will be running for Town Council in the next election. Yep! Definitely sounds like a campaign issue to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/2009/06/what-is-the-comprehensive-plan-a-short-view-from-state-codes-should-changes-be-made/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Excuse me Mr. Terpenny, where did you get that street width info from? What VDOT has to say!</title>
		<link>http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/2009/06/excuse-me-mr-terpenny-where-did-you-get-that-street-width-info-from-what-vdot-has-to-say/</link>
		<comments>http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/2009/06/excuse-me-mr-terpenny-where-did-you-get-that-street-width-info-from-what-vdot-has-to-say/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:06:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Land Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christiansburg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[malfeasance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manager]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[town]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vdot]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/?p=1025</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Was erroneous information provided to the Planning Commission pertaining to road width requirements for Sage Lane? What does VDOT have to say? Let's just take a look.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why shucks! It is taken right out of <a href="http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/SSAR_GuidanceDoc_4.3.09.pdf" target="_blank">VDOT&#8217;s Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements dated March 2009</a>. It was also taken out of context. Town Manager Terpenny noted last night that VDOT only required a 24 foot paved roadway when asked about possible problems with access to houses around Sage Lane for Fire, police, etc. (additionally the above link can be <a href="http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Kc56YRwGzsQJ:virginiadot.org/projects/resources/SSAR_GuidanceDoc_4.3.09.pdf+vdot+street+width+requirements&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-a" target="_blank">viewed as html</a>.</p>
<p>From page 52 of this document:<br />
<span style="font-style: italic"> <img src='http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif' alt='8)' class='wp-smiley' /> Design Requirements – Context Sensitive Street Design (Page 39 and section 30-92-120 within the SSAR)<br />
The agency’s <span style="font-weight: bold">previous</span> Subdivision Street Requirements commonly included a standard <span style="font-weight: bold">street design width between 36 and 40 feet</span>. These widths <span style="font-weight: bold">combined with local ordinance mandated off-street parking requirements</span> often resulted in an effective local street lane width of 18 feet. Widths of this extent result in large impervious surface areas that exacerbate stormwater runoff and encourages higher vehicular speeds that are generally inappropriate in most areas.<br />
Key elements in the implementation of the SSAR are the revised elements of the roadway’s geometric design. <span style="font-weight: bold">The revised geometric design standards generally allow for narrower streets (24 to 29 feet wide for local streets)</span> than were allowed in the past. These narrower street widths will play a significant role in reducing vehicle speeds through developments. Additionally, these narrower roadways will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff due to their smaller impervious area. While the streets are narrower, they meet the nationally accepted AASHTO minimum design standards for the design of roadways.</span></p>
<p>Maybe I&#8217;m misreading something but it seems that these widths are consistent with the &#8220;combined with local ordinance mandated off-street parking requirement&#8221;. Howver, within the area of Sage Lane, it appears that some special measures (good ones on the part of the developer were taken to minimize impervious surfaces) such that most homes have room to park only one car and the street is full of additional parked cars from those homes on both sides.</p>
<p>Trying to have their cake and eat it too????? Even the 24 foot width quoted by the Town Manager is at the extreme end of the scale (24 to 29 feet). Is there a local ordinance mandating off-street parking, if so what does it say? How many parking spaces are required? Was there a variance on the existing development?</p>
<p>Something just doesn&#8217;t make sense to me&#8230;.maybe you 2,000 plus readers can find what I&#8217;m missing. Maybe you can find it before Town Council does:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.myvaresources.com/blogs/depotdazed/2009/06/excuse-me-mr-terpenny-where-did-you-get-that-street-width-info-from-what-vdot-has-to-say/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

