Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trail Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff say trail mandates targeted to larger parcels; developers warn small infill lots would be harmed
Summary
Commissioners and public commenters debated where trail requirements should apply: the consultant said trail standards are aimed at larger NR2 parcels (~10 acres) and not intended for NR1 infill lots, while commenters said trail mandates on small infill parcels lack a rational nexus and could waste land.
Public commenters and commissioners clashed over whether trail requirements in the draft code are appropriate for small infill parcels. Austin Fuller and others argued mandatory trail cross‑sections are impractical on one‑ to five‑acre infill lots and would in some cases terminate at a private front yard with no connectivity.
"We don't think that's going to be appropriate for most of the subdivisions that we're going to work on," Fuller said, asking staff to limit trail requirements to parcels where connectivity is feasible. Chesky responded that trail and connectivity standards are focused on NR2 master‑planned parcels and larger development sites "where they make sense," and that NR1 infill is not expected to carry those trail mandates.
Chesky and commissioners agreed that trail provisions are intended to support future connectivity where parcels are large enough to link to regional systems, and that staff will clarify the code so trail requirements are not applied where they produce dead‑end infrastructure.
