Minutes - 02-28-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a. Amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element 1. Section 2.6 Transportation 2. 3.6 Cedar Grove Township 3. 3.7 Little River Township 4. 3.8 Cheeks Tawnship 5. 3.9 Hillsborough Township 6. 3.10 Eno Township 7. 3.11 Bingham Township 8. 3.12 Chapel Hill Township b. Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance 1. Section 4.2.10 Community Commercial III {CC-3) District 2. Section 4.2.11 General Commercial-IV {GC-4) District 3. Section 13.3 Applicability {Traffic Impact Study} 4. Article 22 Definitions c. Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations 1. Section II Definitions Craig Benedict made reference to a map that showed some of the metropolitan and transportation planning areas within the County. He said that over the years it has been difficult to remain consistent in labeling the roads within the different jurisdictions (i.e., major local, major collector, etc.). This inconsistency has made it difficult for Planning. He said that what was being brought forward tonight was the start of the land use and transportation planning element to the comprehensive plan, where a standardized set of roadway classifications would be developed to be used in all of the different jurisdictions. Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to show the Commissioners the limit for the metropolitan planning area. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the shrinkage of the Hillsborough area on the map. Planner Gene Bell said that in 1987, when the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan was done with the DOT and Hillsborough, the area that was defined was roughly 90 square miles. He said that the County had some sticking points with this because the area was so large and the County had no input. In 1991- 1992, there were ongoing discussions with the DOT. Ultimately, the Hillsborough Planning area was scaled down to roughly 30 square miles. Craig Benedict said that part of the process tonight is to update the comprehensive plan from 1981 and remove the language that was in that previous plan and replace it with language that speaks to today's conditions and add the road classifications. He described the new road classification system Interstate -major transportation corridor; arterial roadway - US 70, US 54; collector roadway -Orange Grove Road; major local roads -between subdivisions; and minor local roads -subdivision road. He said that another part of the transportation planning would be to develop "super blocks". The super blocks would be large areas of the County where there should be other major local roads to connect the areas. He made reference to the importance of a traffic impact study far any new development. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on who designates if a road is an arterial or connector road. Craig Benedict said that the County would make that designation. The County does work very closely with DOT to be sure that the definitions and classifications are consistent with DOT's definitions and classifications. Commissioner Brown asked if the trips per day were shown for the roads on the map. Craig Benedict said that DOT makes the determination of the capacity of a roadway based on a design. Commissioner Brown asked if any of the super blocks were part of the County's wildlife corridor studies and Craig Benedict said that the staff would look at the wildlife corridors. Commissioner Brown wants the wildlife corridors to be recognized as interconnected. She asked if the County keeps track of the road systems and the ratings they have now in terms of capacity. Craig Benedict said that the staff has recently received some information from DOT that would be downloaded into the GIS system that would give that kind of information. Commissioner Jacobs mentioned some grammatical mistakes in the text amendments. He would like to be very careful about having super blocks through watersheds and water quality critical areas. He is in favor of road connectivity, but he would like the County to be very careful in environmentally