Browse
Search
ORD-2000-007 Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section II Definitions
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2000
>
ORD-2000-007 Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section II Definitions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2015 12:06:27 PM
Creation date
12/10/2012 4:24:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/28/2000
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
2c
Document Relationships
Agenda - 02-28-2000 - C2
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 02-28-2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
�Off•�/ f/�+� _- <br /> p� <br /> a. Amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element <br /> 1. Section 2.6 Transportation <br /> 2. 3.6 Cedar Grove Township <br /> 3. 3.7 Little River Township <br /> 4. 3.8 Cheeks Township <br /> 5. 3.9 Hillsborough Township <br /> 6. 3.10 Eno Township <br /> 7. 3.11 Bingham Township <br /> 8. 3.12 Chapel Hill Township <br /> b. Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance <br /> 1. Section 4.2.10 Community Commercial III (CC-3) District <br /> 2. Section 4.2.11 General Commercial-IV(GC-4) District <br /> 3. Section 13.3 Applicability(Traffic Impact Study) <br /> 4. Article 22 Definitions <br /> c. Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations <br /> 1. Section II Definitions <br /> Craig Benedict made reference to a map that showed some of the metropolitan and <br /> transportation planning areas within the County. He said that over the years it has been difficult to remain <br /> consistent in labeling the roads within the different jurisdictions (i.e., major local, major collector, etc.). This <br /> inconsistency has made it difficult for Planning. He said that what was being brought forward tonight was the <br /> start of the land use and transportation planning element to the comprehensive plan, where a standardized <br /> set of roadway classifications would be developed to be used in all of the different jurisdictions. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to show the Commissioners the limit for the <br /> metropolitan planning area. <br /> Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the shrinkage of the Hillsborough area on the map. <br /> Planner Gene Bell said that in 1987, when the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan was done with <br /> the DOT and Hillsborough, the area that was defined was roughly 90 square miles. He said that the County <br /> had some sticking points with this because the area was so large and the County had no input. In 1991- <br /> 1992,there were ongoing discussions with the DOT. Ultimately,the Hillsborough Planning area was scaled <br /> down to roughly 30 square miles. <br /> Craig Benedict said that part of the process tonight is to update the comprehensive plan from <br /> 1981 and remove the language that was in that previous plan and replace it with language that speaks to <br /> today's conditions and add the road classifications. He described the new road classification system: <br /> Interstate-major transportation corridor; arterial roadway- US 70, US 54; collector roadway-Orange Grove <br /> Road; major local roads- between subdivisions; and minor local roads-subdivision road. He said that <br /> another part of the transportation planning would be to develop"super blocks". The super blocks would be <br /> large areas of the County where there should be other major local roads to connect the areas. He made <br /> reference to the importance of a traffic impact study for any new development. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on who designates if a road is an arterial or <br /> connector road. <br /> Craig Benedict said that the County would make that designation. The County does work very <br /> closely with DOT to be sure that the definitions and classifications are consistent with DOT's definitions and <br /> classifications. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked if the trips per day were shown for the roads on the map. <br /> Craig Benedict said that DOT makes the determination of the capacity of a roadway based on a <br /> design. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked if any of the super blocks were part of the County's wildlife corridor <br /> studies and Craig Benedict said that the staff would look at the wildlife corridors. <br /> Commissioner Brown wants the wildlife corridors to be recognized as interconnected. She <br /> asked if the County keeps track of the road systems and the ratings they have now in terms of capacity. <br /> Craig Benedict said that the staff has recently received some information from DOT that would <br /> be downloaded into the GIS system that would give that kind of information. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs mentioned some grammatical mistakes in the text amendments. He <br /> would like to be very careful about having super blocks through watersheds and water quality critical areas. <br /> He is in favor of road connectivity, but he would like the County to be very careful in environmentally <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.