Agenda - 04-09-2013 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

13 1 Chair Jacobs asked Craig Benedict how this fits into the Planning Department's work 2 plan to pursue a connectivity plan. 3 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said there is an Efland/Mebane area 4 implementation focus group that could be re-convened to discuss this issue along with other 5 topics that come with making this a village area. He said that the struggle is that there are 6 designated urban transition areas, yet there are characteristics that fit more with a rural county. 7 He said that if growth is to be promoted, the connectivity characteristic is needed. He said 8 there will be a work plan note put together and sent to the Commissioners on what the Planning 9 Board is trying to achieve and how progress will be made. He said there is potential to bring 10 this up on the work plan for this year. 11 Chair Jacobs agreed with the connectivity issue being a priority and said this issue has 12 been discussed in the Efland area for about 8 years. He said it has not been satisfactorily 13 addressed. He said either recommendation will require more work for planning staff. He said 14 that an incentive plan is worth looking at and a connectivity plan is essential. He said that if 15 intensity is going to be encouraged then comprehensive connectivity must be dealt with. He 16 said that it is the job of the Board, if planning for urban style growth, to plan for urban style 17 transit and he would hope for concrete recommendations this year. 18 19 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to 20 close the public hearing. 21 22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 23 24 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt 25 item 3-c which states the Board will not adopt any changes, and that the Board will adopt 26 Attachments 5 and 6, which consist of an ordinance denying the amendments and 27 the Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and that staff and the Planning 28 Board will address and answer the issues on page 3, Items 1-7 listed below: 29 30 1. The imposition of`requiring' public use of private property including the cost 31 (potentially upwards of$100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and 32 maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise? 33 2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 34 compatible (i.e. paved)? 35 3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance. 36 4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in 37 the potential building size. 38 5. Would the `piece-meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and/or affect 39 the development design of adjacent parcels? 40 6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners. 41 7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability. 42 43 Commissioner Dorosin said he sees the seven issues as narrower than what Chair 44 Jacobs said about connectivity plans and urbanization of the area. 45 Commissioner McKee said his intent is that this be moved back to the Planning Board 46 and staff for discussion and not that any comments or ideas discussed be eliminated or not 47 considered. He said the idea of putting the plan in place and then addressing the issues is 48 counterproductive and said that he is supportive of the village and the zoning. 49 Chair Jacobs said #7 on page 3 is just a comment, not a direction and he questioned 50 Commissioner McKee's intention in requesting an answer to this open ended statement.