ORD-2013-007 Ordinance Denying Amendment to OC Comp. Plan, UDO and Zoning Atlas

Browse Search

x-5"- / 3 Commissioner Dorosin said his question is with regard to the approval process and he wonders if they could incentivize the developers to provide a publicly accessible sidewalk. Perdita Holtz said there would need to be a sidewalk plan for the area to avoid issues with encouraging trespass on adjoining properties if a sidewalk ends at the edge of one property and is not continued on the next. Commissioner Pelissier said most lots in this overlay district either face Hwy 70 or Efland Cheeks Road and these are highly traveled roads. She said that requiring sidewalks is not going to encourage connectivity in this area. Perdita Holtz said the internal pedestrian system is an amenity for that property. Commissioner McKee said that this issue brings up questions that center on the cost of housing and the cost of building in Orange County. He said that he does not believe the planning is not far enough along to really consider and he feels the discussion is premature. He said there should be a closer look at connectivity and whether this will continue the escalation in property cost on housing and businesses. He thinks the high housing cost in Orange County is partially due to these regulations. Chair Jacobs asked Craig Benedict how this fits into the Planning Department's work plan to pursue a connectivity plan. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said there is an Efland/Mebane area implementation focus group that could be re-convened to discuss this issue along with other topics that come with making this a village area. He said that the struggle is that there are designated urban transition areas, yet there are characteristics that fit more with a rural county. He said that if growth is to be promoted, the connectivity characteristic is needed. He said there will be a work plan note put together and sent to the Commissioners on what the Planning Board is trying to achieve and how progress will be made. He said there is potential to bring this up on the work plan for this year. Chair Jacobs agreed with the connectivity issue being a priority and said this issue has been discussed in the Efland area for about 8 years. He said it has not been satisfactorily addressed. He said either recommendation will require more work for planning staff. He said that an incentive plan is worth looking at and a connectivity plan is essential. He said that if intensity is going to be encouraged then comprehensive connectivity must be dealt with. He said that it is the job of the Board, if planning for urban style growth, to plan for urban style transit and he would hope for concrete recommendations this year. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made try Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt item 3-c which states the Board will not adopt any changes, and that the Board will adopt Attachments 5 and 6, which consist of an ordinance denying the amendments and the Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and that staff and the Planning Board will address and answer the issues on page 3, Items 1-7 listed below: 1. The imposition of'requiring' public use of private property including the cost (potentially upwards of$100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise? 2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)