Minutes 04-07-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

said that putting sidewalks on private property is an option. He added when sidewalks are on private property, then someone else must maintain them. He said the ability to put sidewalks within transition areas in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, under Orange County jurisdiction prior to annexation, had been addressed. He said a municipality, through a multiparty agreement, could take responsibility for the sidewalk maintenance. He said there is not an easy solution. He said there are a lot of ideas. He said discussions with DOT are ongoing as there continue to be urban-like areas in County jurisdiction that are not easily annexable by municipalities. He said a solution that all parties can agree upon has yet to be determined. He agreed with Chair McKee that the UDO is not set in stone and the BOCC can review the issue again along with the DOT counterparts, if so desired. Commissioner Rich said as more urban like communities get approved, the sidewalk issue will be difficult to resolve if the precedence of"we're not in the sidewalk business" has been set. Craig Benedict said the current option is privately owned pedestrian pathways on private property for which the County and the DOT are not responsible. He said these pathways are mulch paths that allow for safe walking routes for pedestrians, especially children. He said it is unlikely that DOT will approve sidewalks being installed without a specific designate being named for maintenance. He said the financial implication of sidewalks is great. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out language in 6.6.4.a.8 that discusses "an internal pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained by the property owner". He suggested, following approval, a motion be made asking staff to look at the existing language and return with recommendations to whether privately maintained pathways is a workable system. He said such an option would not involve DOT. Chair McKee agreed with this course of action. Commissioner Price said there is another county looking into sidewalks as well. She said it is a large issue that warrants a full discussion. Commissioner porosin asked if the public would be able to use such a pedestrian circulation system maintained by private owners or if the pathways would only be open to those living within the development. Perdita Holtz said it would apply to multi-family and commercial projects. She said that commercial projects are open to the public. She said public use of pathways that are internal to a multi family development would be at the discretion of the property owner. She said each issue would be handled on a case by case basis as site plans come in. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to reinstate the language for both the Efland interstate and Efland Village regarding pedestrian circulation systems and to direct staff to articulate why internal pedestrian circulation systems cannot be required. He said staff would be asked to return to the BOCC before the end of the calendar year with the opportunity to discuss the analysis and any recommendations. Chair McKee made a friendly amendment that directs staff not only to analyze why internal pedestrian circulations systems cannot be required but also to present any other alternatives to such a system. Commissioner Jacobs accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner porosin asked Commissioner Jacobs if the motion is limited to these internal circulation systems or if there would be broader consideration of working with DOT or the County itself.