Planning Board agenda 010219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

54 102 and encourage carpooling. He further stated that according to the exhibits provided, there does not appear to be 103 many sidewalks and roads that support bicyclist. He objects to those objects as being cited as completed by this 104 plan. 105 106 Nishith Trivedi explained the NCDOT road improvement requirements and guidelines and asked if referencing those 107 guidelines in the plan would help address the goals. 108 109 Hunter Spitzer asked that a corridor be identified where staff would intend the potential traffic to go for the non- 110 motorized users and access to the corridor from Mebane and from Efland. 111 112 Nishith Trivedi said that they will include the proposed changes suggested by Hunter Spitzer in the revisions to the 113 updates. 114 115 Paul Guthrie explained that he does not find the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan helpful in 116 explaining what triggers the possible outcomes of the plan. He doesn't believe that the plan details enough,what kind 117 of changes could happen to the area just that change may happen and that there needs to be more clarification 118 about what the plan is. 119 120 Nishith Trivedi stated that staff will work on providing more clarification during future presentations of the plan. 121 122 Lydia Wegman suggested adding an introduction that provides in greater detail,what the plan is and how it interacts 123 with future planning and development activities. 124 125 Julie Laws had questions about the possibility of a road being able to go through property on Center St. 126 127 Nishith Trivedi explained that the property in question is zoned local commercial and that if a future owner of the 128 property wants to make changes and go through the development review process,the LIDO and Efland-Buckhorn- 129 Mebane Access Management Plan would come into place. 130 131 Lydia Wegman explained she would like to go over what changes the Planning Board has suggested for the motion 132 on the item. 133 134 Nishith Trivedi restated that a suggestion by Hunter Spitzer is to reference NCDOT standards and guidebook to show 135 how this plan is going to meet economic development objectives 2.2 and 2.3. 136 137 Lydia Wegman also restated Paul Guthrie's suggestion to add more clarity and background to the introduction in the 138 plan. 139 140 Paul Guthrie further explained that there is a total misunderstanding among some of the public of what this plan is 141 and to avoid having the same meeting over and over again, more background needs to be provided. He thinks long 142 term planning is important, but this plan doesn't explain what the community will look like in the future. Paul believes 143 a prologue needs to be provided in order to address those concerns. 144 145 Doug Efland asked if a property owner could adjust or abandon their dedicated right-of-way if a different plan was to 146 come into effect. 147 148 Nishith Trivedi explained that the lines on the plan are subject to change and that right-of-ways can be abandoned if 149 determined unnecessary in the future. 150 151 MOTION by Randy Marshall to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access 152 Management Plan be approved with: