Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-15-1998 - 10bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 15,1998 Action Agenda Item # /p~~ SUBJECT: Proposed Bicycle Plan Component to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Research on Innovative Non-Motorized Transportation Planning in North Carolina Counties DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes _X No SEPARATE ENCLOSURES: INFORMATION CONTACT: Slade McCalip - Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan Extension 2595 - Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities in NC Counties (without attachments) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 ATTACHMENTS: Durham - 688-7331 - 8/5/98 Draft Planning Board Minutes Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To review a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan for inclusion in the Transportation. Element of the Comprehensive Plan. To review reseazch on Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities in North Cazolina Counties. BACKGROUND: The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force was appointed by the Orange County Boazd of Commissioners on November 19, 1997 with the following specific charge: To prepare a Bicycle Plan Component to the Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including recommendations for implementation, for all of Orange County outside of the municipal extra- territorial planning jurisdictions and the transition areas of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. To perform research for presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners on innovative bicycle and pedestrian connections between subdivisions and other developments. The Bicycle Plan Component should be based on the recommendations in the DCHC Regional Bicycle Plan and the results of the 1995 Orange County Bicycle Suitability Study. Appointment to the Task Force will expire with the Board of Commissioners decision on whether or not to adopt the recommended Bicycle Plan Component. The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force created the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan over a 6-month period. The Task Force provided their input as to what the Goals of this plan should be and also which cycling routes aze the most important to the cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes. The Task Force endorsed the draft plan contained herein at their June meeting. 2. At the request of Commissioner Brown on November 19th BOCC meeting last - -fall, research has been performed to determine what Orange County can do to increase inter-connectivity between neighborhoods and nearby activities. The research findings are summarized in the Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities in North Carolina report. This report outlines the existing policy conditions that influence pedestrian and bicycle facility planning, design, construction and maintenance for counties in North Carolina. It also summarizes results from a statewide survey on pedestrian and bicycle facilities in other North Carolina counties and explores options and methods that Orange County may employ to encourage accessibility and mobility on foot and by bicycle. At their August 5th meeting the Planning Board accepted the draft plan and forwarded it on the Commissioners with the following recommendations asmade by the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force and modified by the Planning Board: 1) That a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee be formed; 2) Dedicate part-time (the task force recommended full-time) staff support for the advisory committee; 3) Update the 1974 Bikeways Act; and 4) That this task force remain together until after TIP project e-3606 is complete ($ 50,000 that the State has programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map). RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board: a) receive the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan and Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities Research Report, b) review the draft Plan and provide comments to staff prior to presentation of the Draft Plan at Public Hearing, and c) schedule the Draft Plan for the November 23, 1998 Public Hearing. _ - _ The Orange County Comprehensive Plan contains designations for some of the existing State-maintained roads as arterials or collectors. Section IV-B-3-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations establishes minimum right-of--way widths for each classification of road: 100 feet for arterials and 70 feet for collectors. If a subdivision is proposed on a road designated in the Comprehensive Plan as either arterial or collector, and the existing dedicated public right-of--way is 60 feet, then additional right-of--way is required whether the application is being processed as a major or a minor subdivision. Every new lot created through subdivisions subject to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations is required to meet the same set of standazds regazdless of the size of the subdivision or whether the applicant is a professional developer or a relative of the property owner. The U.S. Constitution guazantees "equal protection under the law," which in the case of land use regulations means consistently enforcing the same set of standazds for similaz types of development projects. The application of specific standazds varies based only RAFT on location reflecting differences ;n zoning districts, recreation service azeas, Q etc. (One exception is the traffic impact study.) Requiring larger building setbacks does not accomplish the public purpose set forth in Section IV-B-3-c-1, i.e., public right-of-way dedication. Land use buffers (30 feet and 75 feet wide) aze required adjacent to the right-of--way collectors and arterials, but not as a substitute for the right-of-way dedication. The purpose of the Subdivision Regulations includes "to insure adequate planning of street systems." If additional right-of--way for arterials and collectors is not dedicated with adjacent minor subdivision, the opportunity to plan for upgrading those roads to accommodate increased traffic is lost. The obvious result is future traffic congestion on roads that aze unsafe. Dedications of additional road right-of--way aze treated in the same manner as new public roads and stubouts. When the final plat is approved, the property owner signs a certificate on the plat which in part makes the offer of public dedication. Consequently, the County Manager signs another certificate on the plat to accept the offer on behalf of the public. Using this procedure the public right-of--way is held by Orange County on behalf of the public without maintenance responsibility, insuring that it will be available when road improvements aze needed and the State takes over maintenance of the additional right-of-way. AGENDA ITEM #12: REPORTS a. Draft Bicycle Plan Presentation by Slade McCalip. This item is to review a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan for inclusion in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and to review reseazch on Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities in North Cazolina Counties. The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force was appointed by the Orange County Boazd of Commissioners on November 19, 1997 with the following specific chazge: To prepaze a Bicycle Plan Component to the Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including recommendations for 3. 4. implementation, for all of Orange County outside of the municipal extra- _ territorial planning jurisdictions and the transition azeas of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. To perform research for presentation to the Orange County Boazd of Commissioners on innovative bicycle and pedestrian connections between subdivisions and other developments. The Bicycle Plan Component should be based on the recommendations in the DCHC Regional Bicycle Plan and the results of the 1995 Orange County Bicycle Suitability Study. Appointment to the Task Force will expire with the Boazd of Commissioners decision on whether or not to adopt the recommended Bicycle Plan Component. The Bicycle Plan Task Force created the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan over a 6-month period. The Task Force provided their input as to what the goals of this plan should be and also which cycling routes aze the most important to the cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes. The Task Force endorsed the draft plan contained herein at their June meeting. At the request of Commissioner Brown at the November 19, 1997 meeting, reseazch has been performed to determine what Orange County can do to increase inter-connectivity between neighborhoods and neazby activities. The reseazch findings are summarized in the Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities in North Carolina report. This report outlines the existing policy conditions that influence pedestrian and bicycle facility planning, design, construction and maintenance for counties in North Cazolina. It also summarizes results from a statewide survey on pedestrian and bicycle facilities in other North Cazolina counties and explores options and methods that Orange County may employ to encourage accessibility and mobility on foot and by bicycle. Planning Staff recommendation is: Receive the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan and Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities Reseazch Report. Review the Plan and Report and provide comments to staff prior to presentation of the Draft Plan and Report to the Commissioners. Recommend the Draft Plan and Report to the Commissioners for their consideration. Selkirk expressed appreciation for the comprehensive work done by McCalip in providing such a huge amount of information for the Bicycle Committee. He also expressed appreciation for the enthusiasm of the committee and recognized Kelly Evenson noting she had attended every meeting of the committee. McCalip stated that the plan has been sent out for informal review to the North Carolina Bicycle Committee members, Dr. Gene Griner and Liz Rooks, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Durham. McCalip continued that he would send the plan to all surrounding jurisdictions, state-wide planning branch, all of the bicycle planning authorities that he is awaze of and anyone else that the Planning Board feels should review it. Barrows noted that she was impressed with the amount of work that had been done to complete the draft plan. She asked for clarification of some of Carmen Borg's work regarding things that counties can and cannot do in North Cazolina because of State laws. North Cazolina laws prohibit counties from making road improvements but they are unclear about sidewalks and trails. 5. _ _ _ McCalip responded that it is not clear. Durham County is requesting enabling legislation authorizing the County of Durham to fund bikeways and trails. It is very clear what municipalities can do. For counties, it does not specifically mention pedestrian paths, bikeways and trails. Selkirk noted that there were several places where roads were mentioned but that sidewalks and bike paths were not specifically referenced. Several rules and regulations were also mentioned. Price asked the reality of the proposed bicycle transportation route, NC 86 as a priority when it is a two-lane .road and no space for bicycles without grave endangerment. McCalip responded that is the # 1 desired route of cyclists in Orange County to be improved for transportation between Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. We can't improve it on our own. It has to be done by the State. The overall recommendations of the Bicycle Task Force is to include some provisions for more bicycle funding in the State laws and Transportation Improvement Program. At this time, there is only $3M for the entire state per yeaz and that is not enough. Most of this goes to urban azeas. Price continued what does the Planning Boazd need to do to make this become a reality? McCalip responded that the Board could recommend that in the legislative package for Orange County delegation to General Assembly to include, as Durham County did, legislation for Orange County or across the state for improvements such as these. Selkirk asked that McCalip review the map of proposed routes explaining why those routes were selected as the primary routes. M~Iip explained that this plan is for bicycle transportation as opposed to bicycle recreation. He referred to the profile of the cyclist in the agenda materials noting that the design cyclist is usually someone who has a driver's license and knows how to operate a vehicle on the road whether it be a caz or a bicycle. This cyclist is going to a specific destination, usually to work and the intent of this plan is to address this type of cyclist. The 1993 Regional Plan tried to address everyone at the same time. It mixed child cyclists and novice adult cyclists with the advanced cyclists. Most of the cyclists on the Task Force aze advanced cyclists. They are comfortable operating in traffic except for the roads in our county because they aze too narrow even for advanced cyclists to be able to navigate particulazly when lazge equipment is on the road. The whole orientation of this plan is for transportation and for recreational cyclists to get to those azeas providing for recreation. Hopefully, there will be integration between this and the Master Parks and Recreation Plan. McCalip reviewed the schedule of meetings and what was studied and determined at each meeting. He reviewed the primary and secondary routes included in the plan and how they were determined. Barrows asked for more information on what the Bicycle Committee has been doing since creation in 1974 and why just 28 miles of bike lanes. McCalip responded that most of what goes on in the state is in urban areas. Some states have completely turned bicycle routes and lanes over to the municipalities to do as they wish. In North Cazolina funds are available and our region has been trying to dedicate STP DA funds to bicycling pedestrian paths but there have been stumbling blocks with NCDOT because it is the only region that is trying to do so. 6. There was discussion about who should review and comment on the Draft Plan. Selkirk asked for clarification of what should be done by the Planning Board to move the plan forward and keep the process moving. McCalip responded giving the recommendations of the Task Force from its fifth meeting as follows: 1. That a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee be formed; 2. Dedicate staff to support the advisory committee; 3. Update the 1974 Bikeways Act; 4. That this task force remain together until after TIP project E3606 is complete ($50,000.00 that the State has programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map). McCalip noted that he had asked that the funding be held until the plan was completed. The suitability analysis was done in 1995. Strayhom and other Boazd members did not endorse a "full time" staff person to support the Bike Advisory Committee. However, they did endorse part-time support to the BAC. It was the consensus of the Board that the specific recommendations of the Task Force be included in the recommendation to the County Commissioners. MOTION: Brooks moved to accept and forwazd the plan to the County Commissioners with the recommendations of the Bicycle Task Force with part-time staff support. Seconded by Price. VOTE: Unanimous. Meeting adjourned 10:35 p.m. Prepared By Approved By Date