Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-01-2015-13 (6) Information Item Memorandum Date: August 17, 2015 To: Board of County Commissioners Bonnie B. Hammersley, County Manager From: Craig Benedict, Planning Director Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator Re: BOCC Follow Up List Item Regarding Internal Pedestrian Systems As part of the discussion at the April 7, 2015 Board of County Commissioners meeting regarding the Efland zoning overlay districts, a commissioner requested information on steps the County can take to provide internal pedestrian circulation or reasons why providing it cannot occur. The original proposal for the Efland overlay districts was written to require that projects of a certain size provide privately-owned and maintained internal pedestrian systems. As a result of resident comments at the February 2014 quarterly public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to work with the community and return with a proposal the community supported. Staff met with residents more than 10 times and one of the results of the meetings was that language pertaining to the overlay districts was "softened" to be less regulatory. In the case of internal pedestrian systems, the words "shall be required" were changed to "may be required" and the site plan review process will determine if a proposed project will be required to provide a private internal pedestrian system. The County may choose to require that development projects provide a wide variety of amenities, including internal pedestrian systems, by including such requirements in its development regulations (e.g., the Unified Development Ordinance [UDO]). One of the considerations local governments take into account when deciding on regulations is the balance of requiring too little, which can potentially result in subpar development projects, and requiring so much that residents and developers voice concerns about development being too onerous. Therefore, the County's regulations often reflect a balance of interests within a legally sufficient framework. If the Board would like to consider changes to the UDO, Board members could petition to have staff work on specified changes to be brought forward at a future quarterly public hearing.