Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Agenda Packet 7-1-26 1 ORANGE COUNTY—ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA [Planning Board] 1 [01 July 20261 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA July 1,2026 Meeting Information Board Name: Orange County Planning Board Meeting Date: 01 July 2026 Meeting Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 WestTryon Street,Second Floor, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Chair: Lamar Proctor, Chair Staff Liaison: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director, Long-Range Planning&Administration; Planning &Inspections Department Contact: planningdept@orangecountync.gov 1919.245.2575 Accessibility&Accommodation Notice:Orange County is committed to making all public meetings accessible. Persons with disabilities or who require language assistance are encouraged to contact the Staff Liaison at least 72 hours in advance.TTY users may call 711. Documents are available in alternative formats upon request. Meeting Agenda A= . . 1. Call to Order Lamar Proctor, Chair 2. Information Items Included for a. Planning Calendar for July and August Information Only 3. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes Lamar Proctor, Chair a. June 3,2026 Regular Meeting Minutes b. June 3,2026 Training Notes 4, Consideration of Additions to Agenda Lamar Proctor, Chair 5. Chair Comments Lamar Proctor, Chair 6, Reading of Public Charge, if Necessary Lamar Proctor, Chair Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health,safety,and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive Planning & Inspections Department I Page 1 of 3 2 ORANGE COUNTY—ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA [Planning Board] 1 [01 July 20261 Agenda - .d governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions,and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present.The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful,courteous manner toward each other,County staff, and Board members.At anytime should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge,the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum.Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting,the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone 7. Discussion Item: Draft Orange County Trails Plan Dave Stancil, To receive a presentation of the draft Orange County Trails Plan and provide any Director— feedback. The draft Trails Plan is available at: Department of https://www.orangecountync.gov/Do cumentCenter/yiew/38715/Orange- Environment, County-Draft-Trails-Plan?bidld= Agriculture, and Parks&Recreation (DEAPR) 8. Discussion Item: Draft Orange County Bike and Pedestrian Plan Sarah Williamson, To receive a presentation of the draft Orange County Bike and Pedestrian Plan Interim Director, and provide any feedback. Transportation Department 9. Adjournment Lamar Proctor, Chair [Motion to adjourn] Supporting Documents • Planning Calendar for Upcoming Months • Previous Meeting Minutes and Notes for Approval • PowerPoint for Item 7 • Abstract and Attachments for Item 8 Public Comment Guidelines Members of the public wishing to speak on a particular agenda item should note the following: • Comments are limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Persons may not yield their allotted time to another person to speak on their behalf. • Sign-up sheets are available at the door prior to the meeting. • Comments must be directed to the Board, not to individual members. Planning & Inspections Department I Page 2 of 3 3 ORANGE COUNTY—ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA [Planning Board] 1 [01 July 20261 • Written comments maybe submitted to planningboard orangecountync.gov no laterthan 3:00 p.m.the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/g/ocp[anningboard • Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours(8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Sign up to receive a notification when Planning Board agendas are posted Interested persons can sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/tist.aspx to receive a notification when agendas are posted. (Scroll down to the"Agenda Center" category and choose Planning Board). Monthly Planning&Inspections Newsletter Sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx?ListID=408 to receive the monthly communication on happenings in the Planning&Inspections Department. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners(the elected officials).The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. Planning Board Member Potential Conflict of Interest It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the matter involved. As a reminder, NC General Statute§ 160D-109 establishes the following standard: Members of appointed boards shall not vote on any advisory or legislative decision regarding a development regulation where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member.An appointed board member shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close familial, business, or other associational relationship. If any Planning Board member has any concern about a possible conflict related to an agenda item, please notify Planning staff and get in touch directly with a member of the County Attorney's staff before the meeting time to determine whether a conflict exists—and if so, how best to handle the potential conflict. Planning & Inspections Department I Page 3 of 3 4 July 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday ThursdayFridaySaturday 4 1 2 3 4 Planning Board Meeting 7:00 pm* HOLIDAY Whitted Bldg. kh 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 BOCC Business Meeting 7:00 PM Whitted Bldg. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: * Planning Board member attendance required Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting Room 2nd floor 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 5 ir FA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning Board Meeting 7:00 pm* Whitted Bldg. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Board of Adjustment 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 BOCC Business Meeting 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. 30 31 Notes: *Planning Board Member Attendance Required Planning Board meetings are held in room 230 on the second floor of the Whitted Building located at 300 W.Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC 27278 6 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 JUNE 3,2026 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Chair) Cheeks Township, Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair) Hillsborough Township, 8 Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Meg Millard, Little River Township Representative; 9 Venkat Yendapalli, Cedar Grove Township Representative;Whitney Watson,At-Large 10 Representative; Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; 11 Ana Garcia-Turner, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Othlone McCalla,At-Large 12 Representative. 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: None 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning 17 &Administration; Jack Moran, Planner 1 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Mayo, Dianne Martin,Wendi Ramsden, Nick Robinson, Charles Christiansen, Kevin Smith, 20 Gigi Delizza 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 24 The meeting began at 7:01 PM 25 26 Lamar Proctor: Hello, everyone. Happy Wednesday. I'm Lamar Proctor, chair of the Planning Board. I'm going 27 to call this meeting to order,so we're going to start with the meeting agenda. 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 30 31 Lamar Proctor reviewed the upcoming Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners meeting 32 calendars. 33 34 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35 36 Lamar Proctor: As to Agenda Item No. 3, do I have any motion for a modification or approval of the May 6th 37 regular meeting minutes? 38 39 Statler Gilfillen: I'll move the meeting minutes to be approved. 40 41 Lamar Proctor: All right. Do I have a second? I will second. So, all in favor of approval of the May 6th, 2026, 42 regular meeting minutes, raise your hands and say aye. 43 44 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the May 6, 2026, regular meeting minutes. Seconded by Lamar 45 Proctor. 46 47 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 48 49 Lamar Proctor: Noting that it's unanimous,and do I have a motion for any modification or approval of the May 6th, 50 2026,training notes? 51 52 Chris Johnston: I motion to approve the training minutes as, as written. 53 54 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any seconds? 55 7 DRAFT 56 Beth Bronson: Second. 57 58 Lamar Proctor: All right. That second, so all in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. 59 60 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the May 6, 2026, training summary. Seconded by Beth Bronson. 61 62 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 63 64 Lamar Proctor: All right,that is unanimous. 65 66 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 67 68 Lamar Proctor: Considerations of additions to the agenda. Does anyone have any proposed changes to the 69 agenda? Hearing none. 70 71 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 72 73 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 74 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 75 appoints the Orange County Planning Board(OCPB)to uphold the written land development law of 76 the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious 77 development. OCPB shall do so in a manner,which considers the present and future needs of its 78 citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes 79 the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a 80 vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations,decisions,and 81 recommendations. 82 83 PUBLIC CHARGE 84 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 85 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 86 fellow citizens. At any time,should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public 87 charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains 88 personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such 89 time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 90 91 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 92 93 Lamar Proctor: I'll move to chair comments. Welcome everyone. That will be my comment. 94 95 AGENDA ITEM 7: REZONING APPLICATION—CHAPEL HILL JOINT PLANNING AREA—To review and make a 96 recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)on an applicant-initiated 97 rezoning application to rezone+05.5 acres(PIN: 9787-00-8466) located at 1651 Old Lystra 98 Road, Chapel Hill. The parcel is located in the Town of Chapel Hill's"Transition Area", as 99 designated in the Orange County—Chapel Hill—Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan (JPLUP). 100 The proposed rezoning,which follows the Town's Land Use Management Ordinance and the 101 zoning districts defined therein, is from Residential-Low Density-1 (R-LD1)to Residential-4- 102 Conditional Zoning District(R-4-CZD). 103 104 Lamar Proctor: An action item rezoning application for the Chapel Hill joint planning area, and I believe Perdita 105 will give us a presentation and we'll be hearing from Josh Mayo, as well? 106 107 Perdita Holtz: Yes,you will. So,for those in the audience that may not know me, I'm Perdita Holtz. I'm with 108 Orange County's planning department, and since proposed rezonings in what's called the joint 109 planning area are uncommon, I wanted to take a few minutes to explain the process, so that you 110 all understand why we're here tonight. So,you're likely familiar with the rural buffer around 8 DRAFT 111 Chapel Hill and Carrboro. There are signs on major streets as you enter the rural buffer that says 112 now entering the rural buffer, and you may also recall that I touch on the joint planning land use 113 plan in the trainings that I do when new members come on board, and the joint planning land use 114 plan, in addition to establishing the rural buffer, also established what are called transition areas 115 for the two towns. There are transition areas for the town of Chapel Hill, and there are transition 116 areas for the town of Carrboro, and on this map,which is the actual map of the joint planning land 117 use plan, you can see very small areas in this, it's not even red, a light red color,these are Chapel 118 Hill transition areas. Down here in the very southern part of the county, along 15-501 and Old 119 Lystra Road, and also there is a little bit of remaining Chapel Hill transition area up here in the 120 northern part of Chapel Hill. This is along Sunrise Road and 1-40. There used to be much more 121 transition area back when this was first adopted in the 1980s but Chapel Hill has extended its ETJ 122 or city limits over those previous transition areas which is what the intention was-that transition 123 areas were transitioning from rural to urban or already urban,this is the definition from the actual 124 plan, and also urban services were provided or expected to be provided in transition areas. By 125 urban services,we heavily mean water and sewer services. Just so you know, these two colored 126 areas kind of orange,these are town of Carrboro transition areas, along old 86, also known as Old 127 Fayetteville Road and they are much larger. There has been less annexation and expansion of 128 ETJ over the years. Part of that has to do with how Carrboro's transition area was divided into 129 Transition Area 1 and Transition Area 2,which is why you have the two different colors there and 130 there had to be a certain amount of development that happened in Transition Area 1 before more 131 intensive development in Transition Area 2 could occur. So,that is the gist of transition areas. 132 Basically,they are areas of the county where the county ceded land use authority to the towns but 133 we did so jointly, so instead of the towns extending ETJ,we did this joint transition area, and 134 within this area,there were going to be joint public hearings and joint decision making made by 135 the elected bodies of whichever,whether it was the town of Chapel Hill or the town of Carrboro, 136 and it partially had to do with representation of residents in ETJ areas. You may have heard or 137 read about concerns of residents who live in ETJs that are subject to a city's regulations, but they 138 don't get to vote for the officials that put those regulations into effect,and so the joint nature of the 139 transition areas was a way to try to address that. So,when there is a rezoning proposed in a 140 transition area, the agreement does require a joint public hearing between the two elected boards, 141 so in this case that you have before you tonight it's going to be a joint public hearing between the 142 town of Chapel Hill Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The date of that 143 joint public hearing has not yet been set, but it will be at some point soon,and so when there is a 144 rezoning,we follow the usual process of land use reviews of a Planning Board review and 145 recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, and then the public hearing, and the 146 same is true for Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill took this project to its planning commission, and at its 147 May 19th meeting, and then the joint public hearing will be the later public hearing. That's the 148 usual process that you all are familiar with. So,just wrapping up, I wanted to do a bit better of a 149 location map than what was in the packet. Here you see this whole area of Orange County up 150 here in the upper right and the little star. The little star is the general location of the area we're 151 talking about. It's very close to the Chatham County line, especially when you're talking about the 152 whole of Orange County,and then this map shows the parcel outlined in red along with the 153 Chapel Hill transition area,which is the hash mark, and then Chapel Hill ETJ,which encumbers 154 just a small portion of the parcel in gray without the hash marks, and with that, I'm going to turn it 155 over to Josh Mayo,who is a planner with the town of Chapel Hill, and he will do a brief staff 156 presentation, and then he will be introducing and turning it over to the applicant's team for their 157 presentation unless you have any questions on this information that I've just presented? 158 159 Josh Mayo: All right. Good evening, all. It's good to be with you all. My name is Josh Mayo. I'm from the 160 town of Chapel Hill planning department. I'm here today to present on the conditional zoning 161 application at 1641 Old Lystra Road by the Holy Trinity Anglican Church. As Perdita just showed, 162 this project is located primarily in the transition area that's subject to the joint planning agreement 163 that brings us before y'all tonight. It is subject to Town of Chapel Hill's zoning standards, as well, 164 which is why you'll see me refer to Town of Chapel Hill zoning standards,and Town of Chapel Hill 165 staff have handled an amount of the review as well. This is proposed to be zoned from 9 DRAFT 166 Residential Low Density 1 to Residential 4 conditional zoning district. This is proposed to be a 167 place of worship building as a primary use with up to ten homes also located on the parcel. We 168 are bringing forward a Residential 4 zoning district that is the first zoning district that allows more 169 than two homes on a piece of property in the Town of Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction. For us, 170 conditional zoning allows for site specific standards and modifications to our land use 171 management ordinance or LUMO. This application does require approval from both the town 172 council and the county commissioners. The applicant has made a number of changes to 173 standards and modifications that are normally in Chapel Hill's development ordinance that fit the 174 site as well. Just one more piece of context, in Chapel Hill's planning for the future and the land, 175 future land use map,which is approved just by the town council,this is located in the rural 176 residential land use category. By 2050,we expect this to be in a development intensity around 177 one unit per acre. This is about a 12-acre parcel with up to ten homes and a place of worship. 178 We're asking that y'all consider the resolution of reasonableness and consistency with both the 179 comprehensive plan and the joint planning land use plan. That's a lot of letters, and we ask that 180 y'all consider recommending the ordinance approving the conditional zoning modification. I will 181 bring it to the applicant unless y'all have any questions? 182 183 Charity Kirk: So, is the city of Chapel Hill for this development then? 184 185 Josh Mayo: Yes,we,town staff have reviewed it, and in our staff report we do recommend approval of this 186 conditional zoning ordinance. 187 188 Statler Gilfillen: Are there any specific differences or conflicts between what Chapel Hill code currently reads, and 189 the Orange County code reads that is in conflict with this at all? 190 191 Josh Mayo: I would say for the code, there's no specific development code conflicts. This is falling under 192 Chapel Hill's development code so we're planning our standards there. The main thing I'd note, 193 which I think is included in your Orange County staff report, is that the joint planning land use plan 194 and Chapel Hill's comprehensive plan do have slightly different suggested densities for this parcel. 195 196 Statler Gilfillen: When you say slightly different, meaning? 197 198 Josh Mayo: I believe the joint planning land use plan was last modified or the map for this area was last 199 modified in 1993, and it suggests a density of one unit per 5 acres. Chapel Hill's future land use 200 map adopted in 2021 suggested land use density of one unit per acre. 201 202 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you. 203 204 Beth Bronson: Josh, can you spell your last name, I'm sorry. 205 206 Josh Mayo: Mayo, M-A-Y-O. 207 208 Beth Bronson: Thank you. 209 210 Wendi Ramsden: All right. Yeah, okay, great. Good evening, Planning Board members. My name is Wendi 211 Ramsden. I'm a landscape architect with Thomas and Hutton. We are located in Durham. We've 212 been working on the site and civil design and are helping the church shepherd this plan through 213 the entitlement and approval process. Joining me tonight are a few folks from the church. Nick 214 Robinson and Diane Martin are on the vestry, and the Holy Trinity Church rector David Hyman is 215 also here tonight, so hopefully we can answer any questions or concerns you have. The church 216 was formed in late 2010 with a handful of families and has grown over 15 years to about 200 217 people in regular attendance. They are not and will never be one of the mega churches that we 218 see cropping up in the counties around us. The church sanctuary designed for this site will seat a 219 maximum of 300 people and it is a founding principal of the church diocese that the church 220 typically grows to about 300 congregants, and then they send folks out to plant another church in 10 DRAFT 221 local communities rather than growing and expanding the physical footprint of where they are, so 222 what you're seeing tonight represents the anticipated full growth of the church on this site. My 223 presentation is a little under 10 minutes in length and right now, I'm going to let Diane Martin 224 speak for just a couple of minutes. She will talk about how the church has grown into the Chapel 225 Hill community and after that, I'll walk you through the plans. 226 227 Diane Martin: Good evening. I am Diane Martin, a member of the vestry at Holy Trinity, and I wanted to 228 highlight our church's impact in the community. Our current location rented since 2021 with 24/7 229 dedicated space has enabled the church to connect with and serve the local community in three 230 important areas, lives in crisis,food scarcity, and housing. We've provided support teams to 231 assist three refugee families. We are a stop off the highway for many people in crisis. We run an 232 open food pantry on 15-501 that is restocked weekly. We volunteer at the pregnancy support 233 center and provide Christmas gifts each year through a focus on the father's program. We 234 volunteer with Peewee Homes, a local nonprofit that provides homes for unhoused elderly and we 235 hope to eventually build some tiny homes on this property for the unhoused. In addition,we 236 worked with leaders in the Black community to be awarded a North Carolina civil rights trail 237 marker to honor the 1964 sit-ins at the Watts Grille,which is at our current location. We're now 238 working with the generational Black leaders and community historians to establish a policy for 239 preserving and honoring slave cemeteries being discovered in Chatham and Orange County as 240 new areas are being developed, and finally,we have a strong town connection through our 241 members who are doctors, nurses,faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students at UNC. 242 We are embedded in this community and committed to serving it even more when we have our 243 own building. Thank you. 244 245 Wendi Ramsden: Thank you, Diane. Okay, so over the past 15 years,the church has been in six different locations. 246 They are currently in a rental space across from the Southern Village Market Street entry and they 247 are looking forward to having a church structure of their own where they can stay permanently. 248 The site they have purchased is outlined in red on the screen in front of you. It's about a mile 249 south of their current location with access from both Wave Road and from Old Lystra Road, but it 250 is a very awkward shape site,and there is not a whole lot of frontage on either one of those 251 streets. We are looking for approval to rezone from the RLD1,which is the residential low density 252 to the R4 CZD, as Josh mentioned, and it is in the joint planning area. The town has been 253 designated as the review agency for this zoning. So,you can see on this plan that we're well 254 south of town. We're not in one of the focus areas that is defined in the land use map, and we are 255 also outside of the OWASA expansion area, even the area that was approved about a year ago, 256 so everything on this site will be septic and well. We won't be fully serviced and that in itself is 257 going to limit the density and the scale of development on this site, and just so you know, as 258 Perdita mentioned, this did go to the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Commission on the 19th of 259 May, and they did recommend approval at that meeting. All right,when the town,or hopefully the 260 joint council and board of your county board,when they approve this hopefully, in the near future, 261 they will be approving what you're seeing here,which is a district specific plan. It's not super 262 detailed, but it does lay out, it sets up a general area of development. The clearing amount, 263 where various uses will be located,where landscape buffers are required,where vehicular entries 264 are allowed, all of those sorts of basic information like that, and that's how when we go through 265 the conditional,sorry,the zoning compliance,that's how our application will be reviewed. It will be 266 compared against this plan and with all the various stipulations that go with it. This image is 267 showing how we intend to develop the site, and this completely complies with the district specific 268 plan that you just saw on the last slide. So,this shows the schematic design of how we expect the 269 design to be built out. Phase 1 is the yellow building in the center. It's the main portion of the 270 church. It will be two stories, 11,200 square feet. There will be a 300-seat sanctuary in there, and 271 something close to 125 parking spaces. It may be a little bit less than that in that first phase. 272 Access will be from both Wave Road and from Old Lystra Road, and there will be storm water 273 mitigation sized for the 100-year storm event,for the whole site,that will be treated in the storm 274 water pond that you see at the north part of the site. In Phase 2,we are looking to expand to the 275 purple sections on the building,the two wings. They will each be two stories also, and that will 11 DRAFT 276 total about 6,240 square feet. What's going to happen in Phase 1 is that the sanctuary is on the 277 main floor, and then the lower level would be children's classrooms and administrative space and 278 that sort of thing. In Phase 2,we wouldn't be changing the sanctuary at all. We will be looking to 279 move the children's classrooms and the administrative space into the wings, and to turn that 280 basement space or the lower-level space into a fellowship hall. So,there wouldn't be an 281 expansion of the sanctuary itself. Hopefully, during Phase 2,the church will have a better idea of 282 whether they need more parking or not, and we are looking to get approval to add some parking 283 so that we can get up to about 150 spaces on the site, if they decide by Phase 2 that that's what 284 they need, and in Phase 3,that's the development part, the phase where the church would like to 285 build some tiny homes on their site. These homes would be owned by the church and would be 286 used to provide housing to community members in need. Currently,the church has a relationship 287 with Peewee Homes who have built some housing units at the Church on Homestead Road. 1 288 don't know if any of you are familiar with that, but they're smaller homes or something similar is 289 what we would expect to see on the site. Those homes would continue to be owned by the 290 church. You can see by this odd shape of the property and the 60 foot frontage that we have on 291 Wave Road that there is no way to make individual lots here that would be compliant, so these 292 tiny homes would be owned by the church and would be used to,for the church to house people. 293 The two lots that are fronting Old Lystra,those are intended to be subdivided and sold off in order 294 to help fund the general construction of the new church. I don't know what phase that will happen 295 in. I don't think the church has really decided at what point they need do that, but they know that 296 those two lots will be subdivided off. Those homes each have a 40-foot frontage on Old Lystra, 297 and buildable lots with septic fields located away from the street, so the houses are unlikely to be 298 right up at the street because that's where the septic fields are. There's a lot of grade at Lystra on 299 the site at that point, so we would expect the houses to be built probably at least 100 or 200 feet 300 back from the street. Those would just be standard homes. They wouldn't be owned by the 301 church. They're not looking to put affordable housing there or anything like that. It would just be 302 straight lot sales. So, as mentioned,the parcel is in the joint planning area. The joint planning 303 agreement shows an area of environmentally protected land within this parcel. What I've done 304 here, there's kind of a dark green line at the top, and if I can show my cursor there, but this line at 305 the top of the site, and then over here at the bottom right of the site, those are the limits of where 306 the protected area falls on this parcel. I probably should have done a better job of outlining our 307 site itself, but it's basically like a C if you hold your hand like that, so of the whole area that we're 308 looking to rezone,the parcel is 12'/2 acres. The area of our site that is within that protected zone 309 on the Orange County and joint planning agreement map,that area is 7'h acres,which right now 310 is about 95 percent covered in forest. So, pre-development tree coverage is about 95 percent. 311 Post development,we are looking to have about 45 percent of that protected area will be retained 312 tree coverage. We are also going to be planting more trees in the buffer zones and the parking 313 lot, and around the site, but as far as the area of forest that won't be disturbed,that's 45 percent of 314 the area in the protected zone,and you can see from this plan that the area where we're doing the 315 majority of our parking and the majority of the church building is actually outside of that protected 316 zone area. All right, and this last slide, in closing, I'd like to just share a few images from the 317 architect. The top left image is showing the main entry to the church. That is at the, it's looking 318 like it's one story because it's on the top of the hill. The church is actually designed to be built into 319 the hill itself so that we can have ground floor access on both floors. The way this church 320 operates is that they often meet outside the church, and so that's why the plaza area has been—it 321 looks pretty large, but it's actually so that it can accommodate all the congregants to get together 322 before the service starts and proceed into the sanctuary. When you take a look at the image on 323 the top right,that gives you a good idea of how the building is built into the hill,so you can see on 324 the right hand side,the large plaza at the sanctuary entrance and then what happens when you 325 go through the parking lot,the parking lot is falling down the hill toward the pond, and toward the 326 lower level of the building so that we can have ADA compliant sidewalk access to both levels and 327 to parking on there, and that is all I have from my presentation, but I am happy to answer 328 questions. 329 330 Lamar Proctor All right. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? 12 DRAFT 331 332 Meg Millard: I have one. 333 334 Wendi Ramsden: Sure. 335 336 Meg Millard: Could, could we go back to the layout of everything. Yeah,that one. 337 338 Wendi Ramsden: This one, or the next one? 339 340 Meg Millard: Either one. 341 342 Wendi Ramsden: Okay. 343 344 Meg Millard: So, right at the end of Wave Road, are there two houses right there? 345 346 Wendi Ramsden: There are,yes. 347 348 Meg Millard: So,they are basically going to go from bordering woods to bordering a giant parking lot? 349 350 Wendi Ramsden: So,we are retaining some trees in between the two, in between the two lots and we would be 351 replanting those,we would be replanting those zones. 352 353 Meg Millard: Okay. 354 355 Wendi Ramsden: Yes, and in fact,we've been working with the planner, and the urban forester,and we are,where 356 you see the yellow, the yellow parking,just in that top left corner,we are looking to reduce that by 357 a few spaces,so we can retain a couple of the very large trees that are there that will have been— 358 we've got the survey locations of those trees. 359 360 Meg Millard: Have you looked at any options to sort of change things around so there isn't so much parking lot 361 and building right next to those existing houses? 362 363 Wendi Ramsden: We did,we have taken a look. We've done I don't know how many variations of how this site plan 364 can lay out, so we are trying to do a few things. We're trying to minimize the overall clearing, and 365 the best way to do that was to get the building set into the hillside. We were also trying to 366 minimize the amount of grading so that that minimizes clearing and retaining walls and all that 367 kind of thing, and we also had to work around where the septic fields are, and so we have looked 368 at a variety of options. At one point,the church was much closer to the Wave Road access. 369 We've actually moved it east in subsequent, so this is as far east as we were really able to take it. 370 There is a lot of grade change. 371 372 Meg Millard: Wave Road will be the main access to the church? 373 374 Wendi Ramsden: It won't be the main access. We actually had some traffic studies done,which Nick can speak to if 375 you have more questions, but the traffic engineer estimated that about 60 percent of the traffic 376 would come in off of Old Lystra and about 40 percent of the traffic would come in off of Wave 377 Road. If you are familiar with the site and the road network around there, it looks like they're close 378 together on this plan, but it's a lot of miles between them to move around, and so really the Wave 379 Road,we would anticipate anybody coming from Chapel Hill or the west side,to be coming 380 through on Wave Road, and anybody coming from the east side would be coming in off of Old 381 Lystra. 382 383 Meg Millard: Okay. Thanks. 384 13 DRAFT 385 Statler Gilfillen: Following the question I asked the planner from Chapel Hill, if I'm understanding what he said, 386 there is currently a conflict in the way the code is written between Chapel Hill,where it is one 387 house per acre versus Orange County that is one house per 5 acres. Can we clarify that 388 contradiction between the two codes and how do we resolve that so we're on the same 389 wavelength? 390 391 Perdita Holtz: Statler, if I may say they're not codes, they're plans. So,the joint planning land use plan includes 392 in it Chapel Hill's 1993 plan,which called for one unit per 5 acres in this area. Since 1993, Chapel 393 Hill has other plans, but the joint planning land use plan was never updated with Chapel Hill's new 394 plans,just like it hasn't been updated with Carrboro's new plans, and so we're dealing with 395 outdated information in the joint planning land use plan, but I have to bring it forward that that is 396 what it says because that's what's in the plan if you take a look. So,that is the conflict. So, it's not 397 code, it's plans. 398 399 Statler Gilfillen: So, if we approve this or we don't approve it, is this difference a conflict of anything that we could 400 approve or not approve? 401 402 Perdita Holtz: It's a condition of zoning and so there's leeway, and there is information in the statement of 403 consistency that's in Attachment 3 or 4.There are two documents that you need to take a look at 404 for the county side of things. Go ahead, Josh. 405 406 Josh Mayo: Oh, sorry,the only other note I would add is that any conditional zoning you can approve it based 407 off of being consistent with the plan or that it is not consistent with the plan but is warranted by 408 changing conditions. I think the resolution as written right now it's not currently phrased that way. 409 Town staff have thought about writing it that way to best clarify how it interacts with both our 410 comprehensive plan and then the joint planning land use plan. 411 412 Chris Johnston: I had a question. So, in regard to the transition area and that nature,so if this was to be rezoned 413 or whatever the case may be, it would now no longer be in the transition area. It would move out 414 of that into just pure Chapel Hill? 415 416 Josh Mayo: It would remain in transition area. Any further development would still need to receive a joint 417 approval in this area. This applicant did have the choice between annexation or remaining in the 418 joint planning area and this application is staying in the joint planning area. 419 420 Chris Johnston: Perfect, thank you for the clarification. 421 422 Lamar Proctor: I have a question. So,the retention of the 45 percent of the trees is that site plan specific such 423 that if there is a substantial change that you would have to come back for rezoning or and that 1 424 guess that may be a question for planning as well. 425 426 Wendi Ramsden: If there's a substantial change, my understanding is we would have to come back for a 427 modification. 428 429 Lamar Proctor: Right. 430 431 Wendi Ramsden: But we couldn't just do it without having it modified. 432 433 Lamar Proctor: And the ten, it's up to ten tiny homes? 434 435 Wendi Ramsden: Yes,there's certainly room for ten,you know part of it depends when septic fields are set how 436 much it can handle and also the funding that the church is able to put into it and support. 437 438 Lamar Proctor: And the protected areas are outlined where green is? 439 14 DRAFT 440 Wendi Ramsden: Yes,the green shade shows the portion of the site that is in the protected area, though the white 441 area, so the area right against Old Lystra,and then the odd shape part up at the northwest corner, 442 they are not within the protected zone as shown on the map. 443 444 Lamar Proctor: What makes them protected? 445 446 Wendi Ramsden: I didn't do the map. 447 448 Lamar Proctor: Is it an overlay district? 449 450 Perdita Holtz: So,the resource protection area is what it's shown as on the joint planning land use map and 451 that's much like Orange County's future land use map is now. It could be a variety of things. It 452 could be streams are in the area. It could be that there are certain forests in the area. It could be 453 there is a historic structure in the area, and there are some others that I'm sure are escaping me, 454 but basically,the resource protection area is a guide to say hey, look here. There might be 455 something,and does that need to be taken into consideration during development. Based on 456 where this is and how it's shaped, and with the other shapes are, my educated theory is that it is 457 probably has to do with the types of trees out there. It could also have to do with drainage, but I 458 don't think there's a stream. No stream? 459 460 Beth Bronson: Yeah,there's a stream. 461 462 Wendi Ramsden: There's two, or, or,yeah, originates there. 463 464 Perdita Holtz: Yeah. Does that answer your question sufficiently? 465 466 Lamar Proctor: Yeah, I'm just trying to get,so I guess for the presenter, or the applicant,what did you do in the 467 planning to try and preserve those areas? 468 469 Wendi Ramsden: So, if you look at the left-hand side,you'll see three dashed rings, there is a stream that is in that 470 space. We have stayed out of the,the three zones are Chapel Hill's resource conversation 471 district, so they're 50 feet, 100 feet, and 150 feet from the top of the bank of the stream, and those 472 are the protected stream side zones. What we've done is we've kept all of our impervious out of 473 that protected area, so we do have a road that's coming in. I mean, this is definitely the pinch 474 point in the site between the property line and the resource conservation district. 475 476 Lamar Proctor: Yep. 477 478 Wendi Ramsden: And so,we are doing a little bit of grading in there, but we are keeping the impervious out of it and 479 we will replant there after the disturbance,after the road is in and the disturbance is complete. 480 We'll be replanting it and allowing the woody plants and the forest to reclaim that space. We're 481 not looking to keep it as a lawn or something like that. The rest of the site, honestly, it is a fairly 482 steep site, and so we were trying to follow a line where we had to do the least amount of grading, 483 and where we could keep the road to about 12 or 14 percent slope instead of having really steep 484 slopes on here because we know that there is going to have to be emergency access into this site 485 and so we wanted to make sure that the fire department and whatever other emergency vehicles 486 could get in. When you come in off of Wave Road,the majority of that land is actually at the same 487 elevation as Wave Road,so that's why there's so much development concentrated up at that spot 488 is because we didn't have to do any grading in there. 489 490 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair. For,for the Board's reference, there's a detailed staff analysis, the natural features 491 model on Page 55 of your packet. Chapel Hill town staff analysis. That goes into more detail 492 about why that overlay is there, how it breaks down percentage wise on the property by three 493 different categories of type, and then the staff assessment of the potential impact to that natural 494 habitat network and overlay. 15 DRAFT 495 496 Lamar Proctor: Got it. Thank you so much for pointing that out. Okay. 497 498 Statler Gilfillen: If I understood what you had said a few minutes ago, you're looking ultimately you will have a 499 church and 15 house lots on this site. 500 501 Wendi Ramsden: No. 502 503 Statler Gilfillen: I'm trying to get the numbers straight. 504 505 Wendi Ramsden: So, so there will be up to ten tiny homes. They will not be on their own lots. They will be part of 506 the church property. We're only showing five buildings there because currently, the church is 507 thinking that those tiny homes will actually be duplex tiny homes, but the two lots that are out at 508 the street,will be single family home lots, so there would be the opportunity on this site eventually 509 to have up to 12 residential units. 510 511 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you.That answers my question. Because I had thought you had said 15 units. Plus, a 512 church, and that didn't seem to fit.Thank you. 513 514 Beth Bronson: Trying,just following that two residential homes on the Lystra Road,there's no,there would be a 515 provision when selling those lots that the main road would still belong to the church? 516 517 Wendi Ramsden: Yes. 518 519 Beth Bronson: So that they wouldn't be able to have their own road frontage. They would have to maintain an 520 easement? 521 522 Wendi Ramsden: No,they have road frontage, but we would anticipate that they would bring their driveways off of 523 the church driveway. 524 525 Beth Bronson: But theoretically they would still have access to the road frontage. 526 527 Wendi Ramsden: Yeah. They have to have, it wouldn't be a conforming lot if they didn't have road frontage,so they 528 both have a 40-foot road frontage on Old Lystra. 529 530 Beth Bronson: The intention would be for that easement. 531 532 Wendi Ramsden: Yes,they would have an easement to get into their lots. 533 534 Venkat Yendapalli: The septic field shown on the map, is it just for the church or also for tiny homes together? 535 536 Wendi Ramsden: It is just for the church. The tiny homes, there are a couple of areas at the top where the tiny 537 homes are shown. The reason they're shown so far away from the church is because that's 538 where the septic fields are, and then on each of the residential lots,there are areas that could be 539 used for septic fields, and we have just taken a conservative guess of how much would be cleared 540 to put in the home. You know,we don't have plans for a home or anything like that, but knowing 541 where the septic fields are,we just took a guess. 542 543 Venkat Yendapalli: How about the water supply,where is the,where is the well going to be? 544 545 Wendi Ramsden: It would be well. Yes,we are not,we are not able to connect to OWASA. 546 547 Venkat Yendapalli: Okay. 548 16 DRAFT 549 Wendi Ramsden: There isn't any water or sewer nearby, and we are not within the expansion area, the OWASA 550 expansion area. 551 552 Venkat Yendapalli: Okay, sure,thank you. 553 554 Nick Robinson: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Board, my name is Nick Robinson. Yes I was 555 going to reply to your question but I'm willing to wait until exactly when you want me to do that. 556 557 Lamar Proctor: Go ahead and then Ana has a question. 558 559 Nick Robinson: Okay. All right. Sorry about that. Yeah, my name is Nick Robinson. I have the peculiar 560 distinction of being both a member or the vestry for this church, but also a land use lawyer in 561 Chatham County for 30 years or so, and so we've done a lot of things in the preparation of the 562 plans for this to try to take into account a lot of the things that y'all are thinking about and one of 563 them, I wanted to just point out. It's very hard to see on y'all's map, but on this screen, it's much 564 brighter, but the protected area,just want to make sure it's clear. Can you see my cursor?Yeah, 565 so it goes like this and then it does a big U right here. All of this is outside the protected area. All 566 this whole area here, and then it comes back up and it runs that way,so what Wendi was saying 567 is that the vast majority of the parking lot and the church structure itself is inside the non-protected 568 area, so we did the best we could to both conform the building to the slope, built it into the slope, 569 and also keep it out of the protected area as much as was reasonably possible,and the other 570 thing I wanted to say is that on the 45 percent of the site that will have tree coverage thereafter, 571 when we were at the planning commission for the Town of Chapel Hill, I can't remember the exact 572 position of the person who said this, I think it was the arborist for the town, but he basically said 573 that in the protected area, after you're done with the development,they like to see 30 percent of 574 the canopy remaining, so we actually felt pretty good that we wound up at 45 percent based on 575 the way that we structured where the parking lot was going to be. The other things I wanted to 576 point out is that our dream really is,first off, is to have a church building. That's what we want. 577 Our secondary dream is to have those tiny homes up there if we can help folks that need homes 578 and we do want that to happen, and as that's why that comes in the later phase, and we hope we 579 can get that to happen, but in general,that just reflects that what we really want to do is we want 580 to be a good member of our community but also we want to be good neighbors too, and so part of 581 the reason why we were not required to get a traffic survey done for a project of this size, but we 582 did go out and get, hire a traffic engineer who did the study for us to talk about what the daily trips 583 would be, and it's the traffic engineer that informed us about the trip distribution between the two 584 driveways, the 60 percent coming in off of Lystra Road, and the 40 percent coming in off of Wave 585 Road, and the reason why it was important for us to figure that out is because we've met with 586 some of the folks that live on Wave Road or people that own houses on Wave Road beforehand, 587 and they expressed to us some concerns about traffic, and so we wanted to make sure that we 588 were doing whatever we could to make sure that that was as limited as possible, and one of the 589 things that the traffic engineer reviewed and informed us of is that if you, instead of doing a church 590 here, if you did 12 1 acre lots on this site,the amount of traffic that would occur on Wave Road 591 would be virtually identical to the amount of traffic they anticipate on Wave Road for this church 592 project,which made us feel good, right? There's going to be more traffic overall for this site, but 593 when you split it 60/40, it winds up being about the same if you had a 12 lot subdivision coming in 594 off of Wave Road, and there would be no reason to bring a road all the way in from Lystra Road 595 for that, and so that was one thing, and trying to think if there was anything else that y'all brought 596 up that I wanted to address. 597 598 Beth Bronson: I have a relevant question. 599 600 Chris Johnston: Hold on. Hold on. I had her question.Ana. Go ahead. 601 602 Ana Garcia-Turner: Oh, okay. There was mention in the report that there had been flooding following Chantal last 603 year. Where was the water accumulating in relation to the structures, and what is the plan? 17 DRAFT 604 605 Josh Mayo: Sure, so in Chapel Hill staff report,we did note this item came before the Chapel Hill town council 606 last fall as what we call a concept plan prior to submittal. They demonstrated what they were 607 looking to do to the Chapel Hill town council to get a general thumbs up, thumbs down. During 608 that time, Chantal had flooded out, not this property but further down Wave Road,the culvert that 609 runs under Wave Road,that factored into an amount of the conversation last fall around 610 accessing Wave Road. 611 612 Ana Garcia-Turner: Okay. Thank you. 613 614 Nick Robinson: Yeah, and specifically in response to that was part of the reason also the neighbors told us that, 1 615 don't know if you've ever been on Wave Road, but it goes down real low and it comes up very 616 high to our property, and they told us that they've seen cement trucks coming up the hill and 617 having cement coming out of the back of the truck because it's steep, and so we were very,very 618 mindful of that. It's part of the reason why we're going to invest all the extra money it will take to 619 have a secondary access,which actually would be primary from Old Lystra Road, so that we're 620 going to make all of the construction traffic come in through that side, so that we don't have the 621 uphill downhill problem, and then if there ever were to be another flooding problem in that creek 622 area down Wave Road, closer to 15-501,we would always have the secondary access on Lystra 623 Road, so that's part of the overall plan to try to make it all work out with as little impact as possible. 624 625 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicants? 626 627 Beth Bronson: So,you had mentioned that you would retain 45 percent of the tree cover, and does that include 628 clearing for the septic or not clearing for the septic? 629 630 Wendi Ramsden: So,the geotechs have told us that the septic doesn't need to have clear cutting for the septic 631 system. It always depends on what the soils are. I don't know a lot about it but they have done a 632 study and they have said that for this area they wouldn't need to clear cut for the septic field. 633 634 Beth Bronson: Not clear cut, but they would have to remove a significant amount of trees. 635 636 Wendi Ramsden: It would be more ground cover than trees. They would work around the trees. 637 638 Beth Bronson: To install the septic. 639 640 Wendi Ramsden: To install the septic pipes, yes. This is what we've been told. 641 642 Beth Bronson: And if there was a modification to that,where would that get documented in the process with 643 conditional zoning rules in place? 644 645 Wendi Ramsden: So, right now,the overall amount, so the amount of clearing that we can do overall is for the whole 646 site. It's not defined between Phase 1 and Phase 2, so whatever would happen in Phase 1 that 647 might go beyond what we're showing here,would have to be pulled back out of Phase 2. 648 649 Beth Bronson: I see. So, if you had to clear more trees in order to maintain that 45 percent threshold, you would 650 clear less. 651 652 Wendi Ramsden: Yes,yes,we're not,we're not clearing the whole limits of disturbance in Phase 1. We're going to 653 keep it contained to what we need to put in the church,the first phase of parking, and the storm 654 pond. 655 656 Beth Bronson: With that, I can see that you came up with multiple different options. 657 18 DRAFT 658 Wendi Ramsden: And then I would also anticipate that the amount of clearing for the two residential lots would be 659 less than what we're showing, but we try to be pretty generous knowing that we don't have control 660 over that. 661 662 Beth Bronson: I was going to say, if you didn't clear anything and just sold as is. 663 664 Wendi Ramsden: No, it's part of, it's part of the overall rezoning, so it will always be included in the calculations of 665 the tally of impervious and clearing and disturbance. 666 667 Beth Bronson: Until it was sold or including. 668 669 Wendi Ramsden: No including.That's, that's our understanding. 670 671 Beth Bronson: So that would have to have its own, but those residential lots have to have their own covenant 672 basically, I guess? 673 674 Wendi Ramsden: No, I think just when the church sells those lots,they would, there would be conditions on the sale. 675 676 Beth Bronson: Conditions, okay, and that would be just part of the disclosure. 677 678 Wendi Ramsden: Does that sound like how it would work? You're a real estate lawyer. 679 680 Nick Robinson: Sorry about that. 681 682 Wendi Ramsden: You're fine. 683 684 Nick Robinson: That's a great question and what we would do is superimpose in the sale of those lots both the, 685 any restrictions that relate to the zoning, and any covenants, protective covenants that we think 686 would be good for us and for them, right, and one of them would be to maintain the amount of tree 687 coverage that we think is necessary once we've gotten to that point. 688 689 Beth Bronson: Yeah, and the only other question I have about those residential lots, it's my last question,you're 690 asking for a modification to exceed the .23 of the full parcel for square footage, and it looks like 691 you want to be able to exceed or you want whatever you,the residential sale to be able to exceed 692 6,500 square foot home. 693 694 Nick Robinson: Yeah, no, it's basically that if we left the zoning the way it was, and Wendi can probably describe 695 this better than I can but if we left the zoning the way it was, because of some floor area ratios, 696 well, if we sold those lots,they would have to be pretty restricted size of home, 1800 square feet 697 or less or something like that and so this just says that the cap on the amount of square footage 698 for the houses on those lots would be 6500. 699 700 Beth Bronson: I see, allow a maximum of 6500 square foot house, and so that's not impervious of it's the house 701 itself? 702 703 Nick Robinson: Yeah. 704 705 Beth Bronson: All right. 706 707 Wendi Ramsden: And I will note that these are both going to be on septic systems, so there will be, there will be a 708 physical restriction on how big they can be because it depends in the end on how much septic 709 field, they can carve out. 710 711 Beth Bronson: Yes,yeah, it just,yeah, this,the maximum 6500 it's like one of those things where the church 712 could be up to 50 feet,you know, I mean, ideally you won't have a 50 foot completely around, but 19 DRAFT 713 maybe the peak might reach 50 feet, but the idea that the limit is there and we're going to apply 714 for the limit in conditional zoning, I'm just thinking like is 6500 excessive or not, but that's,that was 715 just a question. 716 717 Wendi Ramsden: Well, and there will also be limitations that are imposed by the fire code because certainly we can't 718 get emergency access there, so we won't be building to 50 feet even though that's what the 719 zoning allows. 720 721 Beth Bronson: I appreciate that. Thank you for your questions answering. 722 723 Lamar Proctor: It was 6500 per house, so each house? 724 725 Wendi Ramsden: I think that's what we said we could go up to. 726 727 Beth Bronson: Yeah,the requirement is to a maximum of.23 floor area ratio and that particular zoning district, 728 and they, as I said, it would restrict the house to about 2000 square feet. 729 730 Wendi Ramsden: Yeah, it's just the lots will be well over an acre, but it's a pretty low FAR. 731 732 Lamar Proctor: Okay. All right,so all right, any other questions? 733 734 Beth Bronson: I did have one more question about the buffer modifications. 735 736 Wendi Ramsden: Yeah. 737 738 Beth Bronson: Obviously, you do intend to keep as much tree space as possible? 739 740 Wendi Ramsden: Yes. Yes. 741 742 Beth Bronson: But given so the,was there any discussion with Chapel Hill about this modification on the western 743 side? 744 745 Wendi Ramsden: So,the modification is normally when you redevelop, you would have to replant a certain number 746 of trees and shrubs in all of those zones. If we're not disturbing an area,for example,this area on 747 the west side, if we're not disturbing that,we don't want to have to take trees down to plant more 748 trees and shrubs and everything, so what we, all the modification is saying is that for areas where 749 we're not disturbing the forest,that we wouldn't have to replant the minimum number of trees 750 because the existing forest with it's mature trees would remain in place. 751 752 Beth Bronson: With the mature trees. 753 754 Wendi Ramsden: Yes. 755 756 Beth Bronson: And I guess and that gets back to that question about you're actually just removing ground cover, 757 which is a lot of the actual opaqueness of the boundary. 758 759 Wendi Ramsden: Oh, in the area that is,that is beyond the limits of disturbance, so the septic fields are just in about 760 this area here,they're actually partly in the cleared area and partly beyond the cleared area. So, 761 it's just right in this area here. It doesn't go anywhere near the property line. 762 763 Beth Bronson: And so, the modification wouldn't apply to that little parking area that you were talking about 764 earlier? 765 766 Wendi Ramsden: This one up here? 767 20 DRAFT 768 Beth Bronson: Yeah,you were thinking about reducing that parking or the one below— 769 770 Wendi Ramsden: The one below? 771 772 Beth Bronson: Yeah. 773 774 Wendi Ramsden: Yeah, no so we're,what we're doing so we're looking to remove it probably, I think it's going to be 775 about three parking spaces, and that will allow us to leave a couple of the really big trees there. 776 What we'll do when we turn in the construction drawings, if we have to plant 12 trees, the two 777 really mature trees will give us two credits, and so then we'll only plant the requirement less the 778 two trees, but we'll plant then all the trees and all the shrubs and all that kind of stuff, so yeah, 779 we'll be replanting next to where we're developing. 780 781 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I think the policy or the ordinance on the resource protection of the mature trees is very 782 important and I think that thinking about it from a buffer and the adjacent property point of view 783 has more to do with the understory and brush right that,that's dividing the property lines and so 784 making sure that that's still going to be maintained or added to. 785 786 Wendi Ramsden: Right, added to. Yes. 787 788 Beth Bronson: Mm hmm. Thank you. 789 790 Wendi Ramsden: Yes. 791 792 Whitney Watson: One quick question for utilities, electric utilities. Will those be buried or will those be above 793 ground? 794 795 Wendi Ramsden: Like the electricity? Yeah. 796 797 Nick Robinson: Yeah, I think the electric will be underground and, of course,the septic will be underground, and 798 the well will. 799 800 Wendi Ramsden: Right. 801 802 Whitney Watson: Well, the reason I ask is that as you probably experienced, the utility power companies routinely 803 come through and reduce tree cover. 804 805 Wendi Ramsden: Right,well,we are expecting them to, here let me go to the actual site plan, so given that the 806 electricity is coming off of probably off of Wave Road,we actually haven't talked to Duke about 807 which road that's coming off of, but I expect it will come off of Wave,that is the area where we're 808 already putting in parking lots and clearing and I would expect them just to come through that and 809 come straight to the church. We haven't talked about an actual location for a transformer, but 810 yeah,they would prefer to use an area that's already cleared. 811 812 Whitney Watson: Thank you. 813 814 Beth Bronson: Do we know how wide Wave Road is at the moment? 815 816 Wendi Ramsden: How wide is it? 817 818 Beth Bronson: How wide,yeah. 819 820 Wendi Ramsden: Ooh, I think it's just like about 22 feet or something. It's not super wide. 821 21 DRAFT 822 Beth Bronson: Yeah. Just thinking of the paved part and just thinking about that entrance and if you would have 823 sidewalks. 824 825 Wendi Ramsden: No,there's no sidewalks on Wave Road at all. 826 827 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I meant in parking lot. 828 829 Wendi Ramsden: Right, so we will have sidewalk within the parking lot to get from the parking lot to the church, but 830 we wouldn't have sidewalks. 831 832 Beth Bronson: No,you're not going down Wave, but creating an opportunity for connection? I didn't know if that 833 was, is that the plan in there? 834 835 Wendi Ramsden: Yeah,you mean if they ever build? 836 837 Beth Bronson: If they were,yeah. 838 839 Wendi Ramsden: Sidewalk on Wave Road? 840 841 Beth Bronson: Yeah. 842 843 Wendi Ramsden: It's actually not a town street. It's a DOT street, so I'm not sure that sidewalks will ever be built 844 there. 845 846 Beth Bronson: Okay. 847 848 Wendi Ramsden: But the church would also like to add nature trails within the site, so they won't be paved. They'll 849 be nature trails. 850 851 Beth Bronson: Wonderful. 852 853 Wendi Ramsden: But they'll work to make some connections to where people can walk like Wave Road or Old 854 Lystra Road or in the case of when there's redevelopment happening on adjacent properties,we 855 will work to connect to those. 856 857 Beth Bronson: And I think that was the only thing is that,yeah, you leave it in the development so that the 858 opportunity to collaborate later is still there. 859 860 Wendi Ramsden: Yes,yes. 861 862 Beth Bronson: And that's, as long as that's in there, that's great. 863 864 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, may I add some context.Thanks to Jack Moran, our Planner 1 here, he pulled up Wave 865 Road on Google Earth, and we did a quick calculation. It's between 16 and 18 feet wide. It's a 866 paved street with a ditch section on either side, DOT maintained, and no center line. Pretty 867 narrow. 868 869 Beth Bronson: Super-residential? 870 871 Cy Stober: Yes. 872 873 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any other questions? Yes, go ahead. 874 875 Chris Johnston: On Page 76,there was a submittal by Brian Peterson, the urban designer,Town of Chapel Hill. 876 So, it doesn't look like any of the recommendations from Brian were taken into advisement in 22 DRAFT 877 regard to relocating parking along the west edge,flipping the location of the plaza and church 878 building. Am I misinterpreting that? 879 880 Wendi Ramsden: So, on the western edge,we didn't relocate the parking, but we did remove some spaces so that 881 we could save those larger trees. We did look at;we saw his comment about flipping the plaza. 882 So,then, right now, and probably looking at this plan is a better way to do it. They are looking at 883 the plaza as a congregation area before going into the church, and it's on the same level as the 884 church. If they flip this, the plaza would be at a lower level and wouldn't allow for easy access into 885 the sanctuary, so it isn't something that is easily flipped, I will say, and the other thing I would note 886 is that it doesn't look like there's a lot of planting there. What we are showing on the planting plan 887 is what is required by the town. I would fully expect that the church is going to be doing a lot more 888 planting than that, and we've certainly talked about a lot of additional planting between the plaza 889 and the,and the parking lot so that the plaza feels like, like part of the church, not part of the 890 parking lot. 891 892 Chris Johnston: Okay. And then for Mr. Mayo, I do apologize. Let me get you back up. So,the requirement of 893 28-foot-wide landscape buffer along the western property line, right? So that is one of the 894 requirements for this particular lot, and then the requested modification is to waive the required 895 landscape buffer in order to leave the forest to remain undisturbed. Just to confirm, if the request 896 is to waive the landscape buffer, they're allowed to stipulate specifically because they're trying to 897 leave the existing forest. It's not a waiver of, you know,just the 20-foot buffer all together. They 898 are specifically stating that they're doing it for the forester, and that's acceptable in terms of like a 899 legally binding, or is it simply a waiver of the buffer all together? Does that make sense? 900 901 Josh Mayo: Yes,yes. The Chapel Hill development ordinance has the buffer as both the distance of the buffer 902 and the planted materials. There's a clear, like you need this many understory trees,this many 903 shrubs,this many canopy trees to get an exception from those planting requirements for the 904 understory trees and shrubs and canopy trees. In order to preserve the existing, they need to 905 request a modification from the buffer as a whole, so this is as specific Chapel Hill modification 906 that's been done before, and so on, and so forth. 907 908 Chris Johnston: Thank you for the clarification. 909 910 Lamar Proctor: All right. Well, any other questions? 911 912 Beth Bronson: There is no request to modify our buffer requirements. That's correct, right? 913 914 Chris Johnston: Right. Well, this is specifically Town of Chapel Hill thing,though. 915 916 Beth Bronson: For sure. 917 918 Lamar Proctor: It's their UDO. 919 920 Beth Bronson: Yeah that,yeah,that makes sense. 921 922 Lamar Proctor: Yeah. So, there is, there was a sign-up sheet, so I'm just going to run through the names. Bobby 923 Smith, do you need to? 924 925 Bobby Smith: Yeah. I've got no problems. I think you basically answered my questions. 926 927 Lamar Proctor: Okay. And Sherry Smith? 928 929 Bobby Smith: Yeah, she's with me. 930 23 DRAFT 931 Lamar Proctor: So,we heard from Diane Martin, and Wendi Ramsden,and Nick Robinson. Oh,yeah, all right. 932 Then Charles Christensen. Did you want to make any public comment? 933 934 Charlie Christensen: Yes, I would. 935 936 Chris Johnston: If you could—apologies, sir. We're going to have you come to the microphone here if you have a 937 public comment. You're our first public comment, so I'll note that we have a 3-minute timer. It'll 938 turn yellow when you're at 30 seconds, and then it'll let you know, so just state your name. 939 940 Charlie Christensen: I'll make it quick. My name's Charlie Christensen. I've been a resident of Wave Road for 35 941 years, plus or minus. I don't live there at the moment. The house I lived in was a rental, but I did 942 live there for 25 of these 35 years. I'm a little concerned about the entrance to the church on 943 Wave Road. Something the diagrams don't show is the steepness of the far side of Wave Road. 944 It is incredibly steep, and it is dangerous. You can barely walk up that road, much less safely 945 drive a car up there. In the wintertime,when we have ice storms,the sun does not hit that side of 946 the hill, and that road has been impassible for 10 to 12 days at a time after ice storms. Neighbors 947 have to park up at 15-501 and walk to their cars in order to get home and back, so it's very 948 dangerous. If we're going to potentially have 150 parking spaces here,40 percent of the traffic is 949 going to be on Wave Road. That's 60 cars every Sunday morning up and down Wave Road, plus 950 the residents of possibly ten tiny homes and two more residences on a 7-day a week basis. 951 That's a lot of traffic for this little road. At this point,that end of the road only has, I think,eight 952 houses on it, so it has very little traffic. My other concern about Wave Road is we have in the past 953 gotten a lot of joyriders. That road is so steep, if you start at the top of that road and just coast 954 down,you would pass my house,which is on the low side of the curve at 50 to 60 miles an hour. 955 So, if there's going to be regular traffic there,something will have to be done to mitigate the speed 956 and to make it safe for the wintertime. Two cars can barely cross each other on the road,when 957 you have a car coming down at 45 or 50, and another one coming down this way at 25 because 958 it's also steep, it is a recipe for disaster. I've nothing against the church. I think it would be great 959 to have a church here, but I'm really concerned just about people's safety with that back entrance, 960 and I think that pretty much wraps it up. Thank you for your time. 961 962 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. 963 964 Beth Bronson: The address will remain Lystra Road, correct? So, like the church will still be identifiable and 965 searchable on Google, so a search engine would take you through Old Lystra ideally? 966 967 Charity Kirk: No, not necessarily. It has an algorithm. 968 969 Beth Bronson: Certainly. 970 971 Charity Kirk: To get you the fastest way. 972 973 Beth Bronson: Yeah,the fastest way but the address would not,would never move to Wave Road even though it 974 looks like the main entrance is on Wave Road. Well, not the main entrance, but—sorry. 975 976 Statler Gilfillen: Can someone from the church, perhaps, is—do you have any comments about what was just 977 said,which was a safety issue? 978 979 Nick Robinson: Yeah,thank you very much. Yeah, so I think it's true that,well, I know it's true that the address 980 will be on Lystra Road. I don't pretend to know how the, how Google would send you, but 1 981 presume it would send you to the driveway on Old Lystra Road. But in terms of the safety issues 982 that Mr. Christensen raised, you were very mindful of those, and I think our plan for that is a few 983 things. Obviously, in the wintertime,when there's ice or whatever,you know,we have a pretty 984 robust listsery and email method of communication for whenever we have those kinds of winter 985 weather events in our current location, and so our plan on that, those days,would be to let 24 DRAFT 986 everybody know to use the Old Lystra Road entrance until such time as we tell them not to and, 987 because we're not at all interested in any kind of unsafe situation for anybody that lives on the 988 road or for people that are attending the church. So that would be the way that we would address 989 that. It is a public road. I think I understand it's a DOT-maintained road. We have absolutely no 990 issue with contacting DOT, asking them to post signage, asking them to do whatever they're 991 willing to do with speed limits because we're also not interested in speeding up and down Wave 992 Road. That's for sure,so we would be more than happy to try to facilitate if, to the extent that's 993 possible, any kind of safety implementation there. 994 995 Charity Kirk: Is there a reason why you didn't want to get annexed by Chapel Hill? Because I'm in the rural 996 buffer zone, and DOT is willing to do very little on my neighborhood roads. The city has much 997 more power to help with roads for the town. 998 999 Nick Robinson: So, it's a great question. I mean, even if we did get annexed,Wave Road wouldn't become a part 1000 of the Chapel Hill road system because our property isn't,you know, Wave Road is off of our 1001 property. That's one thing. But the other answer to your question about annexation is that since 1002 we cannot connect to Chapel Hill Sewer, and since we cannot connect to Chapel Hill Water, it 1003 doesn't make a lot of sense for us to be annexed into the town. 1004 1005 Charity Kirk: Okay. Okay. Just note that DOT is not terribly helpful in small residential roads. 1006 1007 Nick Robinson: I mean, to the extent that the neighbors would let us, I think we could also put our own sort of 1008 private signage in there if they wanted us to and see what happens. I doubt the DOT would tell us 1009 to take it down. So,we would—the safety aspect of it, both during construction and during is 1010 going to be extremely important to us. So, I really would like to communicate with Mr. Christensen 1011 more and the other neighbors that I understand he doesn't live there anymore. He owns the 1012 house there, I think, but the other neighbors to see what they would be able to tolerate in terms of 1013 signage and, and things of that nature,yeah. 1014 1015 Statler Gilfillen: As an architect, I practiced in Boston. There are some systems that can go under the road that 1016 are electric to make sure that the ice in crisis times that ice does not sit on the road that has to be 1017 traveled. If it's as steep as he is expressing it is something that may be helpful to look at. 1018 1019 Nick Robinson: We can always count on our neighbors from the northeast to come up with brilliant ideas for things 1020 that we don't have to deal with very often. That's,that's great. Certainly,we can put that on the 1021 list to see what the cost of it is and, and if it could be implemented. Something like that. 1022 1023 Chris Johnston: Just,just to confirm,the applicant's responsibility lies specifically within what they are proposing in 1024 regard to,you know, the roadways, or whatever the case may be. I think the extent of our 1025 jurisdiction in asking the applicant to do something outside is to question whether or not that 1026 accessway has to exist or not. It seems to be a very important part of their application process, 1027 and so,you know, I understand exactly what he's saying about the roadway. We've looked at it in 1028 Google Maps as well. It's quite the steep slope, 100 percent, and so I think,you know, safety and 1029 that sort of thing is a concern. I think that's a DOT question if it's a DOT-maintained road at that 1030 point, and I think there's avenues and ways to get to an answer to that particular question.That's 1031 just my two cents. 1032 1033 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Well, let's finish the two other individuals for potential public comment, and then we can 1034 have discussion. Kevin Smith? 1035 1036 Kevin Smith: Hi. I'm an owner of two domiciles there. 1037 1038 Chris Johnston: Yeah, up to the front, and then state your name. 1039 25 DRAFT 1040 Kevin Smith: Kevin Smith. I own two parcels, actually neighboring Charlie's, and I just want to piggyback on 1041 what he was saying, and, an additional concern,you know. And 1, as well,you know, applaud the 1042 church's efforts and, and their dreams and, and would love to see,you know, success there, but 1043 are there any provisions in place to prevent this from a future time to be a thru-way? You know, 1044 people become aware of this as an ability to be able to, because I think it was mentioned earlier, it 1045 can take miles to go from Wave to Lystra going around, and this would be a real quick thru-way, 1046 and I've seen that in previous neighborhoods in my life where people, you know, become aware of 1047 this in traffic,you know, increases over time, and I've seen even barriers have to be put up,and it 1048 becomes this big mess. So yeah, I think that's about my No. 1 question. 1049 1050 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you. And then is it Gigi Delizza? 1051 1052 Gigi Delizza: Yes, hi. 1053 1054 Lamar Proctor: Did I say that right? 1055 1056 Gigi Delizza: Yes, Delizza. I'm Gigi Delizza. Thank you. 1057 1058 Lamar Proctor: All right,go ahead. 1059 1060 Gigi Delizza: I'm neighbors with Charlie,and I'm concerned about the narrowness of Wave Road, it becoming a 1061 thru-way. You know Walmart's right there. I could see people wanting to cut to Walmart and go 1062 that way, but this is, I think outside of what you all are talking about today, but I wanted to throw it 1063 out there. I know the church is going to be on septic. We're on septic on Wave Road. I think 1064 we're getting to a point where I think some of the lots,we're not sure it's going to perk for another 1065 septic, so if there is at all a possibility that we can get city water/city sewer on Wave Road,that is 1066 something that I think would be well-received. Thank you. 1067 1068 Lamar Proctor: Yes. And I would just note that's, I think,that's way outside our purview. 1069 1070 Kevin Smith: And I would like to add, if I may. There was a building above us, and as you've mentioned,the 1071 grade is quite steep. A few years back, and they drilled a well, and our,you know,well water was, 1072 was quite dirty and brown for multiple months, and I think it was a direct result of that drilling, and 1 1073 don't know if there's any kind of provisions that can be made for future because we are definitely 1074 lower elevation from where this site is proposed. Thank you. 1075 1076 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. And I do think the well stuff is covered by environmental or the state, right? 1077 1078 Cy Stober: Yes, it's covered by state health codes that are the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and 1079 Human Services, and all the properties that would result if this is approved would be subject to 1080 Orange County Environmental Health permitting and approval, unless they seek state approval or 1081 use a proprietary system under the engineer option that's allowed by state law, and the same 1082 goes for the well. Additionally,the well will need to provide enough pressure to meet the fire code 1083 for this assembly use, and that would also have to be evaluated by all the professionals and the 1084 permitting. 1085 1086 Lamar Proctor: Right. Those are all contingencies that the applicant bears the risk of and going through this 1087 process. So, I did have a chance to look at Wave Road. It is very narrow. It has no markings, 1088 and I do share the concerns of public comment, because going around Old Lystra Road is a huge 1089 circle, and I do think when people, locals, realize that there is a cut-through, it's going to get a lot 1090 more traffic. So, I'm wondering if the applicant has considered that and whether there's any 1091 discussion? Like so where Wave Road connects to the property, now, it becomes private. Right? 1092 1093 Nick Robinson: Yes. 1094 26 DRAFT 1095 Lamar Proctor: So,were there any discussions about potentially gating that and undoing it, I mean unlocking it 1096 only for church service? Because you leave that open, it's going to become a thru-way. 1097 1098 Nick Robinson: Yeah. I mean there definitely is discussion about that, and it's not something that we're really 1099 adverse to. I think the only issue that we would have, I mean,we could put a gate at Wave Road 1100 entrance to our property. I think that would cut off the cut-throughs,and on Sunday morning, of 1101 course,we would have that gate open. There are going to be things that happen at the church 1102 during the week,and so I think we would have to think a little carefully about the timing of when 1103 the gates open and when it's closed to let staff in and staff out and various different meetings and 1104 church functions, etcetera. So we're totally willing to consider it and also to implement it if it 1105 seems like it would help, and so I think maybe, I don't know exactly how to manifest that in an 1106 approval, but I would just say that it's definitely on our minds,and as we get to the point where it 1107 gets developed, and we see how it's used,we're going to be as anxious to cut off cut-throughs as 1108 anybody. You know,we'll have children there, and everything else. 1109 1110 Charity Kirk: Is, is there a pinch point somewhere in the parking lot where you could split the two parking lots so 1111 there would be a Wave Road parking lot and the Old Lystra Road parking lot, and then the gate 1112 would just get opened? 1113 1114 Nick Robinson: Oh, gate in the middle? 1115 1116 Charity Kirk: Yeah. 1117 1118 Nick Robinson: I mean, anything is worthy of consideration,yeah. I don't think we, I don't think we're concerned 1119 or care about where it was. We would want it to just be effective to meet the concern,whatever it 1120 is. 1121 1122 Lamar Proctor: Yeah, and,and planning can,staff can correct me, but I do think, as a conditional zoning, it could 1123 be, if it's agreed upon by the applicant an added condition that there be either a gate or divided 1124 parking lot that prevents thruway access from Wave Road to Lystra Road outside of normal 1125 church operations. 1126 1127 Charity Kirk: Does Chapel Hill have thoughts on this? 1128 1129 Josh Mayo: I'll just say that Chapel Hill staff have discussed this with the applicant before. We could proceed 1130 with this application if the Wave Road access was removed. We would need to go back to staff 1131 review if the Old Lystra was removed. 1132 1133 Chris Johnston: Could you, I'm sorry, be a little clearer on that? When you say access,you mean like roadway 1134 access in total, not the addition of an impediment? 1135 1136 Josh Mayo: Yes.Yes,so we could proceed if Wave access was removed for a smaller, less severe measure 1137 like a gate. We could also proceed Old Lystra for Chapel Hill staff is the primary access that 1138 needs to be just for emergency and vehicular. 1139 1140 Cy Stober: Sorry Mr. Chair. As a matter of procedure, all that would be presented to the elected boards 1141 would be the Chapel Hill Planning Commission's action and vote and if they had any conditions. 1142 I'm unaware of any conditions that were associated with their vote to recommend the project and 1143 then, separately,the County planning board's vote, and should it have any conditions that are 1144 agreeable to the applicant,they will be noted separately and provided to both elected boards for 1145 consideration. 1146 1147 Lamar Proctor: So,we couldn't add conditions? 1148 27 DRAFT 1149 Cy Stober: You could. But the Chapel Hill Planning Commission did not, so we'll just have to note the two 1150 different recommendations. Yeah, and distinguish between the two. That's all. 1151 1152 Lamar Proctor: And so, question for Josh. So, there was actual discussion about not having Wave Road access 1153 at all? 1154 1155 Josh Mayo: Yes, I think during staff review,we had discussed that with the applicant. Ultimately,the plan 1156 before you is the one that the applicant wanted to proceed with. 1157 1158 Charity Kirk: Did the traffic engineer have thoughts on this? 1159 1160 Josh Mayo: That is also my review at Town of Chapel Hill. We have reviewed it. We know that this does not 1161 meet our threshold for a traffic study. We do not have concerns about connecting to Wave Road, 1162 and we'll say our long-range team brought up the conversation with them based on the comments 1163 before town council last fall. 1164 1165 Charity Kirk: But you hired a traffic engineer, right? Did your traffic engineer have comments? 1166 1167 Nick Robinson: No, he didn't have any comment about that and I think to get back to the Chair's question, if, 1168 Orange County, through its planning board or its board of commissioners,wanted to suggest a 1169 condition that was along the lines of what you stated that the gate would be functional, as long as, 1170 it didn't impede ordinary church operation or functions. We're totally amenable to that. That's not 1171 something that we would be worried about, and if it helped,we would be glad to do it. 1172 1173 Chris Johnston: And just to confirm in terms of our ability to recommend things of that nature, is that within our 1174 purview, a gate, or is that getting into the weeds in terms of asking a private, private applicant how 1175 to run internal property beyond the design of a location? 1176 1177 Cy Stober: No, it's an acceptable condition related to how the land is used and developed and how it would 1178 affect the surrounding properties and the road network more directly, as you've articulated tonight. 1179 1 think it's an acceptable condition, and it's completely integral to the land use that's proposed 1180 here. 1181 1182 Statler Gilfillen: Sorry. May I ask this question? As a professional that's dealt with planning,this is one of those 1183 question that maybe only a few people would ever cut through there and do it. It is convenient to 1184 those people that do, and it may not affect a lot of traffic. The other side is that once that could be 1185 open, it might be disastrous because everybody's going through there,and it's a big problem. But 1186 how do you know what's going to happen until after that situation is created? 1187 1188 Cy Stober: Well,we don't know. In any land use change, to your question, Statler,what the impacts will be, 1189 whether including a minor home occupation where you put a tax office in somebody's home. 1190 There may be ramifications from that. That's why it is decisions come before either staff or the 1191 board. And with regard to enforcement of that gate condition,that's the job of planners. It's not 1192 our favorite part of the job, but that is our job is to enforce the zoning code, including conditions. 1193 1194 Charity Kirk: I mean,we can put the condition of a gate in but not stipulate timing. Right? So,the gate is there, 1195 or do we need to say when the gate would be active? Or, because it seems like having a gate 1196 would help with using the gate. It would be better, but I don't know. I don't know if it's worth the 1197 time because they seem like proactive people that want to solve problems for the neighborhood. 1198 1199 Perdita Holtz: To throw out a proactive suggestion. Rather than saying a gate,just maybe have, an appropriate 1200 traffic control measure to prevent cut-through traffic so that people can study this and bring 1201 forward at public hearing what that is. 1202 1203 Lamar Proctor: How did you word that? Appropriate? 28 DRAFT 1204 1205 Perdita Holtz: Appropriate traffic control measure to prevent cut-through traffic between Wave Road and Old 1206 Lystra. 1207 1208 Chris Johnston: Who's the determining factor on that? 1209 1210 Perdita Holtz: The Board of Commissioners and town council. 1211 1212 Charity Kirk: So, it would need, it would need to come back to them? 1213 1214 Perdita Holtz: I would think that the applicants will want to know what that is before you go to public hearing. 1215 That you would suggest something at public hearing after having studied this. 1216 1217 Wendi Ramsden: So I will note that when we went through the concept plan review,which was over a year ago at 1218 this point,we did, at the time,we had a gate in our plan, and the Chapel Hill council let it be 1219 known that they did not want the access limited, and,you know, other ways of speed control or 1220 other methods of speed control would be something like a speed bump, but the fire department 1221 would not allow us to put a speed bump in there because the fire trucks have a hard time with 1222 those speed bumps, and so they would not approve a plan where the fire lane,the emergency 1223 access, had a speed bump on it. So, I'm not sure what the solution is and, maybe it's worth a 1224 discussion between council. 1225 1226 Lamar Proctor: Was it the planning commission who didn't want to limit access? 1227 1228 Wendi Ramsden: It was the town council. 1229 1230 Lamar Proctor: Town council,did they indicate why or what reason? 1231 1232 Charity Kirk: And where was the gate that you were suggesting? 1233 1234 Wendi Ramsden: I think we had it in the middle of the property. It was basically in the middle so that anybody 1235 coming in off Old Lystra could actually access those couple of residential lots, and anybody 1236 coming in off Wave Road could access the parking lot or the tiny homes. 1237 1238 Chris Johnston: I think our role here is to make a determination in regard to what we feel fits the character and 1239 nature and what problem we're trying to solve. If the council has determined that they wanted it 1240 for one reason or another, and determined that they wanted to go that way, that's perfectly fine 1241 and within their rights, but then we are providing recommendations based on our judgment on 1242 need and appropriateness as it fits within planning and zoning, and so forth. And so, if we provide 1243 a recommendation,that's, that's on us in terms of how we go about this, and so if they determine 1244 that that's not the way they want to go, that's always the case that we run into as planning board. 1245 Right? We are providing guidance and feedback based on public feedback, based on working 1246 with the applicant, and so I would say that from my two cents that, yes,the Town Council Chapel 1247 Hill said that they wanted to do this being open,or whatever the case may be,that may not be our 1248 determination, and it's ultimately up to them, but if we feel strongly about putting a gate in here, 1249 and that's, or an appropriate traffic calming control. 1250 1251 Lamar Proctor: Traffic control measure. Because just looking, and, and it is land use, and so this is directly 1252 related, Old Lystra Road does like a huge arc around 501, and so if,when this is built, if there is 1253 no traffic control measure to prevent cut-through traffic, I think over time,this will become a cut- 1254 through because it cuts substantial amount of time if you were heading east from Southern Village 1255 or west from Governor's Club. 1256 1257 Chris Johnston: But what I'll note is what we're doing is we're determining, as a board,that that is something that 1258 we think is important enough to recommend,whereas the applicant,who is dealing with the 29 DRAFT 1259 property and will have the ramifications of cut-throughs and have to figure that out, is now no 1260 longer having the opportunity to make that determination. Right? And so,to Statler's point,you 1261 don't know until you know. We're saying that this is important enough for us to say that it should 1262 be included from the outset rather than be left to the determination of the applicant,who will be the 1263 one to have to deal with the ramifications afterwards. So, I'm throwing every which direction here, 1264 and I apologize for that. 1265 1266 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Any, any other discussion? I think we have that issue. So— 1267 1268 Charity Kirk: Well,just,just to be clear,would you be interested in re-suggesting a traffic, traffic control 1269 measure, somewhere on the property to prevent cut-through traffic,would that be something you 1270 would reconsider? 1271 1272 Nick Robinson: Yes. We,we always have been willing to consider it, and I feel like we've been at the mercy of the 1273 decision makers, not us, actually, and so if there is something reasonable that we can do,and that 1274 the, the decision makers will agree is reasonable,then we will do it, I mean,within reason. 1275 1276 Charity Kirk: What would you have liked here? 1277 1278 Nick Robinson: We, originally,we had a plan to put a gate there, and that was up by Wave Road, and that was 1279 principally because we had voluntarily met with the Wave Road neighbors before we did anything, 1280 and we knew that that was their concern, but when we went to the concept plan review, or 1281 whatever it's called, in the Town of Chapel Hill Town Council,a summer or so ago,that's when the 1282 concern about the gate came put. I think it had to do with connected communities, or something 1283 like that, and so, but it didn't change our mind. We still want to do the right thing in the right place, 1284 and so that's where we are on that. 1285 1286 Charity Kirk: Can you speak on the Chapel Hill connected community thing? 1287 1288 Josh Mayo: Sure. I believe council may have looked at this last fall. I will say,town council has set out five 1289 different values and goals. One of those values and goals is connected community,which talks 1290 about a transportation network that is interconnected through bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular 1291 access that generally aligns with connected roads. The town does have a connected roads plan, 1292 as well,that highlights specific areas for road construction in new development. This is not one of 1293 those, but in general,the principle leans towards connected roads with the town's approach to 1294 planning. 1295 1296 Meg Millard: So,the idea is that if there's a neighborhood here and a neighborhood here,they could like 1297 access each other? 1298 1299 Charity Kirk: You need cars,though. It's very car-oriented in its connected community because you can still 1300 walk. You can still bike. You can still, so it's very car-oriented. 1301 1302 Ana Garcia-Turner: Would it be a consideration to put like a bike lane at the entrance of Wave where there is a gate, 1303 but there's still enough for a bike,for two bicycles on either side so that, again,there's connections 1304 to the point being made while still maintaining the assurance that there is not a cut-through to 1305 Lystra. 1306 1307 Lamar Proctor: Well, I think you could say reasonable traffic control measure to prevent automotive cut-through 1308 traffic. That way,you're not limiting. You're just saying we just don't want motorcycles and cars to 1309 blast up Wave Road, and then through the parking lot to get to Old Lystra. 1310 1311 Josh Mayo: Sure, and I'll just reiterate town staffs position that this application,the primary access is off of Old 1312 Lystra. If access to Wave Road,we can proceed. If access to Old Lystra Road has changed,we 1313 need to go back to the drawing board. 30 DRAFT 1314 1315 Lamar Proctor: Yeah. 1316 1317 Charity Kirk: But we're not talking about cutting off access. We're talking about a gate, right? So,we're fine in 1318 theory. Yeah? No? You're thinking about it. 1319 1320 Josh Mayo: Sorry for the lack of clarity. A gate cutting off the road, any change in access to Wave Road,we 1321 can work with,whatever you think is appropriate. 1322 1323 Charity Kirk: Okay. 1324 1325 Lamar Proctor: Yeah. So just remind me because, if we wanted to add a condition,we would have to get their 1326 agreement, and we would approve the statement of consistency with the added condition, 1327 amending it. 1328 1329 Cy Stober: Yeah. 1330 1331 Lamar Proctor: Okay. So, I'm asking applicants. Would you be okay with additional language in, in this 1332 application that approval with a reasonable traffic control measure to prevent automotive cut- 1333 through traffic through the property? And then they would have to sort it out at the county 1334 commissioner level. 1335 1336 Nick Robinson: Yeah, I mean, I think as long as it was clear that with the qualifying aspect you said before to not 1337 interrupt the reasonable and projected church operations. 1338 1339 Beth Bronson: I would go so far as to say that the condition for Wave Road needs to be a traffic control measure, 1340 but also no signage. I wouldn't expect there to be signage on Wave Road, but just as something 1341 that could be a condition so that, again,we're not advertising it as an entrance because the main 1342 entrance is on Old Lystra. 1343 1344 Nick Robinson: Oh, no, signage for the church. 1345 1346 Beth Bronson: On 15-501 at Wave Road. 1347 1348 Nick Robinson: Oh, yeah,that's something that we- 1349 1350 Charity Kirk: What does that have to do with traffic? 1351 1352 Beth Bronson: You know, you're encouraging traffic through cut-through Wave Road by putting up signage. 1353 1354 Nick Robinson: Yeah, but I don't think a church sign is going to encourage people to cut through to Lystra Road. 1355 1356 Venkat Yendapalli: Not the cut-through, but also the traffic that comes to the church also will see the sign and, oh, 1357 yeah, let me,we could turn here too,you know. 1358 1359 Nick Robinson: Yeah, I mean, I think we,we are going to want to preserve the opportunity to have a sign out on 1360 15-501 for the church. 1361 1362 Beth Bronson: At Wave Road? 1363 1364 Nick Robinson: At Wave Road. Yeah. And I think it,that's a completely,to me, a separate issue from cut-through 1365 traffic,which we're more than happy to try to address on our property. 1366 31 DRAFT 1367 Lamar Proctor: Right. So, the language that I'm thinking of is, approve the statement of consistency with the 1368 added condition that the applicant will make efforts to have a reasonable traffic control measure to 1369 prevent automotive cut-through traffic without impediment to church functions. 1370 1371 Nick Robinson: Yeah,that's,that's fine with us. Yeah,that sounds great. 1372 1373 Statler Gilfillen: Good to have lawyers here. 1374 1375 Nick Robinson: Thank you. 1376 1377 Chris Johnston: I second that motion. 1378 1379 Nick Robinson: Okay. 1380 1381 Beth Bronson: Do we need to close the public hearing first to make a motion to close the public hearing? 1382 1383 Lamar Proctor: There's no public hearing. 1384 1385 Beth Bronson: No public hearing? Right, good. That figures. Just making sure. 1386 1387 Chris Johnston: Speaking of, I second that motion. 1388 1389 Lamar Proctor: Okay. So that I made the motion,you seconded all in favor of that motion of adopting the 1390 statement of consistency with that modification? All in favor? Raise your hands. 1391 1392 Beth Bronson: Like done. No other conditions. 1393 1394 Lamar Proctor: That's it,just that additional condition. 1395 1396 Beth Bronson: I was going to add a condition about a DOT request that they would work with the Wave Road 1397 residents to reach out to DOT to request a no thruway sign or any kind of recommendation for 1398 signage. 1399 1400 Lamar Proctor: I think that's a reasonable traffic control measure. 1401 1402 Beth Bronson: I think you're good, yeah. 1403 1404 Lamar Proctor: And that would include working with DOT again. If the DOT ends up making a speed bump, and 1405 they think that sounds like a reasonable traffic control measure. 1406 1407 Chris Johnston: Do we need clarification on Ms. Bronson's vote in regard to the? 1408 1409 Beth Bronson: No. 1410 1411 Lamar Proctor: You can withdraw it if you want. 1412 1413 Beth Bronson: I didn't make a motion. I'm voting with you unanimous. 1414 1415 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve with the added condition. Seconded by Chris Johnston. 1416 1417 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1418 1419 Lamar Proctor: All right,thank you. Okay. Next item. All right. And I have to say, I think that was a really fruitful 1420 discussion, and through evaluation of it,we saw what the land use issue that might be created 1421 and tried to address it appropriately. Thank you all so much, and I do think it's a very good 32 DRAFT 1422 project, and I think the tiny homes idea, I don't know if what your, I mean, people with housing 1423 issues, but also people who are in domestic crisis, I think would be very helpful for that situation. 1424 And I work in criminal law, so I see that all the time. 1425 1426 Beth Bronson: Thank you all very much. I'm going to make a motion for 5-minute break. 1427 1428 Lamar Proctor: All in favor? 1429 1430 Planning Board: Aye. 1431 1432 Lamar Proctor: Yeah, 5-minute break,and plus I think I can just do that. 1433 1434 The Planning Board adjourned for a break beginning at 8:38 PM and returned at 8:44 PM. 1435 1436 Lamar Proctor: Let's go to action item or Agenda Item 8 Action Item. LIDO text amendment. 1437 1438 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS—To 1439 review one page that was inadvertently omitted from the amendment package included in the May 1440 6, 2026 meeting materials and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director- 1441 initiated amendments to the UDO pertaining to subdivision review processes and classifications. 1442 1443 Cy Stober: Yes, Mr. Chair and Board, thank you. I need to begin this item with an apology to Mr. Gilfillen, at 1444 the last meeting he said well,what happens when your staff makes a mistake in administering the 1445 ordinance. I said how dared you question the quality of work of my staff,and he was very 1446 apologetic,and then I went and made a mistake in the amendment package I brought you last 1447 month,so I've got to eat some crow, and thank you for your time this evening. I hope that this 1448 won't take much time. There are no substantive changes from the presentation last time. I have 1449 no slides. I'm sure you're disappointed. I did take the opportunity, it's in Attachment 1 is the total 1450 number of pages that have changed or that were missing from the last package,the friendly 1451 amendment to the package that extended the notification mailings from 14 to 30 days,we've 1452 gone, I went ahead and added that in in Attachment 1, so Ms. Bronson's friendly amendment is 1453 featured on Pages 83 and 84 of your packet. There are no amendments on Page 85, and then 1454 Page 86 has the one text amendment that was missing from the package that was presented at 1455 last month's meeting which because we are eliminating the concept plan, it's not still required for 1456 the neighborhood meetings, but it's not required as part of the application that submitted to the 1457 county. We wanted to have a more generic reference to what the yield plan must show,which is 1458 that you calculate the yield of how many lots that you can have on a conventional layout for a 1459 subdivision. You calculate the yield of the number of lots that you get with a conservation or 1460 flexible development approach, as well as the amount of protected open space that you get. 1461 Again, as we discussed at the last meeting,that's not ideal open space. That includes 1462 unbuildable areas, but that's what the one line that was missing from last month's agenda packet 1463 is that line. So,those are the three pages featuring amendments before you. The reason the 1464 packet is so long is that in order to make the ordinance and the statement of consistency work,we 1465 needed to include all of it, so that when you make the motion, if you do choose to make the same 1466 motion as you did last month, it would be for the whole package of information before you,which 1467 you reviewed for last month's meeting we discussed for almost 2 hours. There have been no 1468 other changes other than what's highlighted or identified in Attachment 1, and I'm happy to answer 1469 any questions if you have them. 1470 1471 Charity Kirk: There was a footnote with the question somewhere. I can't remember what page it was on. 1 1472 thought I earmarked it, but I don't know. I was wondering why that question was still as a footnote 1473 but let me find it. 1474 1475 Lamar Proctor: Literally a question with a question mark? 1476 33 DRAFT 1477 Charity Kirk: Yes. But you all can go on and I'll look for it. 1478 1479 Cy Stober: Was it in the ORC packet? Because there are a few questions in that one. 1480 1481 Charity Kirk: Oh, it could have been in there. 1482 1483 Cy Stober: There are, there are several questions in footnotes. 1484 1485 Charity Kirk: Oh, it's probably in there. That,those are earmarked. I thought I earmarked it, and there you go. 1486 1487 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any questions? Any, I,was this last month? 1488 1489 Chris Johnston: This was last month. You missed the fun. 1490 1491 Lamar Proctor: I missed the fun. 1492 1493 Chris Johnston: So, really do you have any questions? 1494 1495 Lamar Proctor: Oh,well, man, I have the utmost faith in you all. 1496 1497 Chris Johnston: If no one has any questions, I would make a motion that we accept the changes as edited with the 1498 addition of the friendly amendment from Ms. Bronson with the 30 days. 1499 1500 Lamar Proctor: The approval of consistency. So, it's already been modified. So,you don't need to modify it 1501 further, so just be a motion to approve in Attachment 3 the statement of approval and consistency 1502 of the proposed UDO text amendment regarding subdivision administration and regulation 1503 standards. 1504 1505 Chris Johnston: You still did so much better than I did. 1506 1507 Lamar Proctor: That's the, that's,that's your motion? 1508 1509 Chris Johnston: That's my motion, yes. 1510 1511 Lamar Proctor: I will second. All in favor? 1512 1513 Statler Gilfillen: I have a question.The last time I was the one dissenting vote against this. If I vote to approve this 1514 addition today, do I have any conflicts? 1515 1516 Lamar Proctor: Well, if you want to maintain your position, if these changes tonight did not affect your position, 1517 then you would be maintaining your previous position or if you, upon further reflection, now that 1518 there's been an amendment and you want to change your vote to yes,you're welcome to do that 1519 too. 1520 1521 Statler Gilfillen: And as far as the consistency, if 1,we are talking about this one page being added and approving 1522 that. 1523 1524 Cy Stober: We are not,we're talking about the whole package. 1525 1526 Lamar Proctor: It's the whole packet. 1527 1528 Statler Gilfillen: Okay, I'll vote in favor. 1529 1530 Lamar Proctor: So, okay. 1531 34 DRAFT 1532 Chris Johnston: We have a second and the motion. 1533 1534 Lamar Proctor: All in favor? It's unanimous approval. 1535 1536 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the amendment. Seconded by Lamar Proctor. 1537 1538 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1539 1540 Cy Stober: Thank you. My apologies. Appreciate your time. 1541 1542 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. I'm sorry I missed the fun 2 hours. 1543 1544 Chris Johnston: It was getting real close to 3. 1545 1546 Lamar Proctor: And I appreciate the expansion of the notice window. 1547 1548 Cy Stober: It's only for the subdivision NIMs not for all of them because those are defined by statute when we 1549 have to send out the mailings for the hearings, so and the board meetings. 1550 1551 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 1552 1553 Cy Stober: Or, no,just the hearings. 1554 1555 Lamar Proctor: So, I will bring this up before we accept a motion for adjournment,there was an optional ORC 1556 after this meeting,and it's getting close to 9, and I imagine that those ORC discussions can go for 1557 some time. 1558 1559 Cy Stober: It's 50 slides. 1560 1561 Lamar Proctor: 50? My understanding from staff is that the agenda for July is one,two items, can you tell me 1562 what the proposed agenda is? 1563 1564 Cy Stober: The agenda that Perdita and I have drafted to that date is a the DEAPR director, David Stancil, 1565 will be presenting the draft Orange County trails plan, not with the consultant. Just Dave, and 1566 then the interim transportation director, Sarah Williamson Baker,will be presenting the draft 1567 Orange County bike ped plan. Those are not action items. They are looking for your feedback, 1568 but they're not looking for a recommendation to the Board. They're tentatively scheduled to go to 1569 the Board for adoption in September. 1570 1571 Lamar Proctor: So, I would make a motion to table the ORC section after this meeting to the July meeting. 1572 1573 Charity Kirk: Is that okay with you? Do you all need it sooner? 1574 1575 Cy Stober: Yeah. The only thing I would say is that this is still being reviewed by staff to because I made 1576 some updates and sent it out to them 2 weeks ago, so there may be some further changes from 1577 what you have tonight. Again, none of it's final. It's not coming to you for action. It's coming to 1578 you for feedback as an ORC body. 1579 1580 Charity Kirk: So,you're okay waiting for feedback? 1581 1582 Cy Stober: Yeah,just know that there may be some further changes based upon staff discussion. 1583 1584 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so that's my motion is to table the optional ORC that was scheduled for tonight to the July 1585 meeting. Do I have a second? 1586 35 DRAFT 1587 Beth Bronson: I will second. 1588 1589 Lamar Proctor: All in favor? 1590 1591 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to postpone the scheduled ORC meeting. Seconded by Beth Bronson. 1592 1593 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1594 MgLamar Proctor: That's unanimous. So, now I'll take a motion to adjourn. 1597 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 1598 1599 Beth Bronson: I'll make a motion to adjourn. 1600 1601 Statler GiIfillen: Second. 1602 1603 Lamar Proctor: Second and all in favor? Is there, no?All right. I just wanted to, it's unanimous. We're adjourned. 1604 1605 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Statler GiIfillen. 1606 1607 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1608 1609 The Board adjourned at 8:54 PM. 36 DRAFT 1 SUMMARY NOTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 JUNE 3,2026 4 PLANNING BOARD TRAINING MEETING 5 6 7 NOTE: ATTENDANCE IS NOT MANDATORY AND A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR TRAINING MEETINGS. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT:Ana Garcia-Turner, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Othlone McCalla,At-Large 10 Representative. 11 12 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning &Administration; Jack Moran, Planner 1 13 14 The training session began at 6:03 PM 15 16 AGENDA ITEM 1: PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION-STAFF WILL LEAD TRAINING DESIGNED FOR RECENTLY 17 APPOINTED PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ON BASIC ASPECTS OF LAND USE REGULATION IN ORANGE COUNTY. 18 PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning &Administration 19 20 Perdita Holtz gave a presentation overviewing both communication and how basic site planning takes into account 21 the various development regulations to conform a single-family home to the regulations in Orange County. 22 23 The members present discussed the site planning process and Orange County department roles in the development 24 process in the County. 25 26 The members discussed the Planning Board's duties when applied to development standards and how their review 27 process affects regulation and practical applications. 28 29 The training session ended at 6:48 PM RE It lie- M "6 JQW "', ft R T� .As. Vp� Jr-0 MF #7 v N111-�R �,kk3 To !`WIN 5 In 13 all 2 S- q� _Ir F1 4 �,—1 v, 4V�,e- _jL 4 a PSA , --1 g., 44 --7 N 4 IVA, 7. 9 7'-�p . mp?�'." '.41 sf rA 'PI 71 Co 7' F '77 1A 71 < 14 ,F �n If' I 6Uh- tyCommissione'rs W&k-�es Board of Apri I 14-1,2b2.-o 6 -1� W- p1r, 111f qFQ Xv� t 4� All 4 ,ORANGE COUNTY DepartrawtofEnviron-crit. Gens e NORTH CAROLINA Agriculture,Parks&Recreadon p, -M- 2,14 fa What We'll Cover Tonight 01 Where we are in the process 02 What we heard from the community 03 Guiding principles 04 Overview of the proposed trail network 05 How segments were prioritized Next steps 07 Feedback and questions Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 2 39 Trails Plan Overview The Orange County Trails Plan provides a coordinated approach for connecting residents to the daily destinations that matter most-from parks and natural areas, to schools and libraries, to towns and transit. • Combines physical network concept and policy guidance • Consolidates years of planning work and community input • Clarifies the types of trails that fit best across the county • Built on evaluation of existing conditions and feasibility Previous P1anS&Initiatives Trail Segment Prioritization waaawaeksinslpnnfmmawnehwpevkmgamsealpmwxnmpompinnmhes ^�s i�a�.ee �^a,.eroc,a.r<a_ 01 ante ro yardwR«tiondwm unite inaraml gannngenww LML wge�amw nnM^pnn o� nn Nysx piuw�lnq.,m Ibilryup�aam Prior;Ty Order of Segments eaiziwrM,destiazioastnetznwlr`l rberiwaMe.aM'1M<.p«reamnslfor�l mwnArMwm< .uesse..a uasmnr al oars i+eµ bwmasrabknM. mM�l^va,¢anu dewmmM ouWwrMnntlMw we Mnmww.m • S nm, wrwan _ MM mw IrwxlaH< o' O «Ms Ip„xn"o<.;: :a>:I :� fi;an;: • � ��%�Ma`sn�'mn�up n��saw znk'o�.o-m a^�wa tMwm.nmrwMwmxrlamw awt«R;I,;;y. IbM mvns Mwm _ �xillm^wen ak<,wklwrm.oan aawrNMrymll emgwslawlslhm� de nM arN[wpe�laalull w�dg,elmoentseaurc"eturz O x.w..l n...(x..,.�.n,i0 nulw[r«k e e ..m^mmwNnvnHwmwbellNM wsw u a empnawes sustai,ugecrosbuw'o.s d O uxeG.w..muw...eryzmM. wulmblc accrsstor all reslMnu wuwlM1vaJamanu (pnlwannvn rvexpeerentlal Immxw an aelaan« �Mlswcesb ©lamerarevleolexeet laasig,mst Draft Trail Network Engagement Implementation Plan thew ee r.Inr.rr Mno^wer a¢)s^^nryfweba<Rery ttre J<o .oA.new wi fivMMpMln McW«<a 8naaa, wmmar zeab Mframwrork as(mapabeMMimia<w�krreessrknentl �n pessepn ppop am peuJm L o Awnm enan W.nnwa«t �w M Mdiaa n <In o r<pPcr«emMseak�. formes03qn��w«Mex mgbecrosnrauana oraM< rdwe«b ,d'�.nw,IM Hcnv. •pan f mearry prcinr "a askedrneume sNe rcsuwwerchntneszMmanMr ntatMlo aw nakevnM Ms MrbwMMo ¢ nmgms.aM bua¢er n¢d a «��cmu a 'Mprweaz ows onsW xam oan mem dMM1Mncges aysnU aA aa�ar« F ae bery"re"'xsr'[w. W�n¢aM zomwp«awsaewuz«cmwrnn. ar-. caves ao.v.eum.m•• � •••• wH awt h w e dec¢ rrboroea proud MLM1e«andArouM dOubl[ene¢emem ofrbe xx„rafig ew na ]story m„gMlmw ceprkrpreM1nge <M1�W 1M ne mM1r (FNIw alvlary mdem<mno' g� eauda "wbxweelunae r lad erabnrw snapea er+ee<ad e_`hk'upk.p+mmMrc,'i.n`span,don ono` o<me newnoa��len WJe wAwtllness ,rni"� mn,k< awRw qn ax°�eoorr:il rroelo nmw� re �onwKKkm"rx me<ra twa. a ,rnm,rn 0 w ;af:�am o�hmew.m.� >m.w�,Mpwm wMw.Mnwa ,ad�n rceMg Ma%wlume kaaronuxJealgn.aM an]6nsrM we< expw x5 wwawrMvhrually nruugh M1 wlvri. «lydieuurdenw klt rl oym.J ...........znme) pe In go,ec Jmellnes can rMuce<osrsa^aaaeienre ae ery pralM1nmworka'Measall slx gulJing wples, gapaMlo aslmvder wa N,na `sl' a..a m munlrygM LIAnrIM wllbrvoxe�aMVlslElllay.. .. _ � w aes pen, w wee.s,ws zMCaMrcyswe«neaArEaeaa.yorm�:e.Ja.an�eu o[ner,y n ebneu rcumrunr,ef e rtay vorteus bumeu M n xMkWgwtx wnIWuanae,a O.d r>aar`lwed,z.ww NmGt inn ameecgmw awl puwnnzerMl Mtln"rk�wncafhe wuk m znlrowm bn wo mhukno rqw mws ewFwhrgl aenWnn rec Harre1l1nlwle Wvre,AG cowab rdwweap�Mrxho snHws ldsbMe gM1 laolbr ynvle< ropMal��" wcoomn Hr,mewasM:(,Mkemmeamvklbrye�ll nfraov.rdp.ne lsirykm«w.auaMlslueersr.w eiMmnM«sewnn ayl.. (.W.— A— ne[rwinn. prc r oMIGbwuuHdou lR E.11Rl lw, scope aMn wu' ntwea r 9 aaaa�.akro+"l^<w»^nwa .0 .. . . ... r nmmw peaesman wnaMnxenbwlM canna dansr soon GndawMra¢pmlwn GM zpLpa�,� m <crc.N � rcn re mfmylre mmkrermarnwrau �"iau<<anxlav e"a klx+rurcaapa1A mepr�anyn.aid xmnr� .mnwpmpressa tlpe�rmnnes �� reaMpulersminn Imgenre^aiu„sl,ouwa gnnax l^I«mrrlon .., wmaon crow uwae mmersan nMw ne�... m wnatsua«e na s,'pmiM,aM av^^ems a bu la caw c"w�""r.® warfwkMsrrareueswll Mu,M] gFnam a comrm aaesn b«qm exbeux n e+ prcfererKe(«razurcrra sw<rmeeraut<s Aro^ M non o pp,mun/r",pannrra xcno]anArn. s guppoaf«w,WM.mnningaMparMnnR xeyCmrmeme orengecounh par48 xwrcwion counalmx we.r® ores leMMhY m gMLic m^eLnw4maReaJau a^dad 'PriOlicas:.':lWa ■ar kh,roigM1 lanwl ;INuia miy[Marxkeai aio,h.wrain i rd aMetate gM annlrcrcaLngN *ne 11,lAan nstlr snonmabok r�',Hg wMaon prgen rea pMMlwllyzo rcnenwmpkzMprgms. mrmanuau"mwk g n,..r..avr,.,rovr �.r.we...,ww�.wnrrw,.�.mwn.• Wrabk mxnaoeilsa�dw�airuWe^w<i`nkrvi[e °Ag anvil meimenm<nnA.z ayeemeraa.and AmwwxedwmmuniLy m�� ^w'd Mrwrin bulorngoml Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 3 Orange County will be a place where a safe, inclusive network of trails connects people of all ages and abilities Vision for to each other, to nature, and to the Trail Connectivity places they love. The co-created vision served as the These trails will make it easy to project's 11north star,99• � • _ � network, principles,guiding the. � travel by foot or bike rather than • _ car, encourage healthy movement, strengthen our communities, and foster equitable access to the natural beauty that defines the Piedmont region. Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 4 Pro3ect Goals Five Trails Plan project goals were identified by the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council and highlighted by the community during the visioning process. 02 Sparl< enthusiasm Develop a Trails Create a Expand access to Identify new for a connected Plan that reflects comprehensive excellent parl<s and existing county trail networl< the community's networl< of and recreation trail segments with an equitable, vision and aligns connectivity opportunities for a to complete the inclusive, and with other county between I<ey points broader population, Mountains to Sea engaging outreach and municipality of interest including especially in rural Trail (MST) section process. efforts, such as worl<, home, school, areas of the county. in Orange County. the Bicycle and commerce, and Pedestrian Plan. public transit. Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 5 42 Process at a Glance The Trails Plan process consisted of six tasks between January 2025 and March 2026. JAN. I FEB. MAR. I APR. I MAY I JUNE I JULY AUG. SEPT. I OCT. NOV. I DEC. I JAN. I FEB. MAR. APR. TASK 1 ; Kick-off Website FAQs I Workshops I I I Workshops Pop-ups I I TASK 2 ' I PRC PRC 1 PRC I I I PRC I BOCC BOCC Update Update I I I TASK 3 I Data Gathering �� ' Map Development I I I I i i I I I TASK 4 ' ININ ' I I I I Row Cost Estimate TASK 5 Partner Bike/Ped Partner Coordination Alignment Coordination I I I I I I TASK I i I I I Drafting . -. Drafting : Refinement Plan AIIIIIIIIIEL I I Draft Complete Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 6 43 How We Got Here The draft Trails Plan reflects what we learned through community visioning, draft network engagement, previous plans, and on-the-ground fieldwork across the county. J ;V Previous & Community Input I _ Ongoing Plans shaped the vision, ,; it 3` , ��� (MST, Bike/Ped, greenway guiding principles, �+► d-- plans, Land Use Plan,and proposed - a etc.) set expectations for networl< structure. connectivity. ..... o , x Fieldwork & \ . �' - - -- Steering Committee GIS Analysis guidance helped -�- engagement, 4 confirmed where trails refine en a - g g YT are feasible and where priorities, and draft - constraints exist. fro recommendations. Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 7 44 Who We Reached Public engagement reached residents across all seven townships, using both in-person and digital tools. Vision Workshop 18Draft Network 76Pop-Up Event 0 Attendees Workshop Attendees Participants Two hands-on sessions Two open-house style sessions Two tabling events at the County with interactive activities for residents to review and Roadshow and Soccer.com Center to define the community's provide feedbacl< on the to tal<e worl<shop content out aspirational vision and proposed trail networl< and into the community and reach shared priorities preliminary prioritization additional residents 72 Vision Survey 65 Draft Network Outreach methods included: Respondents Workshop Attendees • Project we b pa ge Online version of the Online version of the draft • E-Newsletters (123 sign-ups) visioning activities for networl< worl<shops to provide • Social media campaigns community members who a virtual alternative to in- • Printed flyers could not attend in person person engagement • Digital advertisements/graphics Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 8 45 What We Heard: Visioning Process Residents emphasized the importance of safe, connected trails that 0 support daily movement and recreation across the county. noimea QN— Key Themes Priority Destinations 0 • Network of connectivity Hillsborough Riverwalk 0 _ • Connection to nature Occoneechee Mountain 1 Em EBANE m • Safety Blackwood Farm Park ® V Q 0 Em m • Healthy movement Brumley Nature Preserve _ Grc� • Inclusive design Eno River State Park r0 r 0 Q- Priority Connections nQ 0�Q .Town-to-town connectivity between Chapel Hill, Ca rrboro, TIC Q q0 Hillsborough, and Mebane �Q� 0 Quiet, nature-based corridors where feasible Regional connectivity, especially the Mountains to Sea Trail UNC s w'0 (MST) segment in Orange County lake Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 9 46 What We Heard: Network Feedback After reviewing the proposed draft network, guiding principles, and preliminary prioritization, community feedbacl< focused on how the trail segments would function on the ground. What people responded Questions & concerns positively to raised by the community • Completing gaps in the Separation and safety on Mountains to Sea Trail road-adjacent routes • Longer, continuous Potential impacts to nature-based routes creel<s and natural areas • Clear town-to-town Privacy near certain rural connections segments • Long-term maintenance expectations s: Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 10 Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs What we heard What we heard What we heard What we heard .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . How Public Input Shaped the Plan Insights Insights What it means & why it matters What it means & why it matters Community visioning and draft network engagement shaped the goals, guiding gIV 0 principles, proposed network, . and the prioritization approach, � Guiding Principles �� How it connects ensuring the draft Orange County Trails Plan is grounded 0 in community values. looksPrails Plan What it Draft Orange Countyi•. • of •unty Commissioners WorksessionApril 14,2026 GuidingPrinciples 0 REFLECT LOCAL CHARACTER PRIORITIZE USER SAFETY CULTIVATE COMMUNITY WELLNESS Trails should seamlessly integrate into Safety is essential for encouraging The trail network should help build the surrounding landscape and reflect trail use. Thoughtful trail design a happier, healthier community by the unique identity of each community with universal access, adequate supporting physical activity, mental they pass through—from rural to urban visibility, clear wayfinding, and health, and social well-being through and everything in between—to foster safe crossings should be at the opportunities for recreation, relaxation, a stronger sense of identity and place forefront to keep pedestrians and and connection with nature. across Orange County. cyclists safe and comfortable. 0 0 Tag, J� L ADVANCE ACCESS & EQUITY EXPAND TRAVEL OPTIONS DESIGN FOR LONGEVITY All Orange County residents—regardless of To be effective, the trail network Trails should be designed and age, ability, income, or location—deserve should provide viable alternatives constructed using best practices that safe and convenient access to outdoor to vehicle transportation and promote long-term resilience, ease of exploration. The trail network should encourage more active modes of maintenance, and adaptability, allowing prioritize connectivity to historically travel, like biking or walking, by the network to evolve as the county underserved areas, promote inclusion, and connecting key points of interest grows and community priorities change ensure diverse community needs are met. across the county. over time. Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 12 49 r Draft Trails Plane. Proposed Network J�- - The proposed network combines nature trails, rail-to-trail segments, and road routes to create a connected county systemo....rt. linking major destinations and advancing MST continuity. ` � '` UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) E�] O Chapel Hill to Hillsborough (Road route via NC 86 & Waterstone Dr to Cates Creel< Parl<) RI I =--- Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) M IN ,�--,� °•nre.„2 ' �•gi HILLSBOROUGH --- 8 '-. • - eoo w.er. ® wa s J \: MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Road route) 46 MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) 01 E�l MST - Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) 6A Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US-70) a: 6B Mebane to Kings Highway Park (Nature trail via Dul<e Energy transmission easement) , Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Natural Area (Road route via Lebanon Rd) OCedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park (Nature Trail via Eno River) 1 CHAPEL HILL Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Nature trail via Northeast Parl< & Breeze Farm) O CARRBORO;_ • ' El wA q Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Road route via Northeast Parl< & Breeze Farm) ElMST - Eno River State Park to Durham (Nature trail) ----------- --_--_ -- - ---- -------------------------Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 13 50 What the Network Accomplishes - The proposed trail network translates community priorities and guiding principles into a system that... 0 � 0 Expands access to parks, preserves, and natural areas for residents around the county 02 Strengthens town-to-town and rural connectivity, linking M NEmM"'x- -;-- - -.. 8,- HILS�ROUGH o municipalities and surrounding communities o- 03 Creates clearer, more intentional multi-modal connections 'I � �'�across the county i g V 1= - 04 I i© O Supports daily movement and recreation, making it easier to walk, bike, and spend time outdoors close to home Il CHAPEL HILL ' Advances completion of the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) l and strengthens Orange County's role in regional and CARRB&O statewide trail systems IT - - ------------------------ Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 14 51 Segment Prioritization Prioritizing trail segments helps Orange County strategically focus time and resources, advance projects that deliver the greatest benefit first, and provide a transparent, repeatable framework for future decision-making. How Priorities Were Set: A Four-Step Process 01 02 03 04 Analyst Scoring Public Input Comparison & Combined Priority Initial scoring of Community feedbacl< Weighting Order each segment on the draft priority Inputs were Weighted results using a consistent order through normalized and were combined to set of evaluation worl<shops and an weighted to balance produce the draft criteria (local need, online survey, using technical feasibility priority order that cost efficiency, a dot voting exercise and community will be evolved as connectivity, guiding and ranl<ing activity perspective. segments are refined. principle alignment, respectively. community support) Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 15 52 PrioritySegmentsOrder of The draft priority order reflects a combination of community preferences and feasibility considerations. -Hi hestrankin segments Highest-ranking � generally share the following � ❑ MST - Eno River State Park to Durham (Nature trail) R characteristics: 0 2 Chapel Hill to Hillsborough (Road route via NC 86 & Waterstone Dr to Cates Creel< Parl<) • ❑ Strong community support 0 ❑5 MST - Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) • Nature-based or separated 4B MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) trail experiences ❑1 UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) • Clear connections to parks, towns, and the MST ❑ Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) ❑7 Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park (Nature Trail via Eno River) Reminder: 6B Mebane to Kings Highway Park (Nature trail via Dul<e Energy transmission easement) This priority order represents a 6A Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US-70 to West Hill Ave/Occoneechee Mtn) planning-level snapshot and will continue to evolve as segments � ❑ MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Road route) FX are refined. cc 0 Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Nature trail via Northeast Parl< & Breeze Farm) ' a ~ Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Natural Area (Road route via Lebanon Rd) N W O Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Road route via Northeast Parl< & Breeze Farm) Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 16 What's Next 01 Convey the draft Trails Plan to relevant advisory boards for review and comment s y. Return the draft plan to the Parks and Recreation Council for formal comment and recommendation 0 Refine the plan based on advisory input, Board direction, and continued coordination Prepare an adoption-ready Trails Plan Additional Elements Included in the Plan for future Board of Commissioners In addition to what we covered tonight, the following consideration items are included in the draft Trails Plan and will be refined as more information becomes available: • Trail Segment One-Pagers (Section 04, pp. 42-67) • Project Phasing Framework (Section 05, pp. 72-74) • Implementation Framework (Section 05, pp. 75-79) Draft Orange County Trails Plan Board of County Commissioners Worksession April 14,2026 1 17 1'"! r' i r �s '♦. ,j 'f n'"`'+ rT`s yr "' 5'� N�"'Wm-yew a4' '�� ifi{.d::N"" �',Y[I.� $r 9 °3 y�'�j q"�y r �if�.r, ✓�` ky_a {as�ie ay {r +-,• q�j��y 4i lgw �: a� �s '' .. q� ( �. "v id '7�'° 's I. T' r •-r ,`913� � 'rrl� ri a'�;` 9 n1" , '��: r•t _ - ,s _ v , _ �• �s f �` rr.. _ 4•"y�'yr/ 1 f+. ii_ .� 1;.�1� '` l#• +� it.. l� y�y ,aY ,,,rt,` ,�.lP` ,tiffs ; TTT r R• ter„ ;{ ? �•Ts; y{ 19 r.d. } 1 IP �. P/� yy�� L ,llj t '{ � 1 I s ri9r[ � •> r `tlP y, yy. � ��1 3 � t rt, �+ 'y Y` $ct:f • � dk'- - i f F '.. ;d,/1. '!. >,�_ �. 4 , l h; rA• �!1 ,ij. .�s � .j .�. e_e;q •� .•'�C.'�'a+ a ,e. i �'� . >.� •f� �'�L'ap�i.q3+ i- •:r� - �,{„+A�'r .� 1'i .�r :?.. d` r .a � � '.?=_ •% .. •� ♦ - ,r_- '� � 6. � y,�,i `� ..x � •'-� i � �d,' �,E,�,� a �'t - -'�"� � 1Z � �� 1�' � f s _ -L ..,� r a n.? l w• i :.-'� _ ? e' l f ✓� At. T, ,� , •1� ��;' � SJ _ \ ��: sIF':/_ �r- + r ti. f- ;.y ,> �i"�,;^ 9 �'s Ito"p n g ` ?t- - :+w"' > j�^`7 r<sr•f� y��'p•r:a 'r �. _ `..y• .6;: -._a. • -- - S; 'Yr` ►n� t1. �, 4 // L [ `; �` -J �"'[ �' q�>gy' � r +3 }rya 1 -•,+� .9'�r+f�°�p Si,' �' •,L M a .' r--• 1 r �� ` ,y _ ^-_ 9i •! , , I `i f !! ;� F' •��- ♦3 .iti.' r�5,-, "�' .•vl �r'' I �r-',,. +"''+E:. a_:�. {{p°r' I' i ''.1 , S` SWY p 4 ` Via:. .s., - `i _•ti.;J , %�i ~' , 4 t i' T . s !". ! -,s�' a��. i'"". '' ..d-R'±a v _ '► i ia, �.' b� / a .,•� /-' ! �- - l~r .' Air A •L r� �' 1,3,. . e J' r �' SR1, -1 �. fe S a �. !• -C�.. f r i- �_ Y !�s �_ rr„ e , i}y1�C S �, y -,,�� \ yr ! t4 •a } ``L.Kir 'k, , e. ` - !' •4`� -!, .-Q"',. 7°'t rY-4"y-�,�r i � �'1 �e'/g � � x'',g�l.r A��' ',4` .rn" - ` - �•s y'LF,' �r-.i'��-ti"_ !4`•.q_ .s�`_ �'- -�,eE'_�''.'�f'LLt7�}��e`.•�r/.-,-�'tev_se-'`_-F..'_1�_ �y,y~`.J;'F.�r.-1'♦—ky-#.�,s.ue / , _,3.\:'?''ry Iis.'N�'•-a�:.Lr��''`:-'5kLr T•'�e`�e s J;g�evr Jy�.i'Wi 7-' f�F� ',ir"_e e7.r d1�.!'>'n;)��3'a•F.4:�'�Y'[ty:aS'i�-. -�.1•&�-'!.ii.' r�. t , ,a�$'Vy�•,�'�i'_\�%I,f 4 4 "p V �Ss FP j:'r.,''-eI/.-"r�i>_x+, `i.t.Y,•'^s�S'{:.;"F:r.r�'-r','9.A q�i{y5,•,L°,�,_prrpi.Lt.+'..-T•1i;I7,�, t[,A /� f yF'�_,ai,{`-;f^_i,�-I,1.Y;.�--_ /,R�Fff''r':'��!P r!�,.�.✓r.r sf,�, S,.=�r.,�M'+`r"�� ar 1�,-s c. _-_'_�l x•, _ _ - x% 1 :1' s� / ro y1�j1 E , a r r - - � �- /? , -�„ y` �. �. �> a r-, _ !i�•' �� r tiit n � j' -L � n> 1 �.- - �� •� "f? 1 _w .ti _} - _ - �Sep•�� _ �y� _ - f ,��r J� �; � -,,,/-'•` =Sir 5 . ' y - - `, . F .•\ , �, / KcY -4 , '}Jy . •'.' • /V 7 \ +4! . _ .1 d 1 _ - f + 44 •� '_ J' ` r _ �r � - ' �`, � �- � - 1 _ 1` � \\ _ ���`� Y ��ifs -.®rift Orange�Cp yTrai1s Ptah-`. l4c- 'i 26 _- � .; / --'r• ^ r '` is i �1 � 'i 1 _ _ORANGE COUNTY epart-mtofF"Aro,,merrt, .`:�.,} a. \ y�r'�.*' - •g. .. ..�?:- - •e.• a,.J ,�"'1, l� S * NORTH CAROLINA ' A Dgriculture,Patks&Recteati v' ,� �yY,-,�� __� ' �4s:_ �'�"�•y��Jt• � r L: � :+�'.L. ..,4 Yr LL j ,�� n - � ,i- ptj�\ F ."• _� ., r�A-'l " -(La�-,,�tpl•c` , r^, - ._ tii^ti si' -a .h..ham_" .�• a �, \�'^\ L�. • w�'r 'yam ��rgr;.t,•'6 r� -a►= "� H ,� ^+� -3r a•r-,�+,. �' -.,� �� � � ,a.T � �:�.._ �' �-'� \'- e, ♦�l �� y ''n� Y}. �f%� _ 'Srt Fes" Y a_��,• , r � ,..f�, p, yr .1 ` t1� .. ; �; �, ,;• Lam: . r t �p:; ` t rg Y •'• � �'_'a-sir'• :`- '_• - • - - -"'�£�� .n:sy �, ..T r.. i C* -r ,s, r• �:f c=r-4 �� . ^..�� �• .� - - .� - z<• r,. '� � r� ,e_': � �i'a � "'J •_ .w - :ry 55 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 1, 2026 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Draft Orange County Bike and Pedestrian Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Cy Stober, 919-245-2592 2. PowerPoint Presentation Sarah Williamson, 919-245-2102 PURPOSE: To receive a presentation from the Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) staff and provide any feedback. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Bike and Pedestrian Plan is to formalize a cohesive and actionable strategy for multimodal design, development, and implementation for the unincorporated areas of Orange County, with a focus on serving the most vulnerable populations. The plan aligns and integrates into the following regional transportation plans: • Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update — Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization • MTP update — Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization • Comprehensive Transportation Plan update — Central Pines Rural Planning Organization The Bike and Pedestrian Plan is being developed in tandem with the Trails Plan and staff are coordinating to create alignment in process, outcomes, and interconnected recommendations. The Transportation Department and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation (DEAPR) will work in partnership whenever possible to secure resources and to advance the recommendations of both plans. The Draft Bike and Pedestrian Plan provides Orange County with 18 prioritized projects as well as policy opportunities, funding possibilities, and suggested next steps. Impact and feasibility are the cornerstone of recommendations within the Draft Bike and Pedestrian Plan. The Plan-provided framework helps distinguish near-term opportunities from longer-term investments and is intended to support strategic decision-making when time and resources are limited. All of the prioritized projects remain important long-term opportunities and should be revisited as conditions, partnerships, or funding evolve. More than 600 residents participated in nine distinct engagement activities, including an online survey, interactive map, stakeholder listening sessions, community events, and two public workshops. 56 The plan is expected to be presented to the BOCC in the fall of this year. Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 Upon adoption, the Orange County Bike and Pedestrian Plan is to be included by reference in the draft Land Use Plan 2050. The draft Land Use Plan is expected to be released by the BOCC for public review and feedback during Community Engagement Window#3, which is expected to take place later this year. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no costs associated with the presentation and discussion of this item other than staff time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the presentation, and 2. Ask any questions and provide any feedback. CO (/ r fi. W Z b (ice v Q r - ��� r PEDES1R .rIV, ti ,( � � r �/�► of �{ i L ORANGE COUNTY, NC !,1 f r �y ti C 4 .r I C n • x �1 ORANGE JNo Our People.Your Succe5s. TRIANGLE WEST COUNTY Page 2-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County�N$C-Page 3 9 AcKnowleldgme'nts • 0 ABOUT THIS STUDY............................................................................................ PAGE 10 ' PROJECT GOALS... .. . ................................................................................... PAGE 14 • This plan was made possible through the collaboration and dedication of many PROCESS AND TI ................................................................................ PAGE 15 individuals and organizations who care deeply about making Orange County a safer, more accessible,and more connected place to walk and bike.We thank the residents, . • • community members,and stakeholders who shared their insights,experiences,and • hopes for the future of mobility in Orange County. UNDE&,BI T VEL NEEDS PAGE 18 • WORK PAGE 26 WALKNG,AND SAFETY TODAY............................................................. PAGE 34 Orange County, Stantec Consulting WhitersRavenel EYT AWAYS................................................................................................. PAGE42 CH.1 North Carolina Services Inc. OVERVIEW OF ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ........................................................... PAGE 46 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. PAGE47 KEYTHEMES....................................................................................................... PAGE58 NETWORKCHAPTER 4: • • APPROACH TO NETWORK DEVELOPMENT......................................................... PAGE 62 FACILITY DESIGN GUIDANCE ............................................................................ PAGE 64 NETWORK FRAMEWORK.................................................................................... PAGE 72 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION.................................................................................. PAGE 74 CONCEPT DESIGNS............................................................................................ PAGE 80 CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION POLICY AND PROGRAMMING............................................................................. PAGE 92 NEXTSTEPS...................................................................................................... PAGE100 ©2025 by Orange County,NC,and Stantec Consu Se es,Inc.All Images,Graphics,and Text were created by Stantec or used with permission unless otherwise note production Permitted with Credit in Print. Page 4-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan • D D INTR DUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Orange County is growing and changing, and so are the ways people get around. This Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is This Chapter will cover: Whether walkingthl, biking to b tok about helping people c it where they o school, go a park, or catching aus work, more go safely, �mfr �7bly,and About This Study le are looking for safer and more convenient ways to travel without relying �ord¢ably,safely, t, ' ?ar not. , Project Goals on a car. But in many parts of the county, sidewalks are missing, roads feel It focuses on practice` unsafe for biking, and bus stops are hard to reach on foot. like better sidr ,ait, Process and Timeline .,. crossings,can mr a c, nected bike ro+'t s-the car hake a real W r_ "-renc. 'n everyuay life. CIioK here,to navigate T between chapters . CH.2 � N �CH.4 y � M ♦ _.��,,, CH.5 ♦� - ws`e e.,:ry seas '� - � .ar 4 j t 40 � � _ law , Page 6-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County NC-Page 7 Building on Past Work This plan isn't starting from scratch.Over the past 15 years,Orange County has worked on several plans and initiatives to support biking and walking,from local greenway projects to countywide transportation and parks planning. This plan brings those past efforts together in one place. It uses updated data,community input,and on-the-ground knowledge to focus on what's missing,what's possible,and what matters most to residents. ii on in 11 I iiliiilrrrn� r _ rrrr r; AL r ,A 0 CHe l Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic(continued) GS�TPa SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL Strategic Action Plan20310 I tc 7 1C co�uflxrv., xo r x ComprehensiveTrensportationPlaO 0 Comprehensive P , p4' e V - soar ®c0 °4° C s tr sz4- «�. 3 laso °`/A tar°vc` �k7 mxr Orange County ADO GTS Durham-Chapel H,II Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Orgamration � nxopMhwamM.la mu Comprexensive Tra No enmper 30t) Orange County 2030 Orange County Safe Routes to School Orange County Parks S Central Pine RPO(CPRPO) Triangle West Transportation Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Strategic Action Plan Recreation Master Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Planning Organization Transportation Plan 2030 PlanningFramework (TPO)Comprehensive Transportation Plan i Recognized the importance Includes&nte Launched programs aimed Recommended the Introduces bicycle and pedestrian Recommended a combination of of multimodal transportation ria at improving pedestrian and expansion of greenways and infrastructure goals and objectives separate bicycle and pedestrian and identified bicycle and cider rovide bicycle access to schools, multiuse trails to improve for the CPRPO region and accommodations constructed parallel pedestrian infrastructure as ackgrounor this emphasizing safety and recreational access and recommended a new approach for to the Durham-Orange Light Rail key priorities. pl education programs for multimodal connectivity. bicycle and pedestrian project funding corridor from Chapel Hill to Durham. students. prioritization. Page 8-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County, -Page 9 � (L eee eee - - - j' — CH.1 Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic(continued) Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic(continued) i - r orange County Trails Plan .. I Transportati � Safety Plan OrangeiC.unty ans tio .�. W • o•�� i Safe Poutes to o�`o ZeTriangle West Transportation ro Dea[hs School • • ate Planning Organization VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN NCDOT Complete Burlington-Graham MPO Orange County Vision Burlington-Graham Orange County Safe Orange County Orange County Triangle West TPO Streets Policy (BGMPO)Comprehensive Zero and Compete MPO Transportation Routes to School Update Transportation Trails Plan Vision Zero Action Plan Transportation Plan licy Safety Plan Multimodal Plan Update Established statewide Integrated updated my endorsed The BG MPO Safety Plan Expanded programs Established a Currently developing a Sets goal to eliminate guidance requiring local bike and pedes VI Zero principles identifies NC 54 and eastern aimed at improving comprehensive vision for long-term strategy for traffic deaths by 2050; jurisdictions to design streets recommen ns, to reduce pedestrian Orange County as high-risk pedestrian and bicycle multimodal transportation, expanding the County's identifies high-injury that accommodate all users, aligned wi egional nd cyclist fatalities and areas and prioritizes safety access to schools, setting the stage for this trail system,enhancing corridors and proven influencing local projects. mobility S. improve roadway safety upgrades in disadvantaged emphasizing safety and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan pedestrian and bike safety countermeasures for vulnerable users. communities. education programs for by highlighting network friendly corridors. for Orange County. students. gaps and investment needs. Page 10-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,6N2C-Page 11 PERSON ABOUT THIS STUDY Figure l-B:Study Area Map This plan builds on the 2024 Orange County 1 1 � 1 Transportation Multimodal Plan, which looked at big- Study Area I \ 1 picture transportation needs for the whole county. Municipalities not I \ 1 0 included in this I 1 planning effort While that plan included biking and walking,it didn't dig into the details of where Railroad Track I ls�� 1 5� 1 bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are missing or what needs to be built first, UNC Co-G 86 s0 4t�jt� 1 especially in unincorporated parts of the county that are outside the main towns. Trail - r ork Litt/6 e„ 1 This plan will provide Orange County and its partners with a current list of prioritized I 1 projects and tools to identify: - 1 1 Key la 1 I 1 gaps and opportunities . . connect walkingand 1 MEBANE -. • sidewalks, • • - • schools, 1 ; I Eno Riven-, 1 1. - i HILLSBOROU�GH State Park 1 CH.1 70 and bike facilities across the parks, and transit -�County ~� 1 er 9-\J �O 1 ALAMANCE 1 �o • • • I _ r1 scxoo�sus ' 1 86 V.S. 1 1 � 1 f Duke ForesWhat projects should How local p licie, and t Z 1 N • - first based on safety, funding can sup, ort these 1 } 0�0Q, benefit, • • need projects m • • • • 1c, 1 M uIIIIII L� — 1 v 54 CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M �W4- ;_1 MR ) V ��III River sa � s O1 Miles O 0 1 2 Source:(Orange County,2025) C H A T H A M Page 12-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,6N3-Page 13 The Need for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Orange County has made steady progress in expanding sidewalks,bike lanes,and multi-use paths, reflecting a strong local With a focus on these needs,this plan commitment to improving how people move throughout the community. Like man rural areas,however,the ability to build Four main reasons this tt now: helps Orange Count take further p 9 P P 9 Y Y Y p 9 Y and connect this infrastructure is shaped by roadway ownership,state policies,and coordination across multiple agencies. steps toward a more complete, connected transportation system- As a result,the existing network continues to have missing links,safety challenges,and opportunities to strengthen one that gives people more choices to connections to key destinations such as schools,parks,and transit stops.This plan focuses on identifying those move around,no matter where they opportunities and providing a clear path forward for continued progress. FILLING THE GAPS*: live or how they get around. Some areas lack continuous At the same time,more people are looking for alternative ways to get around.Whether it's a child walking to school,a teen connectikeske een biking to work,or an older adult navigating a busy roadway,the need for safe and reliable options continues to grow. existing faciy GROWTH &DEVELOPMENT• destinatio tmore diffic As Orange County grows,so does ely. the need for roads and paths that i9ftbwork for everyone,not just drivers. I �� �'_ • � `� 11/111 CHANGING HABITS: . More people want to walk SAFETY CONCERNS: or bike as part of daily life Some roads and crossings feel CH.1 -for health,convenience, dangerous,especially in areas • • • • • or saving money. 1 with high crash rates or no I I III ' I I I I I I I III•I I I 1 sidewalks or bike lanes. (AIM _ 1 1 � D *Note:"Gaps"refer to missing or incomplete connections within the pedestrian and bicycle network.While this plan identifies needs across the broader system,Orange County's role is focused on coordinating and advancing improvements along corridors and projects within its influence,in partnership with municipalities and state agencies. Page 14-Orange County,NC I Bicycled.Pedestrian Plan Bicycle d,Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,64 -Page 15 PROJECT GOALS PROCESS MELINE The Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is built This plan isn' ' um nt. It's a process and a set around three main goals: of tool nd th o munity is a key part of it. Goal #1 Goal #2 Goal #3 The Orange County Bicyc nd Pedestrian Plan was developed over the course of 2024-2025 through a multi-step process that included data analysis,community Make Walking Build a More Improve Access input,and collaboration with local and regional partners. and Biking Safer Connected Network for Everyone phic below shows the key phases of the planning process-from kickoff thr ublic engagement,draft recommendations,and final adoption. Everyone should be able to move A sidewalk or bike lane isn't much use Not all residents of Orange County around safely,whether walking, if it starts and stops without warning. have had the same level of investment biking,or rolling. But many roads in People need continuous,reliable in infrastructure. In some places,the the County are still designed with cars routes that connect key destinations only way to get around is by car,if you in mind,not people.This plan works such as residential areas,centers of have one.Other residents deal with to reduce crashes and create safe, employment and commerce,and unsafe conditions that make walking ig - nning Process people-first roads. recreation with schools and transit. or biking feel out of reach. NING TESTINGry CH.IWinter 2024 - 2025 Spring 2025 People need continuous, ■o■■■■m■n■ "'...■■■■ ■o■mmumomm monsoon ■■■ reliable routes Ado.. O O � �, Plan,Policy�Kickoff Project Online Existing conditions Program review Website survey JCond' :z! .' 4000" 11.08 .k' Interac+ive ago Map Community Focus Group Public Issues Vision Pop-up Events Discussions Workshop _ I I REFINING DOCUMENTING =_ - - -- ' Summer 2025 rc Fall 2025 - Spring 2026 410004002nassons magmas.� I ■ ■■ 00*0 I - \ Network Policy i Y Program Implementation Plan Funding i \ recommendations recommendations Strategy [Everyone should be able to \ In some places,the only way to get I move around safely _ � � around is by car-if you have one ■■Daemon ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ mossomommmomm ■ anman O ■........■ Prioritization process Public Priorities& Integration Report Workshop Projects with partners Development Adoption I I ` I ` Page 16-Orange County,NCI Bicycle Pedestrian Plan " 1 P 7 a{ tom•;,. r[ A CHAPTER2 •� EXISTING x ' a CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... - - ....... _ .. In many parts of Orange County, especially outside More people are choosing to walk `.- '•� y f x ' r`'` `,•� the towns and residential areas, walking or biking and bike,whether for exercise, recreation,getting to work or school, r h r• `,t = �� '�t1 . often means using the shoulder of a road with no or simply enjoying the outdoors.This sidewalk, bike lane, or safe place to cross. In some chapter examines the current state cases, people walk along roadside ditches or swales of the road system in Orange County, LW `ti z as a workaround where no dedicated space is including where people are already p walking and biking,the nature of available. Most of these roads were built for cars, at those trips,and where small changes ,:��w-°;�.'; �� � ��� ,�4• ��' y a time when very few people were expected to walk could have significant impact. '4=` or bike along them. Today, however, conditions are -CH.2 changing. This Chapter will cover: Understanding Travel Ne. �• r=;1':' ";3-` - ; • The Road Network �r • Walking,Biking,an[ Safr yl - Today • What Lec. red CH.5 \ \- • \ Intersection at Old NC 10 and Mt Hermon Church Rd showing bike signage. Page 18-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,6N�C-Page 19 PERSON UNDERSTANDING TRAVEL NEEDS ' ' " - �- - - - - - - - Orange County is a mix of farmland, towns, rural communities, and growing suburban neighborhoods. Each area looks and functions differently; some have Name I �• 1 walkable roads and trails, while others feature Ion stretches of road designed - Burlington g g lGraham MPO only for cars. These differences matter when thinking about how people move _ Central Pines I 1 and how to plan for safer walking and biking. - RPO _ Triangle West I 571 1 1 TPO 86 / 1 ! 1 The Planning Landscape 17L." Study Area I 1 no Municip Planning for transportation here Triangle West Transportation Because these agencies cover includ in 01" 1 —��� 1 also involves multiple layers of Planning Organization(TWTPO) different parts of the County, pl i rt /� _ � coordination.Three different regional transportation priorities vary across ton-Graham Metropolitan 1 V r organizations share responsibility Burl in g p regions.This plan helps bring those Organization(BGMPO)Planning Org for long-range transportation perspectives together,serving as a I MEBANE 1 planning,project prioritization,and local guide that supports broader Central Pines Rural Planning , j � � 1 coordination with the North Carolina Organization(CPRPO) regional coordination and future I' HILLSBOROUGH CH.1! 70 Department of Transportation funding. I �1 1 (NCDOT): I r i•� '� f,. 1 �7 r I ea - � ALAMANCE I \ � �•� - � - �!' ' - i 46/ I 751 86 1 r•il[ MF XICANp I �� . G /., 1 L( MF%Ic NR[$TAUR } 1_ NT - '- _-- 928 9002 AMOK W CARRBORO 1 / 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 / — CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M 1 1 86 1 54 1 I 1 I O � Miles O - - - — � 1 Source:(NCDOT,2025) CHATHAM Page 20-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 21 67 Figure 2-13: Land Cover .. .. — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — Land Cover(NLCD A2024) 1 Different Places, Different Conditions Barren Land I ap y� s�. �.�.3 ,. ,•. 1 ��► ' Cultivated Crops I �4w• iY � � A� This Ian focuses on unincorporated areas of Orange p p 9 Developed 1 �''` ►157, - County, where conditions for walking and biking differ x ^57 1 Y g g � � Forest ��/ significantly from those in the Count s towns. These areas Herbaceou 9 Y Y are generally more rural with longer distances between _ Open Water _ Pasture �► '''~ >- r; �� ✓ 1 destinations, higher vehicle speeds, and roadways that were not originallydesi designed to accommodate people Shrub cr 9 P P _ 1 walking or biking. and t rea IM nicipalities not �ANE In many locations,there are Even in these conditions, people Rather than applying town-based luded in this ,� r limited or no dedicated facilities continue to walk and bike;whether design standards,this plan focuses anning effort 1� _ 70 HILLSB=ROU�G 1 cH.l such as sidewalks, bike lanes, or to reach nearby services, access on identifying targeted, context- safe crossing points. Shoulders a park, or for recreation. Because sensitive improvements that can r: ► - 1 w , may be narrow or inconsistent, of these patterns, improving enhance safety and access I and people often rely on informal safety and connectivity in corridors and in areas wh t �0 1 space along the roadway to travel unincorporated areas requires County can play a role. A L A M A N C E 14 1 between nearby destinations. a different approach than in more compact or suburban 86 1 ...f environments. N, C 1 ••• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • - Ao 1 . i. CARRBORO CH DILL 1 D U R H A M 86 54 15 O 1 Miles _ 0 1 2 Source:(USGS Annual National Land Cover Database,2024) - CHATHAM Page 22-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 23 68 Figure 2-C:Demographics Infographic Who lives here? 9 POPULATION SNAPSHOT 146k RACE Based on data from the While most residents in Orange At the same time,nearly one in three Total Population(up 12%since 2010) County use a car for daily travel, residents walk for exercise,and A �� 72.1% White Orange County Fact 10.9% Black or African American walking and biking are important over 11%bike on roads.This shows a 41 Book (2024) and ESRI 2 . r modes for many,whether for growing interest in outdoor mobility w - 7.8% Asian Business Analyst (2025), recreation,exercise,commuting,or for health and quality of life. sJ li Popul elow �� ' r 5.6% Two or more races Orange Count is home accessing nearby destinations. Nearly f 15.4% 3.5% Other ■ g y 12%of households have no vehicle, Together,these trends highlight the to a diverse population and 13%of residents live below need for safe,connected routes that ,� Population 65 above youngthe overt line,meaningactive support both essential and lifestyle- population: p y based travel,particularly in rural and • INCOME families, working adults, transportation may not be a choice 61.5% Median Household Income Population Living in Poverty suburban areas where infrastructure but a necessity. of Orange ty's ulation \1 $6k Orange Count 13.3% Orange Count retirees, and students. is s arse and tar eted investments `© g y g y p 9 Growth fr e ulation These needs are especially critical in key corridors and connections can 65&ab 66k North Carolina 13.1% North Carolina Around one in four residents is for school-aged children(26%of improve safety and comfort. under age 20.About 37%of the the population),older adults(15%), population lives in rural areas,where and those living in areas with limited getting around without a car can be access to transit or services,who are challenging due to distances,limited more likely to rely on walking,biking, 36.70% 63.3% CH.1 infrastructure,and fewer public or others for daily travel and may transportation,bike and pedestrian face greater challenges navigating Rural Population Urban Population options. unsafe or incomplete infrastructure. Moot Participated in Bicycling on Road 4 ODE OF TRAVEL TC%Aj-, Ilk CH.5 Participated in To help identify areas with 6 Drove ne l Jogging • greater barriers • transportation I , • . access, NCDOT has developed a Participated in 21.7% rom Home 7.0% Ca ooled Transportation . . ' - - While this tool • - • 8 , 4.7% Public Transportation many inputs, can ••• - ` 3.3% Walked grant applications • • prioritization 31% Oth �PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLEdecisions at the state level. ACTIVITY IN 2025 IN 12,00ywj SOURCES:ORANGE COUNTY* AWMseholcls with no Vehicle* • Orange • Page 24-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 25 69 PERSON Where Are People Going? Figure 2-D:Key Destinations •• This plan focuses on helping people get where they need to go—safely and Whether it's a student walking to " " — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — comfortably—whether or not they drive. Many destinations like schools,parks, class,an older adult heading to an medical centers,and transit stops are spread across both towns and rural parts appointment,or a family out for a Schools, I 1 of the County. Even in places without sidewalks or bike lanes,people are walking weekend ride,these trips are already Q Daycares& 1 and biking today. happening,and small improvements Libraries 1 1 could make them safer and easier. Q Parks& Recreation I Q QPark and Ride I 1 5\ ,57 1 This plan prioritizes connections to: Community se Q Cultural Facili QQ 1 I • Medical . . Groceries& 1 Q SI9th Fork L/Z tl 1 including UNC Hospitals HillsboroughConveni Q Q e�Qil, 1 • • - •• • ' • • Q Hos it & �r 1 p 1 Cli I Pa "`""" cr n 1�MEBANE9 Q 1 G rnment I .19g0 Eno River State 1 T � Of es I ��� Park .. y 70 ���.� CH.1 tud Area Iw Q +ILLSBOROUGH 70 1 Municipalities not 4 Q ''� 9 !Jer 0 included in this 0 ■ ' planning effort Transit hubs,such . Durham - 1 C�, p Tech Park-and-Ride and proposed 9Q Q Amtrak stations. 91 1 75, I 0 1 s` ALAMANCE I 00 Duke Forest t L 1 }' o N 86 1 ,6co i 1� 1 n 1 Q = M CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M d y 1 1 [54], vl 1 CARRBORO ,s 1 e / 1 ' I Miles � � t — i Q � 0 1 2 i Source:Consolidated from(NCDOT,2025),(OpenStreetMap,2025),(Orange County,2025),&(Stantec,2025) CHATHAM Page 26-Orange County,NC I Bicycled.Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 27 70 PERSON THE ROAD NETWORK Roadway Responsibilities Map All public roads in the unincorporated areas of Because of this,most improvements for walking and biking in Roadway Responsibility 1 Orange County are maintained by the North unincorporated areas will require NCDOT Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), 1 1 coordination with NCDOT. Private NCDOT also maintains some roads within Understanding who owns and I 1 incorporated towns, while others are maintained by maintains a roadway is an important r " Study Area I ,57 1 first step in determining what types of I 57 1 the towns themselves. improvements are feasible and how Municipalities o - 1 they can be implemented. am included in t se/ planning effo 1 y 1 ✓ �1 NCDOT's Key Priorities for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements I 1 iMEBANE � I, HILLSBBOROU,GH a -1 CH.1� �T � I;r,� 70 11 Focus safety projects on shorter Consider the unique characteristics of Prioritize projects that expand 1 1 segments,intersections,and bridging rural roads and destinations,including access to transportation,co gaps instead of undertaking long access to trails and distances between resources,recreation,and to A L A M A N C E I ® 70 1 sidewalk projects. destinations. 775NCDOTmaintains "r , approximately _ • r '00 I 20 miles of roads in • .- l 1 Review existing policies,plans,cost- Determine maintenance requirements Rights-o y wi s,utilities, I 1 sharing guidelines,and evaluation and roles for existing and proposed and prepan urate cost methodologies to guide project facilities. estimates may pose a challenge to I 1 feasibility. constructability. I 1 Key Resources I �` CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL � •C Safe Routes to School1 TWTPO Vision Zero _ 86 54 Plan L-Safety Action NCDOT Project Delivery • - Network .D ' � Miles I O - Source:(NCDOT,2024) � ���. � CHATHAM Page 28-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 29 71 Road Types and Design Speeds •--• •• Orange County's road system includes Even on local and collector roads, 1 r a mix of local roads,rural highways, speeds can be high. In fact: - I 1 Speed Limits and regional corridors.About 77% I 1 of roads in the County are classified Approximately 42%of roads in - • • • - 50-65 MPH I 1 as local, meaning they carry less the County have a posted speed ...- - 45 MPH I �1 a threshold at I 1 traffic and often serve neighborhoods limit over 40 mph; • - • - - • • - 40 MPH or rural homes.These roads may which walking and biking become • -• ••• • • • 20-35 MPH I r5�y 1 - �� 1 feel quieter, but they can also lack significantly less comfortable • • - • - 5\ • sidewalks or shoulders,and their and more dangerous.On roads 17--1 Study Area 860 1 without shoulders,crosswalks, ' • •- ' ' 1 narrowness can limit options for safe Municipaliti 1 or designated space for people • •• • •• _• 1 Ki walking or biking,especially in more 0 1 outside vehicles,even a short •-- included i is • • • • planni rural settings. walk or bike trip can feel risky. . _ 0 0 � 0 0 _ � 1 The rest include major and minor _ _ • _ I { collectors,which connect local roads Over 1,500 miles of roads in I 1 to larger arterials.These roads often the County are considered • • • • - • • I �. 1 "bikeable"based on width and • • • • • 1 run past schools, parks,or small connectivity; but many of these _0 • • • i MEBANE G�1 town centers,making them critical i roads lack pavement markings I• j• HILLSBOROUGH -1 CH.1 , links for everyday travel and strong 70 candidates for pedestrian and bicycle signage,or other safety features. •• _ • • • i _ _ 1 �; While they may be physically wide • ••• improvements.At the top of the • - 1 enough to ride on,they often do road hierarchy are arterial roads, . � _ _ not feel safe or inviting for most _ _ freeways,and interstates,which users. • • •• • • A L A M A N C E ® 70 1 carry the highest traffic volumes • fee • and speeds.These are essential _ I ` .• for regional movement, but they're - 7 ` 751 generally not designed for walking or I _ / 1 biking,and often lack safe crossings • • r` 1 or shoulders. - -• r: '%`• 1 • I 1 X I 1 ------------------ • 54 CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M 86 54 ' ' • �"� 15 1 jr �. - � Miles — O 0 1 2 � � — •. � 46 ..� till' 1 Source:(NCDOT,2024) CHATHAM Page 30-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,72-Page 31 The diagram below illustrates how different roadway types serve different transportation functions and user groups. User comfort levels shown are illustrative and intended for ing oses. Facility selection should also consider traffic Understanding this relationship helps explain why facility needs vary across Orange County and why some corridors may volume,surrounding land uses,nearby destinations,pub in d c rridor-specific conditions. require greater separation from traffic than others. r"NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS & LOCAL ROADS RURAL COLLECTORS & MINOR ARTERIA.I... 'INCIF ,L ARTERIALS & REGIONAL CORRIDORS Local roads typically carry low traffic volumes and often Collector roads,both major and minor,link local streets to larger arterial At the top of the road network are arterials,freeways,and interstates,which handle serve residential neighborhoods or rural areas;while they routes and often pass by schools,parks,or small town centers,making the highest traffic volumes and speeds;while vital for regional mobility,they are may feel quieter,they can lack sidewalks or shoulders,and them important for daily travel and strong opportunities for pedestrian generally not designed for walking or biking and often lack safe crossings or their narrow design can make walking or biking less safe, and bicycle improvements. adequate shoulders. especially in rural settings. Urban Setting ��' Rural Setting Minor Collector Minor Arterials Major Arterials Regional Corridors I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 CH.1 L�V g --------- -- - ------ ------ ---------- ------ ------- ----- --- ------------- ------------- --------------- ------ - - - - - - - - - -------------- -------------- ----- SW Parkin Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Travel Lane Media ravel Lane Bike SW SW Bike Travel Lane Travel Lane Median/ Travel Lane Travel Lane 4-5' 8' 10-11, 10-11, 4-5' 1 n Lane 10-11, Lane 4-5' 4-5' Lane 11-12' 11-12' Turn Lane 11-12' 11-12' 11' 8' 8' 12' TYPICALSPEED: WALKING/ BIKING COMFORT AWALKING/ BIKING COMFORT WALKING/ BIKING COMFORT • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • • • TYPICAL ALcu ® © TYPIC co © �SERS: G TYPICAL Motor Experienced Motor Service Motor Large Cyclists Pedestrians p Buses Vehicles/ Buses Vehicles Cyclists Vehicles Vehicles Trucks Trucks TYPICAL CATEGORIES OF BIKE/PED FACILIT TYPICAL CATEGORIES OF BIKE/PED FACILITY: TYPICAL CATEGORIES OF BIKE/PED FACILITY: Sidewalks, shared roadway Sidewalks, sidepaths, separated bicycle facilities, Sidepaths, separated bicycle facilities, crossing improvements paved shoulders enhanced crossings Page 32-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,73-Page 33 User Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress Mal y � _ t. Road type and speed shape how it One tool commonly used to conditions across Orange County. feels,and how safe it is,to walk or evaluate user comfort is Level Many rural roads in unincorporated bike.On slower,quieter roads with of Traffic Stress(LTS). LTS helps areas were identified as higher stress `" � • few vehicles,it may be fine for people transportation agencies understand environments due to factors such as: :. • • • • to walk or ride a bike even without how comfortable a roadway may feel _ speeds,Higher vehicle sp , a formal sidewalk or bike lane. But for different types of riders based on faster roads,especially those with roadway speed,traffic volume,and , Narrow shoulders, V` J • . . . - high traffic volumes or wide lanes, separation from vehicle traffic. require more infrastructure to make 45 ARE Limited separation from traffic, - - • • -SH THe LTS model categorizes facilities and HE ROAD people feel comfortable and safe. �� •• •• • • ' At 40 miles per hour or more,even a on a scale from LTS 1(comfortable - - minor collision can have life-altering for all users)to LTS 4(comfortable > Longer crossing distances. consequences. only for highly experienced riders). q This does not mean every Roadways with lower speeds and road requires the same type of The Federal Highway Administration greater separation from traffic (FHWA)has found that the chance are generally considered lower infrastructure. Instead,it highlights the importance of selecting of a pedestrian dying in a crash stress and more comfortable fora • - • • • - increases dramatically as vehicle wider range of users. Higher-speed improvements appropriate to the • _ speed increases,from 10%at 25 mph roads with narrow shoulders or little roadway context and the people CH.I to 75%at 50 mph or above(FHWA separation from traffic are generally expected to use the corridor. In Safety Effects of Speed). considered higher stress and are some locations,shoulder widening typically comfortable only for more or crossing improvements may That is why separation from traffic— experienced riders. meaningfully improve comfor, like wider shoulders,sidewalks,or and safety. In others,sidepat sidepaths—is often essential for As part of this plan,previously separated facilities may be m safety,especially where people are developed LTS mapping from the appropriate. walking or biking near fast-moving Triangle West TPO was reviewed r F vehicles. to better understand bicycling Table 2-A:Facility Types by Comfort Level (LTS)and Intended Users- W, 1 Facility Type LTS Level Comfort Rating Intended Users " ALLOWED USE Of • �� - FULL LANE _ *M Sidepath LTS 1 Very High I users,including children,seniors,and people obility impairments Sidewalk LTS 1 Very High de ns of all ages and abilities Buffered Bicycle Lane LTS 1-2 High 'den dults and less-experienced riders Standard Bicycle Lane LTS 2-3 Moderate gu r riders who are comfortable with traffic (unbuffered) Paved Shoulder(rural) LTS 3-4 to deramrlxperienced bicyclists only Shared Lane/Sharrow LTS 4 Low Strong and fearless bicyclists only • Page 34-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 35 74 FF WALKING, BIKING, AND SAFETY TODAY Existing.' - - - - - - - - Walking and biking are possible throughout Orange County, but conditions vary depending on location. In towns like Mebane, Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Existing Sidewalk I 1 Chapel Hill, the sidewalk and bikeway networks are more developed, and some Existing Bicycle I 1 roads are designed to support walking and biking more comfortably. Facility Existing Shared I 07 1 Use Path 53 1 Current Conditions r" Study Area I se soUt' 1 ork V\ttle��v e� 1 Municipaliti I 1 In unincorporated areas outside town included is 1 limits, infrastructure is often limited planni 1 or disconnected.Sidewalks are rare I� 1 along rural and suburban roads, 1 and marked bikeways are sparse. Even where routes are designated p 1 MEBANE as"bikeable,"high speeds, narrow ,,��,� a ; I � 6 Eno River 1 shoulders,and rumble strips make , ,x _ �� it JJ 1 HILLS'B``O�ROUGH State Park 1 CH.I many of them feel unsafe. Certain sections of NC 86 and NC Q0 er 54 are classified as bikeways,but I oi�, they lack signage, lane markings, A L A M A N C E I or comfortable space for riders. 1 I �1 > Many County roads have no sidewalk or safe place to walk, • . I 86 1 and people must travel along the I � 1 shoulder or on the edge of the 1 roadway. i 1 `�rs Despite these conditions, people 1 p p p I Duke Forest are walking and biking all over the `Q�y County—for errands,for recreation, I 1��Ob and for getting to work or school. 1 0o Not I These trips are already happening, CD SONR TR,\[KS I 1 even in places where infrastructure is I is 1 minimal or absent. ' 544 ,CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M 86 1 1 � _ O Miles _ 0 1 2 — — Source:(Orange County,2024) CHATHAM Page 36-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 37 75 PERSON Where Crashes Are Happening Figure 2-G:Fatal • • Severe Injury Crashes •• Crash data helps identify the parts Unlike people traveling in vehicles, These conditions are especially " � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — of the transportation system that pedestrians and bicyclists have little challenging for: i ,X 1 present the greatest risk to people physical protection in a crash,making Fatal and Severe Injury(KA) X 1 walking and biking. Between 2007 roadway design,speed management, > Children walking to school, Crashes involving 1 and 2022,there were 710 reported and separation from traffic important > Pedestrians and Bicyclists 1 1 Older adults traveling to clinics to (2007-2022) I 1 crashes in Orange County involving a factors in reducing the likelihood of medical needs or transit stops, 1 • 1 person walking or biking. severe injuries and fatalities. Pedestrian Fatal 1 i57 X Injury(K) 1 > Families using the road for X 57 1 These resulted in: While many crashes occurred in recreation,and 1 X sOUt 1 more developed areas,nearly 86 1 > 41 fatalities,of which 34 were X Bicycle Fat 'Ork Vitt/e�Ne, half of the fatal and severe injury People without access to a Injury(K) 1 pedestrians and 7 were cyclists, crashes(48 out of 102)took place in vehicle. ! 1 and unincorporated and rural parts of the Pedes 1 Count Although Orange County does not • Sus ed I X & ! > 61 severe injuries,of which 44 y r 1 own or maintain most roadways in S u I Y( were pedestrians and 17 were This highlights an important unincorporated areas,understanding le I - ! 1 1 cyclists. reality: people are walking and us tedJVF I X 1 biking in these areas,even when occu rio jury(A) This means that roughly one in every � A 1 # dedicated infrastructure is limited pla (QMEBANE X HILLSBOROUGH • Wven pedestrian-involved crashes Cra s involving 1 CH.I r or absent. In many cases,residents nee ans and Bicyclists �{ 1 'rsult&l in a fatality or serious injury. Y must travel along roadways to coordina De y(2007-2022) ( ®� !' Eno River phis reflects the vulnerability of 1 �,x • 1 reach schools,parks,transit stops, regional partners, q State Park pe ple walking or biking,particularly Sparse I lr !per on roads with hig r vehicle speeds community destinations,or nearby funding opportunities tha . �X✓•! ! �o �0 4 a limited separ from traffic. neighborhoods. bicyv and pedestrian impr Dense ! 1 i "It•, 1 r r 1 Study Area X 11 Municipalities not 1 From 2007 to 2022, there 0 included in this 86 planning effort • O 1 • - 1 a bicycle or pedestrian x / I crash in Orange County 1 _ ALAMANCE ' h FDorest would - • • • '� I o X • 1 yo � 1 or serious injury. ohm 41P I.X9 I- ZZ- 1 [4 CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M 1 y X erV ` 86 54 1 tX 15 1 J 1 CARRBOROAwl. N 1 J � I O � Miles � � — X O X ' III I �I Source N DOT 20 7-2 22 SN D T 2 14-2 23 CHATHAM Page 38-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NCB-Page 39 PERSON A Safer Path Forward •• - • • - • •• ••- Orange County has already taken and serious injuries:the Triangle West areas east of Mebane as priority .. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — steps to address transportation TPO Vision Zero Plan(2025)and the corridors based on their crash history. safety. In October 2022,the Burlington-Graham Transportation Regional High Injury I 1 Orange County Board of County Safety Plan(2022). These corridors often serve important Network(HIN),All Modes I 1 Commissioners adopted a Vision Zero regional travel functions and o HIN Corridors I 1 resolution,committing to eliminating These plans use tools such as the High carry higher volumes of traffic at 1 traffic-related fatalities and serious Injury Network(HIN)to identify the higher speeds.Without dedicated r 1 Study Area small percentage of roadways where infrastructure such as sidewalks, I 157 1 injuries by 2050. Municipalities n t I 57 1 a large share of severe crashes occur. safe crossings,or separated bicycle included in 86 1 Different parts of Orange County are The Triangle West TPO Vision Zero facilities,they can present significant planning of t 1 served by two Metropolitan Planning Plan(2025)identified corridors like challenges for people walking and I 1 Organizations(MPOs):the Triangle NC 86 South,Old Fayetteville Road, biking. 1 West Transportation Planning and US 70 East. 1 Organization in the eastern portion These efforts reflect a growing 1 of the County,and the Burlington- Although these corridors represent commitment to improving safety. I y 1 just 10%of roadway miles,they This plan builds on that foundation I o Graham Metropolitan Planning account for nearly 60%of severe by focusing on targeted,context- Organization in the western portion. I 2J 1 and fatal crashes within the TPO's sensitive improvements in MEBANEIQ Eno River 1 Each MPO has developed a regional boundaries.Similarly,the Burlingtoq,- I HILLSBOROUGH �a State Park 1 CH.I '/'y I• US 70 W ���Marys transportation safety plan focused Graham MPO Transportation Safe** 70 1 on reducing traffic-related fatalities Plan(2022)identifies NC 54 and rural V u 1 ° 1P o Gs,O 1 ` I � I� 'o \ F 1 a r� ALAMANCE I o<° e� 70 1 old NC 10 751 Duke 1 .-�c►� I Forest 1 Z T. S Y Dairylen 1 I � I yRa 1 1 I 15 C �� a�,•_•_ • • • _ 1 41 IVCS. DURHAM CHAPEL HILL 1 ' 1 _ • - • •• • • • • � 86 54 f __ _ — _ • , , I �J CARRBORO 1 i 30re� 1 IMiles am I I 0 1 2 — 1 y Source:(TWTPO,2025)&(Toole Design,2025) CHATHAM Page 40-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 41 11 77 Planned Improvements - - •- -• = a6it A number of bicycle and pedestrian While this analysis provides a useful " — — — — — — — improvements have already been starting point,it does not fully account I ♦♦•♦■ ■■ own identified across Orange County for all implementation considerations, Planned Bicycle ® • •■an: • ♦ ♦■+ through previous planning efforts.The such as long-term maintenance, Facility I ♦♦� • •a♦ : ♦♦♦♦ ♦ ; map on the following page reflects feasibility,or the strength of Planned Bicycle I • '♦♦ ♦�♦♦ e • ♦�� 1 the full set of projects included in the connections to key destinations. and Pedestrian I ♦.+ ■ ♦ • ' ♦ p J Y I ■ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ■ 00 ♦ ♦1 2024 Orange County Transportation Facility 1 • ■ : ♦.y♦ r 1516 7 ♦ ♦ 1 Multimodal Plan(TMP),and is As a result,some projects shown on Planned ♦ • ■ ��■•""■■ ■■iO • so 1 ♦ • ■ ♦• .•a �s7'♦�♦■a 1 this map may appear in locations . ■ ■ Pedestrian ■ ♦♦ �� . • .■• ■. ♦ • shown here to provide context on Facility •ON••■ ■■ ■♦ a♦ �.■•♦ s6 ■ ♦■,-♦ ■ ♦♦ • 1 that are more rural in nature or ♦- 0 + the breadth of ideas that have been • ■ + ♦ a•♦ no+■+■�+ � 1 where immediate connections are not Planned Trai considered across the County. I ♦ ■ an ♦ ♦♦ ♦► 1 clearly established.This reflects the �♦• • ♦••' ♦ ♦'• r 1 Stud ♦♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 It is important to note that these conceptual and long-range nature y ♦♦ •♦ ♦ L• ••■� ♦♦ 1 projects were not developed as part of the TMP,which aimed to identify �� M c 1' s n 1 • ♦j ♦♦ ♦ •• • ♦♦♦ ♦♦ �l 1 • ♦ � ■ ■ ♦♦ ♦ ♦, ♦♦ ♦ , 1 of this plan,and their inclusion on this opportunities broadly across the uded th' 1 : ♦♦♦ ♦��. ►+ ■ ♦♦♦ : ■ : 1 map does not indicate that they have County rather than define a near- p ng e 1 • ♦ ♦♦ ♦•a��: : ♦1 been approved,funded,or prioritized term,implementable program. 1 MEBANE �■� ♦♦ �♦ •�•` •• ■ ♦♦ 1 for implementation. Rather,they • ♦.■ ♦• J1 ♦ ■ Eno River ■, .w1 This plan builds on that foundation by 1 ■ • ♦�♦r■'� ' State Park ' represent a comprehensive inventory HILLSBOROUGH . ♦ ♦ 1 CH.1 of potential improvements compiled taking a more focused approach.The • ��♦♦ • ♦ •♦�� ♦• •■•♦• 1 TMP projects are reviewed alongside 44.1■_t a+ • ■ through prior studies. I ••■ ■•� ,� S�: ♦� • ♦ 1 current conditions,safety analysis, I �• b • ♦ • ■ �.•a 1 Through the TMP process,over 140 and community input to better • ♦♦ 4 ■� •� 1 bicycle and pedestrian projects were understand where improvements ' I •♦ • ♦• 4 • �a o♦�'V, 7o r♦ ■ ALAMANCE I'i ♦ ♦• �• • ■ �♦ • ���.•� identified, ranging from sidewalks are most needed,most feasible,and 1� ♦♦ ■ ♦. 140 ►� �.�♦` and on-road bicycle facilities to most likely to provide meaningful 1 ■ `+ • '■ i♦�-�1 sidepaths and off-road trails.These connections.The recommendations 1:a`••♦♦ : IF` 86,♦♦ a ♦, 7s� projects were evaluated using factors presented in Chapters 4 and 5 reflect . ■ ♦ ■ �,♦ ♦+ ♦��. ♦♦ ♦ WIN*0♦a 1 such as safety conditions,including that refinement process and are 1' •♦ ■♦♦ ■ .♦►+ f♦�0�■ 4♦■ ` • ♦ . ■ a■�♦�+ w ♦ ♦ ■ ■ ■ bicycle and pedestrian crash severity, intended to represent a more realistic 1 ♦ ♦�•♦♦� :� : :� ♦��t�-■ ♦■♦ i 1 proximity to destinations and and prioritized path forward for I • i • • a a it ■ ��•'• i♦ ♦�.1 services,and surrounding population unincorporated Orange County. I •�♦ ` : ♦a ♦ *•a♦ •♦• •%M'Duke Forest.!♦1 and employment. I •♦ ■ ♦♦•♦♦•�► . ■ IF r 'i I �♦ ♦♦a s a 1 i 1 �, � �, .,�,. I aa■I�♦ 4 ••� ■�,••' CHAPEL HILL DURHAM 'A a ■ ■1 _ ♦ 86 O ♦i■ �•• ♦ i♦l 54 1 i�r•■+♦■+■ ■ r�■ ■■■•• a :�♦fCARRBORO 1 Updated ♦ •�• ♦s ■ version O Miles i ♦ ♦♦• j ♦♦ "♦ ' • • with recommendations 41W is on •• • - 67. Source:(Orange County,2024) CHATHAM Page 42-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 43 78 KEY TAKEAWAYS e People biKing Serve for worK, Roads errands Many Typesi and local of Trips corme,otions Travel .a _rns CH.1 st roads in unincorporated Orange County were designed primarily for vehicles,but today they serve many Are Already ifferent types of trips. People walk, bike,and access nearby destinations along these same corridors,often Mulfimodal without dedicated space or separation from traffic. Improving safety and comfort recluries approaches that Adults with strollers off en reflect how these roads are actually used today. walKing for daily needs Safety - Risks Are rpp" -7 - . Preventable People in Orange County are already walking and biking for erran hoo, recreation,and health.These trips happen on both urban sidewalks and rural shoulders. Pla in ounty's jurisdiction has opportunity to better recognize how people move today and where sma a co make those trips safer. Between 2007 and 2022,41 people were killed and 61 severely injured while walking or biking in Orange County. This plan focuses on walking and biking within the roa net rk hile recognizing that off-road trails Nearly half of these crashes(48 out of 102)occurred in unincorporated areas.This plan focuses on identifying are also an important part of the broader sys an oun advancing a separate Trails Plan,which the most important locations for improvements—places where better infrastructure can prevent harm and complements this effort by expanding recr onal a ff- d connections across the County. support everyday travel. Page 44-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan Page 45 CHAPTER 40 ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Planning is not just about data. It's about people— This chapter captures what we heard, how they move, what they value, and what stands what it means,and how it guided the in their way. From rural roads to activity centers, direction of the plan. the voices of Orange County residents shaped This Chapter will cover: this plan at every step. Through surveys, maps, . Overview of Engagement pop-up events, workshops, and listening sessions, Process community members shared stories of daily • Engagement Activities commutes, missed connections, and the simple desire to feel safe walking or biking in the places Key Themes they call home. CH. / ♦ CH.4 / CH.5 / / / ��. - - - - - - - - _ _ �1\ ,,rlaw ,,� INS Page 46-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 47 80 OVERVIEW OF ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ENGAGEM TIVITIES The public engagement process was designed to be clear, inclusive, and flexible. Using a mix of online tools, in-person events, and targeted conversations this Project Website plan gathered input from community members, stakeholders, and system users across Orange County. The Orange County Bike Ped Plan a e alternative for those to the online survey and interactive website served as a central hub unab a to attend in-person meetings map. It also shared announcements for information,offering residents and helped extend outreach across about upcoming engagement events Across all engagement activities,the These interactions reflect a range County,input was gathered from an easy way to sta d and the County.The project website and included draft documents project received over 600 points of of perspectives and experiences, people who live,work,and travel participate in the ocess hosted background information on and project updates as the work participation,including responses though participants were not throughout the County.This broader from anywhere. It 'ded the plan and its goals,along with links progressed. to an online survey,contributions to tracked individually and may include perspective is important,as travel an interactive map,attendance at repeat participation across multiple patterns and safety conditions extend stakeholder listening sessions and activities.While this plan focuses on across jurisdictional boundaries, community events,and participation unincorporated areas of Orange particularly along key corridors. in two public workshops. CH.1 • • : • ■ ' ■ a • • ' • BICYCLE ONLINE SURVEY SESSION . . PEDESTRIAN PLAN OPENS Welcome!We're glad you're hLre! Project OveMew OPENSINTERACTIVE MAP LOS o - OMARCH 27-MARCH • O • • • • • • 'HOLDER TOOLS LAUNCH rEN, `7 CLOSE • O COMMUNITY -_ •• HILLSBOROUGH 13,2025 WORKSHOP AKEFORD LIBRARY COMPLEX ♦ ' C • ' • Figure 3-A:Engagement Process S Page 48-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,N81-Page 49 Figure 3-13:Online Survey Summary Infographic Online Survey What We Learned Why do you usually walk ow far do you usually travel on... > Trip Purpose: Most people walk biking,or using a wheelchair, or bike? i trip? a walking trip? An online survey was conducted or bike for exercise,leisure,or underscoring how real and between October 2024 to July 2025 to enjoy nature,with frequent personal safety concerns are in Tc #1 Exercise 33% 48% to better understand how people destinations including Brumley the County. 0 m es or more(>- 1 hour) 1-2 miles(-20-40 minutes) o experience walking and biking in Nature Preserve,Eno River State , I # Enjoy Nature/Weat Recreation/Traveling These responses reveal a clear story: 0 Orange County.The survey was Park,and nearby greenways. 27% 25% People in Orange County want to walk �i � #3 to/from Park g 2-5 miles (� 12-30 minutes) 1/2 -1 mile(�10-20 minutes) designed to be quick and accessible, > Distance Patterns:A third(31 of and bike more,and many already do, taking less than 10 minutes to 91)of bike trips reported were despite the barriers.They are looking complete,and was distributed over 10 miles,and nearly half(45 for safer,more comfortable places through the project website,County How sually get How would you describe your level of of 91)of walking trips were 1-2 to ride and walk,especially in rural communication channels,partner aroun a n day? bike comfort? miles,further supporting that areas where speed limits,shoulder organizations,and in-person recreation and longer leisure width,and road conditions make engagement events. 79% 1 6% 36% 30% 24% travel are the primary reasons active travel feel risky. behind most trips,rather than Perso I hi e Walk Highly Somewhat Interested but A total of 91 responses were received. Confident Confident Concerned While this represents a relatively small commuting. sample size and is not intended to Mode Share:While 79%of g be statistically representative of the - p� County's population,the responses respondents rely primarily on « ti �- .� 01k) fF5 someone who lives , -� CH.1 cars,l3/regularly bike,and 6/ ��.- �.. provide useful insight into common walk. Notably,1 in 5 reported rurally but warts to walK, experiences,concerns,and travel using active modes frequently there are very limited areas patterns among people who chose to despite limited infrastructure. where it Is both safe and participate. Respondents were not individual) tracked and participation pleasarri-to walK." y p p Crash Experience: in 4 people was open to anyone with a connection (26%)said they had been Have you ever been in a crash How safe do you feel What are the main reasons you - survey resp while walking, biking,or using traveling in Orange County choose NOT to walk or bike to Orange County. involved in a crash while walking, a wheelchair? (outside of towns/cities)? somewhere? 26% 42% #1 Concerned for safety Feel unsafe or very Missing or disconnected � unsafe walking #2 bike or pedestrian exercise Minnis Borland store corner Rd. D (:arolina Mill �' Greenway �j„ p e facilities SpeedwayRiverwalk � time. 60�NO . Feel unsafe or very nfa Farms Bike: Eno 74% unsafe biking jLM #3 Poor quality or West -town faster hazardous conditions Forest R1e• Mt, area. range fun. Hill. r�01 L� stW state Race mile Chape east Land • nature Where do you (or would you)"V� N e i h bo�'h OO d ride � °� run ' �N Duke y y What three things would make you want to Trail i I sd] I local prefer to ride a bike? walk and bike more around Orange County? i t ra !l S �, Off the street,on separated 1 e y close road � p � More Greenwa s or I 74 Street ° ° #1 bike paths or shared-use paths #1 Side Paths 11sbo h Waiir,carrboro !F-a ub f.oads Glen 7 More sidewalks/ Filling in Dr. a 1AJ01,k iJrOVe � #2 On greenways or local trails #2 gaps rm11I11111 the a s between sidewalks wn Pa-rk " Franklin �, arks County path Irr St. home find o o � #3 On the street,either in shared J101 #3 p Bolin scho ral grocery drive areas- walking lanes or bike lanes Intersection Improvements etc. CaCY1puS places. library Mary' reen Lake ry N ral errands Weaver Page 50-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,$N2-Page 51 Ll Interactive Online Map Figure 3-C:Online Interactive Map Summary THILLSBOROUGH 9 9?9 A\To gather location-specific input an individuals who live,work,or travel > Missing connections between — — � O �,-interactive map was made available throughout Orange County. neighborhoods,schools,and through the project website from shops were common.Several Online Interactive Map pC�p� Eno More than half of the points included Results ?��Pr stare Park October 2024 to July 2025.This tool people described how nearby L allowed people to drop pins and share writFen descriptions.While the data destinations are functionally Q Barrier is not intended to be statistically comments about places they walk or inaccessible. V` O Destination representative,it ofFers important Q I �p bike,barriers they experience,and it insight into recurring locations of Regional connectivity came up Safety safety concerns they encounter. Y 1 9 b 0 concern and commonly experienced often. Residents want safer ways J This map received a total of 418 point challenges. to travel between Hillsborough, Other `6 v, i Duke Forest contributions,including: Carrboro,and Chapel Hill,as well r- -' Study Area 1 '� What We Heard as improved access to parks and > 209 key destinations, natural areas such as Brumley Result Density Q Q7 ; > High-speed corridors such O > 98 safety concerns, as Route 54, NC 86,and Old Forest and Duke Forest Korstian Sp s 1] 1 •.' Division. 1 1 > 90 barriers,and se Fayetteville Road were flagged Q rp Q Q 1 repeatedly. People noted the lack Participants also shared specific uni lities notQ� 17 Q > 21 other comments. of sidewalks,shoulders,and safe infrastructure ideas—such 0 i luded in this MEBANE a �+ A Eno River 1 crossings. as roundabouts,separated nning effort IR- HILL5BOR0`G`�, StatePerkO 1 CH.I These contributions represented 1• � �: individual inputs rather than unique paths,and shoulder widening— P� q 70 v•• p q Narrow roads with rumble strips, I""'� Q' `� 1Q c�� 1 especially along Old 86, QrV �� 1 The tool was designed blind curves,or no shoulders were 1 participants. g Homestead Road,and Dai land O "1 C �� O��Q •••O / r to be open and anonymous,and frequently mentioned as unsafe Road. 1 Q Q Q 40t _0o4` O�4? oi\Je participants were not tracked for biking. I �0, V� �� 1 individually.As a result,contributions A L A M A N C E , may include perspectives from I Q Q 9 n O a1 $\ Q C 1 Q Q�� QG? Q�/ �, 1 1 Q Q A Q Q QQ 1 1 OQ n 1 "There's no way I'd biKe or ange M le and I Q 0 Q Duke F)est A2 waIK here I'd love to but its "No shoulder or biKe lane ♦+I o ' avegood 1 %� O �oZZ- very dangerous" connects residential area to way o to library" Q Q 00 yO�o� Churton Grove shops 1 iQj Q Q 1 ) 1 (0 0 O r�� 1 "WOUI d love to "All of[Route] 54 0 J " 1 s4 CARRBORO (CHAPEL HILL 1 visit more if acts as a wall to ion of NC 86 between ti 1 C►O CD' p 1 pion and Phelps is a very high �� 1 Q n OO 1 better biKirlg people on either si Ri��r 0 86, r�•'sa, o f " tr ffic corridor for cyclists 0 ,5 ,1 trails connecting on the northern routes in the 1 �V 1 to downtown" Q 0 COS county. O � Miles t � � _ _ _ 418 Total Responses Source:(Stantec Interactive Online Map,2025) CHATHAM Page 52-Orange County,INC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,8C-Page 53 Stakeholder Listening Sessions Community Pop-Up Event To supplement broad public input > Community-based organizations feels safe.Cyclists highlighted scenic To reach residents in person,the Particip s em d the need for There was strong support for with more focused discussion,the rural routes but noted dangerous project team hosted a pop-up event d 'on,speed reduction, greenways, but residents want project team conducted a series of > Bicycle clubs and experienced pinch points,while community groups on December 7,2024,at the Orange and se ati rom traffic, them to connect to schools,stores, virtual stakeholder focus groups local riders raised concerns about food access, County Library in Hillsborough. Held especiall n corridors such as 70A, and services, not just parks and between March 27 and April 4,2025. An additional session with NCDOT school access,and transit stops that early in the process,the event focused urto reet,and Lawrence Road. trails.The idea of Orange County Four sessions were held with 10 staff took place on May 16,2025,to are unreachable on foot. on identifying destinations, barriers, M id they avoid biking due to as a connected region came up participants, representing a mix of discuss coordination needs and design and ideas for making it safer to walk fear of speeding vehicles and a lack repeatedly,with people wanting to perspectives from: Stakeholders called for small, or bike. of shoulders. travel safely between Hillsborough, considerations on state roads. incremental improvements(lighting, Chapel Hill,and Durham. > Local government and agency Participants shared a clear message: crossings,shoulders),stronger staff walking,biking,and transit access are coordination with NCDOT,and L %to Parks and recreation not working well for many residents, more focus on daily needs,not just Key Takeawa departments especially along rural corridors and recreational travel. near schools. People walk and bike > Orange County Schools because they have to,not because it r avior Rural roads feel Greenways People want an ee re need to connect secure bike Keys ma o oncerns everydayunsafe for walking Takeaways to y j and biking parking and better destinations connections I CH.1 Project team interacting with pop-up event participants. H.3 Safety is a top concern,especially Connectivity gaps isolate Many areas still lack basiAllik'n — along rural roads and highways. communities and reduce mobility. and biking infrastructur �fTT I �Ell Ell Ell � m m Ell Ell ID ■ - 7 I r 11] m ` 1 Planning must center on daily needs, Transit stops are often not accessible Small improvements like crossings, food,school,work,and health care. by foot or bike. shoulders,or lighting can have big impacts. J. What We Heard z « " cy�ie qn "M wife has given we need to require u strips on 86give "Crossing the Eno w9ysre `�peae y "There's a sidewalK... sidewalKs, notjust only about eight g » �i�hits i �ire35 rigs up cycling due to the 9 River is a barrier. Sher oq�s ph traffio on 70A.i want and then itjust ends." recommend them." in es of fiat surface." fhe;n SPee�ys h9Ve to contribute to the ` � heeds o9s�`rU�Yhen public good and maKe SeP9r�e�ephys�9i/y ride and wal place,to t' -+ Nt— LF .� Page 54-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,N8C-Page 55 PW 1 - & P Public Worksh ops Key Takeaways Workshop #1 - Carrboro What We Hear-0 Open Hous.0k Participants emphasized that safety Speed and driver Person fet Se aration p p Y continue is linke road from vehicles is s�•� The first public workshop was held p y y behavior con is shaped not only b infrastructure essential to make p p to undermine design,v •lity, but also b drivers speed and people feel safe ;;== � _,-...d f on Thursday,March 13,2025,at Y p perceived safety and mainte p p the Drakeford Library Complex attentiveness. Many suggested speed walking or biking in Carrboro.Co-hosted with the cameras,education campaigns,and Regional Safety Action Plan,the enforcement as tools to shift driver event welcomed about 25 people for behavior. Roads like Dairyland, Jjl an interactive open house featuring Old 86,and Calvander Road were ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ �' �N`" multiple feedback stations. flagged for poor visibility,narrow Rural routes shoulders,and unsafe speeds. need inve Small, near- Communities want ,R At the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in shout term projects to see education, ' station,residents were invited to: Some noted that paved shoulders resur ing, are a priority for enforcement, and would benefit more confident riders, c residents engineering work ; -� Contribute to a graffiti wall with together ` ' 9 but wouldn't be enough to attract in tr ure g , prompts including,"What makes novice cyclists or families.There was m you feel unsafe while walking or strong interest in funding small,local t % "p• CH.1 biking?"and"I would feel safer if improvements such as crossings, ' I only..." •• lighting,roundabouts,and shoulder 11. widening. ;riy > Mark destinations and barriers on a large regional map > Share ideas about roadway �- 1 PLEDGE TO DO® - \� MY PART FOR � SAFER STREETS _ T - tj d d b Leh•cl « e spee s ov Roun c� o • ' - s. ` - --' 20 yh h er uts you/d - _ fe Help eair„trgffic." - separation• top r r _ it � -- -��:� i•-._ ��- l Y�� _ _ Page 56-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 57 85 Workshop #2 - What We Heard �/ , , "'" Key Takeaways Chapel Hill Open House % Participants expressed strong The second public workshop was held support for incorporating bicycle Most supported policies: b on Wednesday,September 24,2025, and pedestrian connections into new at Orange County Waste&Recycling development. Many emphasized ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ • • ■ Administrative Office in Chapel Hill. aligning development codes with Proactive community plans,using multimodal Require bicycle Align dev m Utilize multimodal multimodal Co-hosted with the Orange County y p g g cross-sections and pedestrian Trails Plan,the event welcomed cross-sections to guide infrastructure code with planning and about a dozen participants for an design,and applying consistent land Connections community define new development comy plans infrastructure consistent land use interactive open house featuring use updates to support a connected plan updates multiple feedback stations. network.Overall,participants conveyed that bike and pedestrian At the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan facilities should be a standard part of station,residents were invited to: growth,not added later. I Preferred fund' pp hes: > View and comment on regional On funding,participants favored t tee ■ ■ • • • • • • • • ■ ■ • • • • • • • • manommensm maps showcasing facility proactive approaches,and suggested Bond referendum Very little support recommendations for all projects creative options such as reallocating y Dedicate local acceptable if for"business as and the 10 projects advanced to toll road funds or exploring a local is revenue sources p g tied to specific usual"funding concept development penny tax,underscoring support for to bike/ped transportation through existing a well-funded network in Orange pport improvements needs budgets CH.I > Share ideas about policies and funding and mark on a sliding County. scale what their preferences were Second public workshop participants interacting with project boards illustrating plan recommendations and analysis. CH.3 a� NA u I - - ` II I 1: i A Page 58-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 59 86 Most residents who walk or bike K EY T H E M ES today do so for recreation or exercise. But many said they would use these rF • Throughout the planning process, residents across Orange County shared modes more often an thoughtful, place-based input on what makes it easier—or harder—to for errands,work,or school if it were safe • • walk, bike, and roll in their communities. While feedback came through and convenient to do so. for daily . _ y' many different formats, several themes emerged consistently. Connectivity to everyday destinations is key. Participant ed inted to lower-cost Speeding,aggressive driving,and fixes that I mented quickly— failure to yield were major concerns F Safety is 1 thing e be r li ing,curb ramps, across all engagement activities. ? ssi sign and repaved shoulders. People want to see education,policy . _ biggest Th ty f changes are highly visible and enforcement,and trafFic-calming barrier build munity trust in the process. strategies that make roads feel Driver more respectful for everyone. behavior CH.1 Residents described near-misses, and speed unsafe crossings,and roads wherSmall1 ` •re major they simply cannot safely wal r improvements ° ° • bike. Many said they want to _ ke a big more by foot or bike, but don' • protected,especially alo I pOct corridors with high spe a separation from tra , A \ Sidewalks end abruptly.Trails Residents described Orange County are isolated.Shoulders are as one connected place.They narrow or blocked. People want to be able to travel safely emphasized the need for a ? - between Mebane, Hillsborough, connected network of ? Carrboro,Chapel Hill,and beyond. sidewalks,greenways, � This requires coordinated and bike facilities that PrI frastructureinfrastructure and a FV link homes to schools, In J J �� broader vision of what Regional stores,and transit— is limited or a walkable,bikeable is not just parks. disconnected County looks like. M116 important Ads _ C � Page 60-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan CHAPTER :1 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... This chapter presents the recommended Facility types were evaluated using bicycle and pedestrian network framework for NCDOT and FHWA guidance, unincorporated Orange County. The framework including CTP-compatible categories, , Complete Streets methodology, builds on the Transportation Multimodal roadway conditions,and user Plan (TM N and refines that project universe comfort.The chapter then identifies y using roadway context, public input, safety priority projects,organizes them by implementation typology,and considerations, and coordination with related presents concept-level designs for planning efforts, including the Orange County selected corridors to support future Trails Plan. coordination,funding,and pro' development. This Chapter will cover: • Approach to Network • Development , Facility Desig, 'ui _ Re ,mmeno, 'Ne, -)rk Ft rework Projec, '-io�' zation � 6 Concept Designs I � r� Page 62-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 63 88 APPROACH TO NETWORK DEVELOPMENT Network Development Metho Orange County plays an important role in planning, coordination, and The bicycle and pedestrian network u clude conditions and anticipated user support for walking and biking improvements across unincorporated areas presented in this plan was developed comfort.Corridors with higher by building upon the project universe NC T p estrian and bicycle vehicle speeds or traffic volumes may of the County. Most public roads in these areas are maintained by NCDOT, identified in the Orange County activ estimates, require greater separation between making coordination with its policies, design guidance, and project delivery Transportation Multimodal Plan age annual daily traffic people and traffic,while lower-speed processes an important consideration throughout this plan. (TMP),and other related plans ADT)volumes, roadways may be more compatible discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.To Posted speed limits, with shoulder-based or shared > avoid duplication w' h e range roadway approaches. County Trails Pla r d off-road Crash patterns,and greenway and trail ido e � This plan fills in the key missing Recurring concerns identified details by specifying facility types for The recommended network conditions vary significantly across with NCDOT Comprehensive excluded from t ri ne ork through the engagement process. analysis pres e is pier each corridor and providing maps, . framework focuses on improving unincorporated Orange County, Transportation Plan(CTP)categories Steering Committee feedback also tables,and concept designs that safety,strengthening connectivity, recommendations were developed to support future coordination, Rather cre in n entirely new helped guide how facility types were reflect current design guidance,public and supporting more comfortable using a context-sensitive approach project development,and integration or a pla g team evaluated applied across different roadway input,and coordination with County walking and biking conditions where rather than applying the same into regional transportation planning an e TMP project list using environments. and NCDOT partners.The result is feasible and appropriate to the facility types uniformly across all efforts.The following section explains a comb Lion of roadway context, a focused and implementable set of surrounding roadway and land corridors. Recommendations were how the network was developed and afety siderations,transportation This process helped identify where bicycle and pedestrian improvements use context.Given that roadway also developed to remain compatible how facility types were evaluated. different facility types may be more CH.7 akeholder coordination,and across unincorporated Orange pu c input. appropriate based on roadway County. k. r « ��• • HILLSBOROUGH + Duk .; Fores, .• s ! F. fir• �1. /1 1 Data Inputs Refine Facility Types Final Bicycle and > Tranportation Multimodal > Remove Greenway and Pedestrian Network _ - Plan(2024)Project List Trail projectsAw- Facility types specified i > AADT volumes > Upgrade or downgrade per corridor > Seed limits facilities based on public , Informed by design _ P g 2 r > Land use and/or nearby and stakeholder input guidance and destinations stakeholder review Page 64-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 65 89 FACILITY DESIGN GUIDANCE Understanding Facility Types a Needs The bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations in this plan The following table(Table 4-A)summarize nin vel sions,scale and typical operating characteristics for were informed by guidance from the Federal Highway Administration the facility types included in this plan.T ear a create understanding about frequent characteristics,and are not intended to represent final en eying des requirements. Final project development will require engineering (FHWA), NCDOT, and related transportation planning frameworks used analysis,coordination with NCDOT or p e road ners,and consideration of site specific factors such as right-of-way, throughout North Carolina. drainage,utilities, maintenance,and road raints.Where possible,this plan applies the same terminology and facility classification logic used in the NCDOT's TP to support seamless integration. . . - . . '-.- - - 1101611 .. - These include guidance found in the NCDOT Roadway Design Manual,Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines, Facility escription Typical Typical Typical Application in and the agency's adopted Complete Streets Project Evaluation Methodology.Similarly, FHWA provides nationally Category Minimum Desirable Unincorporated Orange County recognized guidance on selecting and designing bikeways through its 2019 Bikeway Selection Guide(See Figure 4-B). Width Width Sidepath rated facility shared 8 feet 10-14 feet Often appropriate along higher- by ople walking and (constrained) speed corridors where additional Figure 4-B:Recommended Bikeway Types Based on Facility types,categories that define Traffic how bicycle and pedestrian facilities ng,typically located separation from traffic is needed. Volume.Source: FHWA,2019 adjacent to or independent are represented in regional and from a roadway. statewide transportation plans,were 10k selected based on their consistency 15Side A pedestrian facility 4 feet 5 feet or wider Often appropriate near schools, CH.1 with selected bass Comprehensive separated from vehicle (residential) (residential) parks,transit stops,community travel lanes(additional facilities,and areas with existing or 9k Transportation Plan(CTP) 5 feet 8-10 feet ■■■■■ width may s neededtrian activity is anticipated pedestrian activity. categories.These are essentialwhere pedesti f r (commercial/ (commercial/ Separated gk coordination with the Metrop higher). higher activity higher activity Sharedor Transportation Plan(MTP),t areas) areas) 7k MENEM State Transportation Improve Buffered A bicycle lane with 5 feet(bike 6 feet(bike May be appropriate where Program(STIP),and the is Bicycle Lane additional painted lane)+2 feet lane)+3-4 feet additional user comfort is desired 6k Prioritization Office of T ns ion separation from vehicle (buffer) (buffer) but full separation is not feasible. (SPOT)scoring pro traffic. 0900000 Bicycle Lane A designated on-road 5 feet 6-7 feet May be appropriate on lower- 5k Rather t in a same space for bicyclists. (excluding speed or moderate-volume (Buffer Pref.) RdMMMMMM facili pe acro IIc 'dors, gutter pan) corridors where roadway 4kthe re mendati s in this plan conditions support on-road bicycle ■■■■■■ reflect th ryin adway and land travel. 3k 10000use conditio nd throughout Paved A paved area adjacent 4 feet Wider on Commonly applicable in rural unincorporated Orange County. Shoulder to the travel lane that higher-speed contexts where separated facilities 2k Shared Lane Often,lower-density rural corridors can provide additional roads may not be feasible in the near or Bike may be more compatible with operating space for term. • , ■■1 k Boulevard oulder-based or shared roadway bicyclists. approaches,while corridors with Crossing Improvements such as Varies* Varies* Important near schools, parks, 0 higher activity levels may warrant Improvement marked crosswalks, transit stops,trail crossings,and 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 facilities that provide additional refuge islands,visibility other destinations where people separation between people and enhancements,or signal need to cross higher-speed roads. traffic. upgrades. *Dimensions depend on roadway geometry and traffic conditions(refer to NCDOT Std.848.06 for dimensions). Page 66-Orange County,INC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,INCC-Page 67 Selecting an appropriate bicycle or pedestrian facility involves more than matching roadway dimensions to design guidance.While factors such as traffic volume,speed,and surrounding land use help determine what may be feasible,they do not fully capture how comfortable a facility may feel to different users.As as result,many transportation agencies also consider the level of separation from traffic and the types of users a facility is intended to serve when evaluating facility options. � � • � Figure 4-C illustrates how the facility types included in this plan generally relate to user comfort,separation from vehicle traffic,and the range of users they are intended to 1 1 1 1 accommodate. 1 • tot t pm 1 I Associated Comfort Level:LTS 1 �► I Prefer facilities with a high degree of separation from traffic and may be uncomfortable riding or walking near moving vehicles. CH.1 1 1 — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Associated Comfort Level:LTS 2 • Comfortable using dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities but generally prefer some separation from traffic. ` 0 Associated Comfort Level:LTS 3 Frequently cycle for recreation or transportation and are typically comfortabl • riding in designated bicycle facilities adjacent to traffic. 1 — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - Associated Comfort Level:LTS 4 r-e Comfortable riding in a wider range of roadway environ s, i ding locations with limited separation from traffic. INMI `1 �, •a 0 NOTE: This graphic is intended as a planning-le uide, nsistent with FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide, NCDOT guidance, *Sidewalks primarily serve pedestrians and are shown here to illustrate pedestrian comfort and accessibility. Sidepaths and refinded based on exisiting conditions analyse In in Chapter 2. accommodate both people walking and cycling. Page 68-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,Ng 1-Page 69 Applying NCDOT Complete Streets Guidance in Orange County The Complete Streets Activity Estimation is one input with' &1op valuation process that also considers factors such as safety concerns,network connectivity,access to desti tid plans,public input,and local priorities.This distinction is particularly important in rural communi The previous section introduced user This is particularly relevant in conditions,and an activity estimation comfort and separation from traffic unincorporated Orange County, score)to help guide what types of as important considerations when where NCDOT owns and maintains facilities may be appropriate in selecting bicycle and pedestrian (as seen in Chapter 2).As a result, different settings. NCDOT publishes facilities. However,user comfort is NCDOT policies,design guidance, this activity estimation as a statewide Municipal Boundaries only one lens through which facility and project evaluation methodologies map that classifies areas as High, e + fr Find address or place needs are evaluated. are important considerations when Medium, Low,or Intermittent/None Hl-- t identifying bicycle and pedestrian based on underlying density and — — — — As part of its Complete Streets policy, improvements and advancing connectivity variables.This map can -y —s------------ ------i__—_---_---_—_----_---------_-- hr herlake _ — NCDOT uses a formal evaluation Count Bound 'r projects toward implementation. be viewed here: NCDOT Complete .. Y an I t methodology to help determine Streets Activity Estimation Map. ( Rougemon[ when pedestrian and bicycle facilities In simple terms,this methodology COW't-r' b°c ! r ? should be considered as part of is a screening tool,not a"yes/no" Importantly, NCDOT's methodology is transportation projects as shown in rulebook.It combines multiple inputs intended to inform decision-making, the diagram on Figure 4-D below. (including land use context,roadway not replace it. � NC Ca plete Streets Activi Estimation 2026 j + GI"I. Figure 4-113:Complete -- Project Process. • - NCDOT, • High Medium �'�. Gordan Oak Low EP land ,— fL,,_nwaod 1.Initial Screening and Data Input 2.Transportation Need Determination 3.Facility Type Selection Intermittent/None r ',.•• I.n • Review for inclusion in qualifying plan • Estimate Bicyclist/Pedestrian/Transit • Refine demand estimation �� . • ^; .,t� —- ? " i 7 •Complete multimodal network connectivity review Demand: •Refine facility based on de •Assess for alternative review process • Demand methodology, •Review other design a •Observed demand,or Lower-densityI ,y- • Future land use areas may generate fewer i trips overall,but they often contain critical -Sugar Rldge + destinations such ? as schools, arks, 'y p Orange R_ ' community centers, 5 transit stops,and 0 connections between municipalities. Elf, f i O In these settings, j as 1 I •err; the absence of ? , infrastructure may 1} Lakewdods`. �• - suppress walking and 1 '. �- �, n'�7 ;1 4.Impact Assessment 5.Final Analysis biking activity rather •Comprehensive cost ana •Evaluate cost and schedule impacts than indicate a lack of •Environmental risk an e u ac •Potential alternative facility selection •Cost proxies when se cost no wn •Documentation of recommendation need. -------- ------ 0---1 I .,frA I.NakeCounty,Esri,TomTom,Garmin,SafeGraph,METIMASA,USGS,EPA, NPS,USDA, USFWS NCDOTGII`Unit ITI Page 70-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,9N2-Page 71 Asa result,facilities identified through adopted plans(like this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan)and supported by local NCDOT's guidance also connects roadway conditions and nd Is to facility selection(See Table 4-C).The table data and community input may remain strong candidates for implementation even when activity estimation scores are should be viewed as a planning guide rather than a pre s pti da d. It illustrates the types of facilities that may relatively low.This plan uses NCDOT's screening framework as a starting point,and then applies local needs(safety be appropriate under different roadway and activit n it' s, final recommendations should also consider user history, key destinations, missing connections,and public input)to identify where targeted improvements are appropriate comfort,safety needs, network connectivit sti n ac ublic input,and local planning priorities. even in lower-density contexts. Most recommendations in this plan fa hin the o dium demand contexts shown below. However,several In Orange County, most unincorporated areas fall within NCDOT's low-or medium-demand contexts(See Table corridors were recommended for enh d faciliti ecause they address documented safety concerns,close important 4-13).These classifications should not be interpreted as meaning that rural areas do not warrant pedestrian or bicycle network gaps,improve access to key des t ions respond to recurring community-identified needs. improvements. Instead,they help inform which types of facilities may be most appropriate based on context type. ill �• �- • • - • • • • - •- • i � •• •• - • • - • • r••• • • • • Context General Characteristics Population Employment Zero-Vehicle Demand Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT)*&Roadway Type Type Density Density Households(per Level (per square mile) (per square mile) square mile) Va (2-3 lanes) >_6,000 AADT(2-3 lanes) 4-Lane Divided or>4 Lanes High(Urban) Higher-density areas with concentrated 751+ 501+ 427+ Highalks(both sides); Wide sidewalks(both sides); Sidepaths or separated bicycle activity,destinations,employment,andDemaicycle lanes or separated or buffered bicycle lanes with wide sidewalks(both pedestrian demand. lanes sides) Medium Areas with moderate activity levels, 251-750 101-500 215-426 Sidewalks(1-2 sides); buffered Sidewalks(1-2 sides);buffered or Buffered bicycle lanes and (Suburban) suburban development patterns,schools, bicycle lanes or shared roadway standard bicycle lanes sidewalks(1-2 sides) Dem parks,or growing corridors. approach CH.I Low(Rural Lower-density rural areas with dispersed 101-250 11-100 10-214 emand Sidewalk on one side; paved Sidewalk on one side; paved shoulder Town) destinations and lower overall activity shoulder or shared roadway levels. Intermittent Intermittent Areas with very limited surrounding activity <_100 <_10 <10 ItNone Shared roadway or no facility /None or development. Source:Adapted from the NCDOT Complete Streets Project Evaluation Methodology, Table 3-Facility Selection Matrix / *AADT is a standard measure used to estimate the typical number of vehicles that travel on a road segment Source:NCDOT Complete Streets Project Evaluation Methodology, Table 1-Demand Estimation Variables Matrix day over the course of a year. While much of unincorporated Orange County falls within NCDOT's Low or Medium demand contexts,t e cla fic ons Many corridors identified in this plan serve important community functions despite their rural context.Schools,parks, should be interpreted carefully.The activity estimation methodology is calculated at a broad g hi lean flects community facilities,transit connections,and municipal boundaries often generate localized walking and biking activity v r II velopment patterns rather th nth n iti n f in ivi I r m nt that may not be fully reflected in countywide density measures. For this rea§Qn the planning t erg estimation alongside corridor-specific factors such as safety history, netwtir , e ' d? public input. !c� qW In many rural communities,residents often walk along roadsides without safe or accessible pedestrian infrastructure. Many rural roads in Orange County currently lack dedicated bicycle facilities,requiring cyclists to share travel lanes with motor vehicles. w f I Page 72-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NNC-Page 73 PERSON NETWORK FRAMEWORK The recommended bicycle and pedestrian network builds upon I •. .g■ the multimodal project universe previously identified through the Proposed Bicycle and ; ■`♦ :♦ ; :- '• 'a ' Pedestrian Projects 9 ■ ♦♦ Transportation Multimodal Plan (TMP). This plan focused on refining the Sidepatn I ,=■ '♦ �`.� .� �`.'♦ 1 existing TMP network by evaluating what types of bicycle and pedestrian ; ♦: �• i ,57 67 ♦♦'.• �j • • I facilities may be most appropriate under different roadway conditions Sidewalk I ■ ; �'� . ♦ . . ■ ♦ ■ •1 Bike Lanes :♦ .� i \• •• " �i• ■ ���i�♦•♦ •♦ ■ 1 across unincorporated Orange County. 1 `•' �♦ ♦ . Paved Sho erIL •r :r ■ r r1 �► ■�86 • ♦ .' :♦♦ +Im•••♦♦ ♦. no Bicycle- 1♦ '1♦ ♦ • ♦ 4 • • As part of this effort,proposed corridors by recommended facility project development,coordination O Pedestri dge • ♦�: ■■ ,♦♦ �♦ ♦ ♦�' . ♦,Q♦ 1 greenway and trail corridors were type,such as sidepaths,sidewalks, with NCDOT,and implementation r ♦ ♦♦ ♦ �♦ i �•♦ ♦ i ♦ ♦• 1 removed from the primary network bicycle lanes,paved shoulders, planning by identifying facility types &nd j I :�;.: : : ♦, :: . ♦■•■' ♦♦ ; 1 analysis because those facilities and other multimodal treatments that may be appropriate for each of I^� ♦ ♦ ♦ •■♦ .• ••; : .♦ �♦ : 1 are being addressed separately (See Table 4-D). In most cases,the corridor based on current conditions in this ■mom '•effort ,"■■•■• ♦♦ ♦ • . •� ♦ • 1 through the Orange County Trails underlying corridor recommendations and available information. I MEBANE "■' '♦♦ .• ♦ ■ ! Plan.The remaining roadway were carried forward from the TMP, I ♦ ♦� ■ • Eno River ■ ■ 1 1 Figure 4-E illustrates the overall ♦ •. �• State Park 1 CH.7 corridors were then reviewed using while the recommended facility types I 70 ■ ♦ •• .-•,.� •♦ • • the methodologies described earlier were further evaluated and refined recommended network framework I�_- �'_' „♦ HILL�SBOROUGH in this chapter,including roadway through this planning process. by facility type. Because the network I : :� % ■:i4�♦• . ••` •ft �■ - includes a large number of potential I ., ■ 1 ♦ • ♦ ■�1 context,traffic conditions,safety �' � . , � ♦ �ii� ♦ The purpose of this network projects,a separate prioritiz I • • ♦ ■_ ♦ — ♦�;�♦ ...� considerations,NCDOT guidance, ♦,♦ • •♦�' A• ■♦ •♦% 70 ♦ 1 framework is to provide a planning- process was undertaken to h I ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ *♦ public input,and anticipated use A LA M A N C E �♦ ♦ ♦♦ ■ 6 ♦ ■ ♦ � 1 level inventory of potential bicycle identify corridors that may w I .! ■ • ■� s ♦,�`��w' comfort. ♦ ♦ ■ . . and pedestrian improvements across additional study,funding t,o I i ♦ • • • •♦!� ■�• � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � • �.i ■ 1 w � 751 This process resulted in a refined unincorporated Orange County. implementation consid do e :' ♦ice♦ ■ ♦♦ ■ Was �♦ ■' � network framework that classifies It is intended to support future near term. I ♦ ♦• • ♦� �'• j ♦♦■ 1 ♦ '■♦•♦����■ ■ � � • ■• Duke ♦` 1 ♦•v #'• ♦ • ■ ♦ Forest 1 Facility Type Role in the Network Pr is Total Mileage ■ 00 �;r 4.'• :•,• ��� �: n •• ' ' ': Sidepaths Provide greater separation from traffic along higher-speed 22 Pro 63.2 miles I • ■ ♦ ' s6 '' ♦ •, corridors and strengthen regional connectivity. I ! ■ ■ 1 Sidewalks Improve short-distance walking access near schools,parks, 28 Projects 23.2 miles ' ♦ • ♦r . transit stops,and community destinations. , • ♦ ■ ` 1 _ ♦ 75 1 Bicycle Lanes Improve on-road bicycle connectivity along or th 22 Projects 50.7 miles ; ' `:'' • r�:: �.� CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M appropriate roadway conditions. 6 [54 1 Paved Shoulders Provide additional operating space for alo ural 61 Projects 215.9 miles ♦ _ 1 roadways and support recreational an a vel. 1 •.• . •• `��♦ ` 1 . . .•. • . . .�. . . .• ♦♦ CARRBORO 1 • - numbers Bicycle-Pedestrian Remove barriers and improve saf ossin ss major 1 Project <1 mile , : • 1shown on this map Bridge corridors and obstacles. ♦♦Ocorrespond _� Miles — — +_ � � ♦ Full project tab/es organized by facility type provide pp ndixA. 2 — — — — ® • • - list in 1 Appendix A. N/ CHATHAM Page 74-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 75 94 u 57 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION ' • -• = - • '-•- • ' • - INS r - - - - - - - - - = — While the Network Framework identifies a broad range of potential 70 I� bicycle and pedestrian improvements, not all projects are likely to Prioritized Bicycle and ` Pedestrian Projects I Duk' HILLSBOROUGH advance at the same pace. To help inform future implementation I Fores.t Sidepath efforts, a prioritization process was used to identify projects that may I �� offer particularly strong opportunities to improve safety, connectivity, IN IN Sidewalk i � � Vf 'a 0 access, and overall community benefit. Bike Lanes ;. 1 61 IN 0 Paved Sho&er17n Study AreaThe prioritization framework builds adjusting the weighting of the connectivity,access to destinations,upon the methodology originally scoring criteria to place greater feasibility,and community benefit. Munic' it established through the TMP,which emphasis on recreational value and Rather than establishing a strict 0 inc d i is evaluated projects based on factors regional connectivity.Although these implementation sequence,the ping or I 1 such as safety,connectivity,demand, adjustments influenced how some resulting Prioritized Projects are cost,and overall benefit.As part of projects performed,the overall group intended to represent corridors that I 1 MEBANE ��� Eno River.` 1 this plan,a dedicated Prioritization of higher-scoring projects remained may warrant additional consideration I ��� - 1 Work Group(PWG)reconvened generally consistent with the original for funding,project development, State Park CH.7 9 Y9•P j P I � '••�� I •• 1 to review the TMP framework and TMP findings. partnership opportunities,or future I •f.:1 70 y 1 evaluate whether refinements were implementation efForts. P' —i • V�� 1 appropriate for this effort. Using this refined scoring framework, I Q HILLSBOROUGH � projects from the broader Network Figure 4-F illustrates the geo 1 1 ��"` �• 1 The PWG met twice during the Framework were evaluated to identify distribution of these Prioritiz I ��;�'y'•sw• ii 1 I m�� summer of 2025 and ultimately a focused group of corridors that Projects across unincorporate A LA M A N C E I � � • ; 70 recommended retaining the overall demonstrated strong potential across Orange County. as TMP methodology while slightly multiple categories,including safety, :... ci �� Gem 1 Duke I J� Forest 1 I Bs 1 I I 1 sa CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 DURHAM 1 - � 1 O1111[::= Miles .� INN,r NNIN 0 1 2 NNN -- next table • projects L a • zoomed in maps CHATHAM Poplar Ridge Page 76-Orange County,NC I Bicycle d.Pedestrian Plan Ix • .- fl all, Occoneechee US Occoneechee Mountain Table 4-E summarizes the Prioritized Projects identified through this process. Projects are organized by recommendedrea ' lf Club facility type to illustrate the range of improvements represented within the prioritized group. Projects that were further 0, advanced into concept-level design development are identified with an asterisk(�). ` .._ Piney • - r '00900 • • Project ID Route From To Length Sidepath Projects BP-423 Holman Dr/School Rd NC 86 School Business Garage 0.54 mi Seven ' rn Hills Rd Farms BP-424 Trail connection Walgreens Orange Middle School 0.33 mi ..r BP-417 Trail connection Patriots Pointe Timbers Drive 0.17 mi Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Sidewalk Projects Sidepath BP-406* Oakdale Dr Morgan Rd to Old NC 86 Orange Grove Rd to 0.98 mi •■■ Sidewalk ro,, Turner End Dr Bike L Pave ulders BP-429* Orange Middle School Orange Middle School Orange High School Rd 0.15 mi entrance 1'�Iip not inc in BP-439 Timber St Orange Grove Rd Termini 0.38 mi plan ettor BP-408 Rencher St West of NC 57 Eastern street terminus 0.47 mi ..rr CH.1 BP-438* New Grady Brown School Dimmocks Mill Rd Grady Brown School 0.54 mi Rd Entrance BP-437* US 70 Redman Xing Ashwick Dr 0.95ills BP-428 Gwen Rd Orange High School Rd US 70 0.74 BP-419 Benton Dr NC 86 AL Stanback Middle 0.11 MLss BP-422 Strouds Creek Rd Tumbling Brook Ln Pathways Elementary entrance •. •,BP-433 Fuller Rd US 70 Tinnin Rd 0.31 Ri BP-435 Tinnin Rd US 70 Termini 6 mi Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalk Projects Gregg St Efland • illpond BP-345* US 70 Alt S Churton St Morelanda DrN OF 0.68 mi 57 Global "A Bu BP-432 Arbor Ln New Grady Brown School Termini 0.33 mi - - ' ry Rd ■■�■■■■ •�l�. Paved Shoulder and Sidewalk Projects IL Wilkerson 437 Forres BP-410* Orange High School Rd Harold Latta Dr 70 0.71 mi 433 - i St BP-322* INCA, Acres 86 Hillsborough north Sou of New Hope 3.42 mi ill town limit urch Rd IIIIL`Projects advanced into concept-level design developmentolrifd l in this chapter. 74 0 28Mebane O Hillsborough Mile �� O Mile 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.25 0.5 Page 78-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NNCC-Page 79 Priority Projects Typologies Table 4-F: Project Ty•• •• - Matrix Moonshots : - While the Prioritized Projects — identified in the previous section Projects with high potential iM_ I m b)stg Some priority projects may be achievable through smaller-scale improvements or Projects that demonstrate both strong community incremental corridor upgrades that build upon existing roadway conditions. represent corridors with strong implementation challenges. se oire benefits and favorable implementation conditions. DesignSource:Rural potential to improve safety, substantial funding,interagenc r , right- These are often strong candidates for near-term connectivity,and access,not all of-way acquisition,or phased deli ies. advancement due to their ability to deliver meaningful projects are equally positioned for improvements with relatively low barriers. implementation.Some projects may be relative) straightforward to BP-40 BP-428: BP-433: y g Oakd Gwen Rd Fuller Rd BP-423: BP-438: BP-437: advance,while others may require (Sid (Sidewalk) (Sidewalk) Holman Dr New Grady US 70 /School Rd Brown (Sidewalk) � substantial funding,coordination, School Rd right-of-way acquisition, (Sidepath) (Sidewalk) environmental review,or phased delivery strategies. -4 BP-345: To better understand these T ' d US 70 Alt BP-419: BP-422: Bike Lanes (Bike Lanes S Benton Dr Strouds �r differences,the Prioritized Projects Sidewalk) Sidewalk) (Sidewalk) Creek Rd were evaluated through an additional (Sidewalk) implementation lens that considered CH.I both potential community impact and overall feasibility(Table 4-17).This ? I&,= assessment helps distinguish between projects that may be achievabLow-Hanging in the near term and projects at Projects that currently face a combination of Projects that may be easier to implement due to could require longer-term pla implementation challenges and more limited lower complexity,smaller scale,or favorable existing partnership building,or mo o systemwide benefits.These may still be beneficial conditions.These projects can help build momentum implementation efforts. but are less competitive and should be revisited if and address localized needs. Projects were grou into ur circumstances change. general ty es. BP-429: BP-410: BP-424: BP-417: BP-439: Orange Orange High > Bets, Middle School School Rd Trail Trail Timber St Paved Shoulder (Sidewalk) ( Low- gin uit, Connection Connection (Sidewalk) &Sidewalk) t (Sidepath) (Sidepath) L Moonsho ,and 2 0 > Low Priority. 3 0 BP-408: BP-432: , + Rencher St Arbor Ln Ili These typologies are intended to a (Sidewalk) (Bike Lanes S pport implementation planning by 0. Sidewalk) - helping Orange County understand — H. the relative opportunities and 4- challenges associated with different projects. a Potential Feasibility(Low to High) ,tag - it Page 80-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,9NC-Page 81 s� CONCEPT DESIGNS ' ' ' To support future implementation of the recommended bicycle and I Duke HILLSBOROUGH o pedestrian network, this plan includes concept-level designs for selected Concept Design I Forest Locations corridors across unincorporated Orange County. i •.`■` Sidepath Sidewalk 1 •p i• Bike Lanes ■.... •■,�� •��� The concept design projects were These concepts serve as feasibility- review,right-of-way constraints, 86 ' Paved Sho er •o selected to represent a variety of level examples that demonstrate utility coordination,environmental ■•/� roadway contexts,facility types, how planning recommendations review,funding availability,and r n Study Area 1 and implementation considerations may advance into future project coordination with NCDOT and other found throughout unincorporated development.They illustrate a project partners. Munic' liti tMr in i is 1 Orange County. Most were drawn range of potential approaches for ning for I 1 from the Prioritized Projects identified improving safety,comfort,and Table 4-G summarizes the concept 1411 •. locations included in this through the evaluation process,while connectivity across rural,suburban, designI f additional locations were selected and community-oriented corridors. plan. Detailed concept sheets are I MEBANE 1 provided in the pages that follow,with b '0 • Eno River• based on recurring public feedback I �� State Park 1 CH.I Recommendations shown in these additional concept materials included l► • and their ability to illustrate common I .�a■a 70 .■� f design challenges and opportunities. concepts remain subject to future in Appendix C. I 1 engineering analysis,drainage 1 �7 gOROUGI'I �� 1 1 1 0� 1 ALAMANCE See Figure# Project ID Route From To th 1 �� �■� — psi ■ c Figure 4-H BP-406 Oakdale Dr Morgan Rd to Old NC 86 Orange Grove Rd t 8 �++ ♦ �!�� �je 1 Turner End Dr • m• 0 1 Figure 4-1 BP-345 US 70 Alt S Churton St Morel 0.68 mi : ����G Duke 1 ■ J� Forest 1 Appendix C BP-429 Orange Middle Orange Middle School Or High Sch I Rd 0.15 mi I • School entrance 1 • 86 1 ■ 1 Figure 4-J BP-410 Orange High Harold Latta Dr US 70 0.70 mi School Rd • I � 1 Appendix C BP-438 New Grady Brown Dimmocks Mill Rd Grady Brown School 0.54 mi 1 1 School Entrance 1 1 Appendix C BP-437 US 70 Redman Xing Ashwick Dr 0.95 mi 1 sa CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M Appendix C BP-322 NC 86 Hillsborough th own South of New Hope 3.42 mi i is f limit Church Rd sa 1 Figure 4-K BP-340 S. Old NC 86 1-40 10North of Oak Ridge Rd 0.82 mi 1 BP-341 f Concept design projects were selected to repr a t taci/ity types,roadway contexts,and imp/ementation 0001= Miles 1� 1 considerations.Inclusion in this section shou4ffot be inte as a separate prioritization ranking. O 0 1 2 ` N/ CHATHAM Project ID: BP-406 Location: Oakdale Dr, from Morgan Rd to Old NC 86, and from Turner End Dr to Orange Grove Rd Project Description: Existing two-lane roadway through a residential area. Project will provide a new sidewalk to connect to an existing section near Old NC 86 that currently terminates abruptly. Recommended Facility Type: Sidewalks (5 feet concrete) Figure 4-H: Proposed Cross-Section for Oakdale Drive Oakdale Drive Feasibility Considerations: Posted Speed: 35 mph NCDOT Complete Streets Activity Estimation: Medium Vehicles Per Day: 4,700 Right-of-Way: Varies 60 feet - 70 feet Functional Classification: Minor Collector Existing Pavement Width: 22 feet Crash History: N/A Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $2,200,000* *Cost estimates were developed using internal estimating tools in 2025 dollars and do not include utility relocations or right-of-way acquisitions. $Orange Grove RdOrange Grove RdOakdale DrOakdale Dr Oakdale D r Oakdale D r Morgan RdMorgan RdOld NC 86Old NC 86Turner End DrTurner End DrI- 4 0 I- 4 0 Hillsborough Coordination Opportunity This corridor may benefit from coordinated project scoping and implementation between Orange County, the Town of Hillsborough, NCDOT, and regional partners due to shared jurisdictional interests and network connectivity goals. Potential coordination strategies include joint consultant procurement, partnered grant applications, phased implementation agreements, and bundling improvements with roadway or utility projects to improve delivery efficiency and network continuity. Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 83Page 82 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft98 Project ID: BP-345 Location: US 70 Alt, from S Churton St to Morelanda Dr Project Description: Existing two-lane roadway with new development occurring nearby. In need of multimodal improvements to support safe walking and biking into the Town of Hillsborough. Recommended Facility Type: Bike Lanes (5 feet) and Sidewalks (5 feet concrete) 5’ Bike Lane5’ Bike Lane 5’ Concrete Sidewalk 4’ Typical Verge 4’ Typical Verge 5’ Concrete Sidewalk Figure 4-I: Proposed Rendering for US 70 Alt US 70 Alternate Feasibility Considerations: Posted Speed: 40 mph NCDOT Complete Streets Activity Estimation: Medium Vehicles Per Day: 8,400 Right-of-Way: 60 feet Functional Classification: Other Principal Arterial Existing Pavement Width: 22 feet Crash History: 2016 (severe) and 2022 (fatal) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $2,310,000* *Cost estimates were developed using internal estimating tools in 2025 dollars and do not include utility relocations or right-of-way acquisitions. $S Churton StS Churton StMorelanda DrMorelanda DrU S 7 0 U S 7 0 Hillsborough Hillsborough 4' Verge 4' Verge Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 85Page 84 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft99 Project ID: BP-410 Location: Orange High School Rd, from Harold Latta Dr to US 70 Project Description: Existing two-lane rural roadway providing access to Orange Middle School and Orange High School. In need of multimodal improvements to support safe walking and biking to school. Recommended Facility Type: Paved Shoulders (4 feet) and Sidewalks (5 feet concrete) Orange High School Road Figure 4-J: Proposed Cross-Section for Orange High School Rd Feasibility Considerations: Posted Speed: 40 mph NCDOT Complete Streets Activity Estimation: Medium Vehicles Per Day: 1,600 Right-of-Way: 100’ Functional Classification: Local Existing Pavement Width: 22 feet Crash History: N/A Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $1,200,000* *Cost estimates were developed using internal estimating tools in 2025 dollars and do not include utility relocations or right-of-way acquisitions. $ Orange High School RdOrange High School Rd Orange High School RdOrange High School RdUS 70US 70 Orange High School Hillsborough Christian Academy Orange Middle School Hillsborough Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 87Page 86 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft100 Old NC 86 Figure 4-K: Proposed Plan View for Old NC 86 Feasibility Considerations: Posted Speed: 45 mph NCDOT Complete Streets Activity Estimation: Low and Medium Vehicles Per Day: Varies 4,600 to 6,000 Right-of-Way: Varies 60 feet-100 feet Functional Classification: Major Collector Existing Pavement Width: 22 feet Crash History: 2023 (Severe), 2019 (Severe), 2018 (Severe), 2016 (Severe) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $5,390,000* *Cost estimates were developed using internal estimating tools in 2025 dollars and do not include utility relocations or right-of-way acquisitions. Sidepath $ Project ID: BP-340 & BP-341 Location: Old NC 86, from Eubanks Rd to I-40 Project Description: Existing two-lane roadway serving as a key connection between Carrboro/Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. In need of a separated facility to provide safe walking and biking accommodations. The project received strong public support and was one of the most frequently identified needs. Recommended Facility Type: Sidepath (10 feet wide on the east side of Old NC 86) Eubank RdEubank Rd I-40I-40 UNC Hospitals Hillsborough Campus Twin Creeks ParkOld NC 86Old NC 86Old NC 86Old NC 86Verge Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 89Page 88 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft101 CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION Turning the Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan into action will require supportive policies, clear programming, and coordinated next steps. This chapter focuses on the tools Orange County can use to move from recommendations to implementation, including updates to development review, GIS tracking, land use coordination, and project delivery processes. Because many recommendations will require coordination with NCDOT, MPOs, municipalities, developers, and regional partners, implementation will depend on more than project lists alone. CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTATION The strategies in this chapter are intended to help the County align adopted plans, strengthen internal review processes, and position priority projects for future funding and design advancement. This Chapter will cover: • Policy and Programming • Next Steps and Implementation Actions Page 90 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft102 Example of pedestrian improvements with a sidewalk on the left and a shared-use path on the right. Source: Fairfax County, VA (2020) Example from Fairfax County of sidewalk project in front of new developments. Source: Strong Towns (2021) Align the UDO with Current and Future Planning Efforts Updating the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regularly to reflect adopted plans, including the forthcoming Orange County Trails Plan, Complete Streets and Vision Zero policies and corridors studies can help ensure consistency and eliminate gaps within the bicycle, trail, and pedestrian networks. Developers should be required to provide on-site bicycle, pedestrian, and trail facilities that will continue to build out the network. Reference Example Fairfax County, VA requires sidewalks and trails consistent with its Countywide Trails Plan. When construction is not feasible, developers may provide proportionate fee-in-lieu contributions to fund nearby segments. By comparison, Orange County, NC does not currently have a formal fee-in-lieu mechanism specifically for bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure. Implementation Notes ›Add a crosswalk linking adopted plans to specific UDO sections ›Establish a formal fee-in- lieu mechanism and project list to close gaps ›Conduct an annual UDO consistency check against newly adopted plans POLICY AND PROGRAMMING Advancing the projects in this Plan requires more than construction funding, these projects also depend on supportive policies and programs that make walking and biking part of everyday planning and development decisions. These recommendations build on a review of Orange County’s development codes and land use policies, as well as feedback from the Steering Committee, stakeholders, and staff. Together, these strategies help translate the Plan’s three goals into action: 1. Make walking and biking safer 2. Build a more connected network 3. Improve access for everyone Physical improvements are only one piece of the puzzle. These targeted policies and programming actions can accelerate delivery, maintain consistency, and amplify the long- term benefits of capital investments. Separated facilities provide additional comfort and safety along higher-speed rural corridors where many users may not feel comfortable biking near traffic. Page 92 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 93 Draft Draft Draft Draft103 Update the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as the Network Evolves As new bicycle and pedestrian facilities are built or permitted, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) should be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes. Because implementation will occur across multiple jurisdictions, roadway authorities, and development processes, maintaining a connected and consistent multimodal network will require ongoing coordination among Orange County, municipalities, NCDOT, and regional partners through regular project review, policy alignment, and coordination of planned infrastructure investments. Aligning the CLUP, UDO, and transportation policies with the County’s adopted multimodal goals will support more coordinated decision-making over time. Key Questions 1. Do the CLUP, UDO, subdivision regulations, and transportation policies collectively support the County’s long-term multimodal goals? 2. Where do jurisdictional boundaries, roadway ownership, development patterns, or differing design standards create gaps or inconsistencies in the bicycle and pedestrian network? 3. Where would greater consistency in multimodal design standards or development requirements improve long-term regional network continuity? 4. What project types or development activities should automatically trigger inter- jurisdictional coordination related to bicycle and pedestrian connectivity? 5. How can Orange County, municipalities, NCDOT, and regional partners better coordinate project timing, funding, and design expectations to support a more seamless regional multimodal network over time? New developments can offer an opportunity to align land use and transportation goals. This example illustrates how sidewalks can be integrated into site design when guided by updated land use plans and policies. It reflects the type of coordination that future CLUP updates can support. Require Post-Approval GIS/CAD Submittals for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Upon site plan approval, developers should be required to submit Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or Computer- Aided Drafting (CAD) files showing the final alignments, widths, and materials for all bicycle and pedestrian features. This will help ensure design standards are met and maintain an accurate, up-to-date inventory of permitted and planned facilities across the County. CAD-based cross sections like these help document final alignments and dimensions required for bike/ped infrastructure. Source: Walk/Bike Nashville Maintaining an accurate GIS inventory helps identify gaps and track development-related infrastructure delivery. Source: NCDOT ›Maintain a live Countywide “planned and permitted” GIS layer incorporating approved plans and as-built infrastructure to support development review, infrastructure coordination, gap analysis, and future public investment planning. ›Explore integration of GIS, permitting, and capital project tracking systems to support automated notifications or workflow triggers when development activity or roadway projects may affect planned bicycle and pedestrian network connections. Implementation Notes ›Establish requirements within the UDO, subdivision ordinance, or technical manual for developers to submit digital GIS/CAD files and as-built drawings for bicycle, pedestrian, and related transportation infrastructure improvements. ›Define required file formats, metadata standards, coordinate systems, and submission timing to support consistency and long-term data management. (continued on following page) Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 95Page 94 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft104 As Orange County grows, targeted growth areas may transition from rural to more urban or suburban development patterns, particularly near municipal boundaries, future annexation areas, activity centers, and major corridors. In these locations, multimodal street design elements should be anticipated early in the development process to support long-term connectivity, safety, and network continuity. Coordination between the County, municipalities, and NCDOT will be important to ensure that future infrastructure investments align across jurisdictions and support a more connected regional multimodal network. Source: Valley Transportation Authority Implementation Notes ›Conduct a biennial audit of the CLUP, UDO, network maps, and related municipal plans to evaluate multimodal policy alignment. ›Maintain a live GIS database of permitted, funded, and constructed bicycle and pedestrian facilities to monitor network buildout and identify gaps. ›Use rezoning, subdivision review, roadway projects, utility work, annexation planning, and capital improvement planning as coordination triggers for multimodal connectivity review. ›Coordinate regularly with municipalities, NCDOT, MPO/RPO partners, and developers to improve network continuity and encourage compatible multimodal design approaches across jurisdictions. ›Evaluate whether existing roadway standards, subdivision regulations, and development requirements support the County’s adopted multimodal goals and long-term network connectivity. Require Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections on All Development Plans Example of Buffered Sidewalk that replaced worn paths (Before condition shown in this image). Source: Anne Arundel County’s BPTA Manual (2022) Example of Buffered Sidewalk that replaced worn paths (After condition shown in this image). Source: Anne Arundel County’s BPTA Manual (2022) Site plans should clearly demonstrate how proposed development connects to the existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian network. This includes mapping existing and planned bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and trail facilities adjacent to and near the site, as well as identifying nearby destinations and network connections within approximately one-third mile of the project area. Required bicycle and pedestrian connections should be based on the recommendations identified in this Plan, adopted municipal transportation and greenway plans, NCDOT plans, and other adopted corridor, small area, or land use plans. Priority should be given to projects that close network gaps, extend existing facilities, improve access across barriers, or provide direct connections to nearby destinations and activity centers. Reference Example Anne Arundel County, MD’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Assessment (BPTA) process requires a pre-submittal scoping meeting, a one-mile network map, integration exhibits, proposed improvements worksheet, and cost estimates with fee-in-lieu options where direct construction is not feasible. (continued from previous page) (continued on following page) Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 97Page 96 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft105 Continue Evaluating and Implementing Adopted Plans and Policies Orange County has a strong foundation of adopted plans that support biking and walking. Ongoing implementation should treat these plans as part of a unified policy “stack”, coordinating priorities and identifying conflicts early to keep projects aligned and on track. Key Plans to Align With ›Transportation Multimodal Plan ›Complete Streets and Vision Zero Policies ›Trails Plan ›Safe Routes to School Plan ›Transit Plan ›Access Management Plans and corridor studies Programs like Safe Routes to School demonstrate how planning for safety, mobility, and health can work together. Source: Carrboro, NC Implementation Notes ›Add a consistency check b ox to internal review forms (e.g., conflict, align, or modify) ›When conflicts arise, document a short policy resolution memo and adjust maps or the UDO accordingly Bicycle and pedestrian connections should be evaluated based on both the project frontage and the surrounding network context. County and municipal staff should consider: ›Existing and planned bicycle, pedestrian, greenway, and transit facilities within approximately one-third mile of the site. ›Nearby destinations and activity centers, including schools, parks, libraries, transit stops, commercial areas, civic buildings, employment centers, and residential neighborhoods. ›Identified network gaps, missing sidewalk segments, unsafe crossings, or barriers to connectivity. ›Opportunities to connect adjacent subdivisions, commercial centers, schools, parks, and trail systems. ›Anticipated future growth areas identified in adopted land use and transportation plans. ›Whether the project is located within a rural, suburban, or urbanizing context. In rural areas, recommendations may focus on paved shoulders, shared-use paths, intersection improvements, or targeted safety enhancements rather than continuous urban sidewalk networks. In areas planned for future growth, annexation, redevelopment, or higher development intensity, projects should anticipate future multimodal network needs and construct facilities consistent with the long-term planned context and adopted transportation vision. (continued from previous page) Determining Required Connections Implementation Notes ›Add a Bicycle/Pedestrian Context Sheet to site plan requirements. ›Require a pre-submittal checklist and scoping meeting for larger projects. ›Standardize templates for cost estimates and fee-in- lieu contributions. ›Coordinate review with adopted County, municipal, and NCDOT transportation plans. ›Prioritize connections that close documented gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network. ›Require developments in planned growth areas to construct facilities compatible with the long- term multimodal vision for the corridor or area. Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 99Page 98 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft106 Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 101 NEXT STEPS To build momentum and lay the groundwork for long-term implementation, Orange County should begin with short-term actions that deliver visible results. Targeting smaller, quick-turnaround grants such as the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) or America Walks Community Challenge programs can help advance high- impact “Best Bet” projects and demonstrate early success. These efforts can be paired with bundling bike and pedestrian projects into larger roadway, safety, or park improvements to stay competitive in federal and state funding cycles. Launching a pilot public-private partnership along a high-visibility corridor or near a school can also signal local commitment and showcase how sidewalk delivery or corridor sponsorships can act as both funding sources and match contributions. Suggested policy priorities include: ›Expanding eligibility and competitiveness for standalone bicycle and pedestrian projects within the STI process. ›Increasing consideration of safety, connectivity, public health, and access to schools, parks, transit, and community destinations within project scoring criteria. ›Allowing smaller multimodal projects to compete more effectively against large roadway capacity projects . ›Providing greater flexibility for local match requirements and cost-sharing for smaller jurisdictions. ›Supporting bundled corridor and network-based bicycle and pedestrian improvements rather than isolated segments. ›Improving funding pathways for retrofit, maintenance, and gap-closure projects that may not qualify as major capital expansions. ›Expanding regional representation and coordination opportunities within transportation decision-making processes. ›Encouraging funding programs that better support multimodal access in planned growth and redevelopment areas. The County should continue coordinating with municipalities, MPOs, regional partners, NCDOT, and peer communities across North Carolina to advance transportation funding approaches that better reflect local mobility, safety, access, and quality-of-life goals. Additional local funding and implementation strategies may include: ›Transportation utility fees. ›Special assessment districts. ›Corridor sponsorships and partnerships. ›Public-private partnerships. ›Dedicated maintenance and operations funding programs. ›Coordinated grant development and local match strategies. ›Multi-year capital and maintenance programming. Over the long term, Orange County will need to pursue structural funding reforms that extend beyond one-time capital construction projects. This includes advocating at the state level for adjustments to North Carolina’s Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law and project prioritization process to better support bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, smaller-scale multimodal projects, and transportation investments in rural and urbanizing communities that may not score competitively under existing congestion and vehicle-volume metrics. Page 100 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft107 Table 5-E: Implementation Action Plan by Time Horizon and Lead Role Time Horizon Action Recommendation Area Responsible Party Example Tools/Notes Short-term (0-2 years) Pursue small, quick- turnaround grants to build momentum Funding County staff with municipal partners TAP, Safe Routes to School, AARP Community Challenge, America Walks Bundle bicycle and pedestrian projects into larger roadway, safety, or park investments Project County staff with NCDOT Division and municipalities Combine with resurfacing, Safe Streets for All, or PARTF projects Pilot a public-private partnership on a high- visibility corridor Funding County staff with developers, businesses, and partner agencies Sidewalk delivery in development agreements, corridor sponsorships Kick off Carrboro to Hillsborough Route (Old NC 86) Multi-Use Trail initiative (planning and early design) Project County staff with MPO, NCDOT, consultants, developers Advance to 30% design; bundle with roadway improvements; pursue competitive grants Establish a Complete Streets project review process for resurfacing and roadway improvement projects Policy County staff with NCDOT Division 7 and municipalities Resurfacing retrofit checklist; interagency coordination review Launch a Countywide Crossing Improvement Program focused on high- injury corridors and schools Program County staff with NCDOT, MPOs, municipalities RRFBs, refuge islands, lighting, HSIP funding Develop a Quick-Build / Demonstration Project Program Program County staff with municipal and community partners Temporary striping, flex posts, curb extensions, pilot projects Establish annual bicycle and pedestrian maintenance priorities Operations County public works with NCDOT Division 7 and partner agencies Shoulder sweeping, vegetation management, pavement repair tracking Orange High School Rd adjacent to the Orange County Middle School is a priority location for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Source: Homes.com (2023) Operations and maintenance must also be addressed alongside capital investment to keep sidewalks, trails, crossings, and bikeways safe, functional, and attractive over time. This includes pavement maintenance, vegetation management, lighting, accessibility improvements, debris removal, resurfacing, and replacement of aging infrastructure. By aligning grant strategies, local funding sources, maintenance responsibilities, and long-term implementation priorities, Orange County can build a more resilient and sustainable bicycle and pedestrian network that supports residents of all ages and abilities. (Table continues on the following page) Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 103Page 102 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft108 Table 5-E: Implementation Action Plan by Time Horizon and Lead Role Time Horizon Action Recommendation Area Responsible Party Example Tools/Notes Medium- term (2-5 years) Develop a standardized funding toolkit for local match Funding County administrative, finance, and partner agencies Shoulder sweeping, vegetation management, pavement repair tracking Strengthen coordination with MPOs and neighboring counties Coordination County staff with MPOs (TWTPO, BGMPO, CPRPO) and regional partners Joint applications, shared match strategies, regional eligibility Embed bike/ped priorities in the CIP and development code Policy County staff with municipal and legal partners Treat bicycle and pedestrian projects as core infrastructure Update subdivision and development ordinances to require connectivity and multimodal infrastructure Policy County staff with municipal partners Sidewalk requirements, trail easements, multimodal cross- sections Conduct ADA accessibility audits and prioritize upgrades Planning County staff with municipalities and transit providers ADA Transition Plan updates; curb ramp inventory Develop Safe Routes to School Priority Areas and implementation packages Program School districts, municipalities, County staff, and NCDOT School travel plans; crossing improvements; SRTS funding Improve first/last-mile bicycle and pedestrian access to transit Project County staff with transit providers and municipalities Shared-use paths, bike parking, transit stop accessibility (Table continues on the following page) Table 5-E: Implementation Action Plan by Time Horizon and Lead Role Time Horizon Action Recommendation Area Responsible Party Example Tools/Notes Long-term (5+ years) Advocate for STI reform and expanded MPO eligibility Policy County elected officials, statewide coalitions Lobby to adjust STI law; pursue regional representation Explore recurring local funding and infrastructure financing tools Funding County administrative and finance staff with partner agencies Transportation utility fees, special assessment districts Scale public-private partnerships and naming rights Funding County staff with private sector and institutional partners Rail Trail model; corridor branding and sponsorships Secure ongoing funding for operations and maintenance Operations County public works and partner agencies Maintenance funds, developer cost-sharing, utility fees Maintain and update bicycle and pedestrian network priorities and performance metrics Planning County staff with MPO and municipal partners Annual reporting dashboard; project tracking database Continue implementation of countywide trail and active transportation network connections Project County, municipalities, MPOs, and regional partners Coordinated grant applications; phased network expansion Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan | Orange County, NC ~ Page 105Page 104 ~ Orange County, NC | Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Draft Draft Draft Draft109 Draft Draft Draft Draft110 OUT Board Meeting June 2026 111 PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN •Formalize a cohesive and actionable strategy for multimodal design, development, and implementation for the unincorporated areas of Orange County •Align and integrate into regional transportation plans •MTP update – DCHC MPO •MTP update – BC MPO •CTP update – TARPO O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 2 Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough Mebane 112 3 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Why Now? •Growth and Development: As Orange County grows, so does the need for roads and paths that work for everyone, not just drivers. •Safety Concerns: Some roads and crossings feel dangerous, especially in areas with high crash rates or no sidewalks or bike lanes. •Filling the Gaps: Some areas lack continuous connections between existing facilities and key destinations, making it more difficult to walk or bike safely. •Changing Habits: More people want to walk or bike as part of daily life – for health, convenience, or saving money. 113 4 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 114 Engagement Overview •600+ residents participated in nine distinct engagement activities, including an online survey, interactive map, stakeholder listening sessions, community events, and two public workshops. 5O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 115 6 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 116 7 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 117 What We Heard •High-speed corridors such as Route 54, NC 86, and Old Fayetteville Road were flagged repeatedly. People noted the lack of sidewalks, shoulders, and safe crossings. •Narrow roads with rumble strips, blind curves, or no shoulders were frequently mentioned as unsafefor biking. •Missing connections between neighborhoods, schools, and shops were common. Several people described how nearby destinations are functionally inaccessible. •Regional connectivity came up often. Residents want safer ways to travel between Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill, as well as improved access to parks and natural areas such as Brumley Forest and Duke Forest Korstian Division. •Participants also shared specific infrastructure ideas—such as roundabouts, separated paths and shoulder widening— especially along Old 86, Homestead Road, and Dairyland Road. 8O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 118 Where You Are 9O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Where You Want to Be 119 Network Development •Data Inputs •Transportation Multimodal (2024) Project list •AADT Volumes •Speed Limits •Land use and/or nearby destinations •Refine Facility Types •Remove Greenway and Trail Projects •Upgrade/Downgrand facilities based on stakeholder input •Finalize Network •Facility Types specified per corridor •Informed by design guidance and stakeholder review 10 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Network Stakeholder Review Design Guidance Data 120 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Proposed Bicycle Network Facility Type Projects Total Mileage Bicycle Lanes 22 50.7 miles Paved Shoulder 61 215.9 miles Bicycle Laes: Improve on-road bicycle connectivity along corridors with appropriate roadway conditions. Paved Shoulders: Provide additional operating space for bicycle along rural roadways and support recreation and regional travel 121 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Proposed Pedestrian Network Facility Type Projects Total Mileage Shared Use Path 22 63.2 miles Sidewalks 28 23.2 miles Shared Use Path: Provides greater separation from traffic along higher- speed corridors and strengthens regional connectivity. Sidewalks: Improve short-distance walking access near schools, parks, transit stops, and community destinations 122 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Implementation Realities •Most priority corridors fall under NCDOT jurisdiction •The current funding environment creates significant challenges for standalone bicycle and pedestrian investments. •Near-term progress will depend on aligning recommendations with planned roadway, safety, and infrastructure projects. 123 TMP Evaluation Methodology 14O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Step 1 •Combine the weights obtained through survey Step 2 •Separate Projects Based on Types Step 3 •Finalize the parameters weightage for each project type Step 5 •Collect, clean, and organize data Step 5 •Calculate Metrics Parameter Measures Density Population and Employment within ½ mile School Access Number of schools within ½ mile Points of Interest (POI) Access Number of civic, commercial, community, cultural, institutional, retail and religious points within ½ mile Recreational Spaces Access Number of parks within ½ mile Access to Bus Stops Number of bus stops within ½ mile Network Gaps Ration of walk distance between the endpoints of the project before and after the build (for projects less than 1 mile) 124 15O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 125 16 Impact and Feasibility O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N •Framework helps distinguish near- term opportunities from longer-term investments. •ALL projects remain important long- term opportunities and should be revisited as conditions, partnerships, or funding evolve. •Intended to support strategic decision-making when time and resources are limited. 126 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Concept Design 127 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Concept Design 128 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Concept Design 129 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Policy Highlights •Align the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) with adopted transportation, trails, Complete Streets, and Vision Zero plans to support long-term network continuity. •Require new development to contribute on- site bicycle, pedestrian, and trail infrastructure that advances the countywide network. •Bundle projects strategically to improve competitiveness for state and federal funding opportunities. •Advocate for long-term structural funding reforms, including adjustments to North Carolina’s STI process and expanded regional representation. 130 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Funding Highlights •Bicycle and pedestrian projects face significant funding constraints under current state and federal transportation programs. •Orange County will need to bundle projects strategically to improve competitiveness for programs such as Safe Streets for All, Safe Routes to School, and Transportation Alternatives. •Local funding sources will be critical to advancing implementation and providing matching funds for grants. •The plan identifies supplemental funding tools •Tourism-related bicycle and pedestrian investments may be eligible for occupancy tax funding where projects support visitor activity. 131 O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N Next Steps ❑Integrate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into future roadway, redevelopment, utility, and resurfacing projects. ❑Preserve future multimodal corridors and connections as growth and development occur. ❑Strengthen coordination among Orange County, municipalities, North Carolina Department of Transportation, and regional partners. ❑Continue building toward a safer, more connected, and more accessible countywide network over time. 132 PROJECT TEAM O R A N G E C O U N T Y B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N P L A N 23 Sarah Williamson, Interim Transportation Director sawilliamson@orangecountync.gov 919.245.20102 Madeline Galliano, Project Administrator mgalliano@dchcmpo.org 919.503.4120 Katy Shackelford, Project Manager Katy.Shackleford@stantec.com 540.835.7542 Daniel Rauh, Engagement Lead drauh@withersravenel.com 919.238.0416 133 Happy to Field Any Questions 134 Orange County Trails Plan April 14, 2026 DRAFT 135 Pictured: Eno River State Park2 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Acknowledgments THANK YOU to the local residents, community leaders, partner agencies, and staff who contributed their insights and time throughout the development of the Orange County Trails Plan. Their thoughtful participation ensured this plan reflects the values, needs, and aspirations of the County and community alike. STEERING COMMITTEE Orange County Parks & Recreation Council Natalie Ziemba (Chair) Louise Flinn (Co-Chair) Logan Cason Gregory Husketh Alissa Martucci Maggie Moriarty Allen Parker GiGi Rashdi Chloe Reid (Youth delegate) Trevor Robinson Navya Sharma (Youth delegate) Xilong Zhao ORANGE COUNTY Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation (DEAPR) David Stancil, Director Marabeth Carr, Landscape Architect Kalani Allen, Communications Manager Abby Mattingly, Administrative Support CONSULTANTS Gensler – Strategy, Engagement, Plan Development Surface 678 – Existing Conditions & Site Visit Support 136 Pictured: Eno River State Park Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 3 Table of Contents 01 INTRODUCTION Project Overview Process & Schedule Vision & Goals Why a Connected Trail Network? 06 08 09 10 02 EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Visit Observations, Opportunities & Challenges Previous Plans & Initiatives 14 16 03 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Engagement & Outreach Overview Visioning Process Draft Trail Network Engagement Steering Committee Meetings How Public Input Shaped the Plan 24 26 30 34 35 05 IMPLEMENTATION Project Phasing Partnerships & Funding Opportunities Implementation Plan 72 75 78 06 APPENDIX Types of Trails Site Visit Notes Public Engagement Documentation Trail Segment Prioritization Documentation Cost Estimate A B C D E 04 EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Guiding Principles Statewide & Regional Context Proposed Trail Network Segment One-Pagers Trail Segment Prioritization 38 39 40 42 68 137 4 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Introduction 01 Orange County’s trails are more than just recreation amenities. They are part of an essential infrastructure that supports safe mobility, access to nature, and the health and cohesion of communities across a mix of rural, suburban, and urban contexts. Consolidating many previous efforts into a single, comprehensive plan ensures that investments are coordinated, equitable, and aligned with countywide goals. This section outlines the purpose of the Orange County Trails Plan and describes the county’s physical setting, planning context, and community‑driven vision. 138 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 5Pictured: Eno River State Park 139 6 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Project Overview The Orange County Trails Plan (OCTP) provides a coordinated approach for connecting residents to the daily destinations that matter most–from parks and natural areas, to schools and libraries, to town centers and transit. It combines a physical network concept with policy guidance for prioritizing, funding, and delivering projects. The OCTP consolidates years of planning work into a single guide, aligning what we learned from fieldwork, GIS analysis, and public engagement across multiple touchpoints. This plan also establishes a shared framework for how Orange County will approach trail planning moving forward. By identifying the most meaningful destinations to connect and the conditions that shape where trails can and should go, the plan creates a clear foundation for future decisions. It clarifies what types of trails fit best in different parts of the county, the principles to follow to ensure users feel safe and welcomed on trails, and how to balance access with the protection of natural resources. The plan is intended to support consistent, long-term investment, giving the County and its partners a common reference point for evaluating opportunities, coordinating across jurisdictions, and pursuing grants. It also provides clarity for residents and landowners by showing how individual trail concepts fit into a larger, comprehensive network of connectivity. Most importantly, the Trails Plan reflects what community members said they value: • Safe places to walk and bike; • Access to nature close to home; • Connections between towns and rural areas; • And progress toward completing the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST). BUILDING ON PRIOR PLANNING Previous local plans and initiatives have provided strong starting points for the Trails Plan. By bringing them together, the Trails Plan aligns previous efforts with current community priorities and ensures network continuity across jurisdictions. The following previous and ongoing plans have been considered in depth, with findings outlined in Section 02: Existing Conditions. • Chapel Hill Greenways Master Plan (2013) • Orange County 2030 Parks & Recreation Master Plan (2014) • Orange County Mountains to Sea Trail (2018) • Eno-New Hope Connectivity Plan (2021) • Carrboro Connects Comprehensive Plan (2022) • NCDOT Great Trails State Plan (2022) • Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 (2023- 2026) • Orange County Strategic Plan FY2025-2029 (2024) • Everywhere-to-Everywhere Greenways Feasibility Study (2025-2026) • Orange County Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (2025-2026) • J Branch Rail Trail Feasibility Study (2025-2026) View of a Blackwood Farm Park picnic shelter and open green space, observed during the Trails Plan fieldwork 140 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 7 STUDY AREA SNAPSHOT This study focuses on the whole of Orange County, whose land pattern mixes rural farmland, forests, and the towns of Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill and the City of Mebane. Major travel corridors (e.g., I-40, I-85, US-70, NC-54, NC-86) and extensive waterways (e.g., Eno River, Seven Mile Creek) define both opportunity and constraint for trail positioning. As part of this effort, existing municipal trail systems in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane were reviewed; however, the plan is primarily focused on unincorporated areas and the regional connections that link these town networks together. The distribution of parks and nature preserves anchors many potential trailheads and connection opportunities both within the county and beyond to neighboring Durham and Alamance Counties. Additional details about the study area can be found in Section 02: Existing Conditions. Base map of Orange County, NC showing major towns/cities and park facilities 141 8 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Process & Schedule TASK 1 Community Outreach & Public Engagement January – November 2025 The project launched with a kick-off meeting, a public-facing webpage, and FAQs. This task also included newsletters, public workshops, online surveys, and pop-up events. Together, these activities established the community’s priorities and created an accessible entry point for ongoing involvement. TASK 2 Project Steering Committee & Reporting March 2025 – April 2026 The Parks & Recreation Council (PRC) served as the steering committee, meeting at key milestones to review materials, refine engagement activities, and guide plan development. This task also included an informational item for the Board of County Commissioners to share progress and gather feedback on the plan. TASK 3 GIS Mapping & Analysis March 2025 – January 2026 The team reviewed previous plans and analyzed existing trails, land use, and environmental conditions to identify opportunities, constraints, and potential corridors. This work produced the proposed county trail network map in Section 04. TASK 4 Priority Corridors: Site Assessment & Cost Estimate April 2025 – March 2026 Field visits assessed feasibility and on-the-ground conditions along likely trail corridors, including crossings, structures, and potential right-of-way needs. TASK 5 Plan Alignment & Coordination August 2025 – March 2026 The project team coordinated with the County’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan to align goals and network assumptions across efforts. This task also covered internal County department and inter-agency coordination and preparation for Board presentations, ensuring consistency as recommendations moved toward decision points. TASK 6 Orange County Trails Plan October 2025 – March 2026 Findings from engagement and analysis were synthesized into guiding principles, the draft connected county trail network, and corridor recommendations. These elements are reflected throughout the evaluation, recommendations, and implementation sections of the report. The Trails Plan process consisted of six tasks between January 2025 and March 2026. JAN. 2025 2026 JAN.FEB.FEB.MAR.MAR.APR.APR.MAY JUNE JULY AUG.SEPT.OCT.NOV.DEC. TASK 1 Kick-off Website FAQs WorkshopsWorkshops Pop-ups Survey Survey TASK 5 Partner Coordination Partner CoordinationBike/Ped Alignment TASK 4 Feasibility Cost Estimate TASK 3 Map DevelopmentData Gathering TASK 6 Drafting & Refinement of Trails Plan Draft Complete Drafting of Segments TASK 2 PRC PRC PRC PRC BOCC Update BOCC Update 142 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 9 Vision & Goals At the first steering committee meeting in March 2025, members of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council (PRC) shared their perspectives on opportunities and goals for the Trails Plan project. This discussion formed the basis of the project goals listed to the right, which focus on themes of engagement, connectivity, and equity– all of which were highlighted by community members during visioning. Additional conversations with the steering committee, discussions with project leadership, inputs gathered from the vision workshops, and survey data were all synthesized to develop the Orange County Trails Plan vision statement below. The co-created vision and goals provided a “north star” throughout the planning process and, together, they serve as the foundation for the proposed trail network, guiding principles, and implementation recommendations. 01 Spark enthusiasm for a connected county trail network with an equitable, inclusive, and engaging outreach process. 02 Develop a Trails Plan that reflects the community’s vision and aligns with other county and municipality efforts, such as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 03 Create a comprehensive network of connectivity between key points of interest including work, home, school, commerce, and public transit. 05 Identify new and existing connections to complete the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) segment in Orange County. Project Goals ““Vision Statement Orange County will be a place where a safe, inclusive network of trails connects people of all ages and abilities to each other, to nature, and to the places they love. These trails will make it easy to travel by foot or bike rather than car, encourage healthy movement, strengthen our communities, and foster equitable access to the natural beauty that defines the Piedmont region. 04 Expand access to excellent parks and recreation opportunities for a broader population, especially in rural areas of the county. 143 10 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Why a Connected Trail Network? MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION Trails provide affordable and sustainable alternatives for reaching key points of interest like schools, libraries, parks, and community facilities that residents use each day. By expanding the trail network, Orange County can not only become a better, healthier place to live but also progress toward its transportation goals of improving multi- modal access, reducing reliance on motorized vehicles, and creating safer connections for residents in rural and more urban areas alike.2, 3 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP Thoughtfully designed trail networks help protect sensitive ecosystems and landscapes by directing foot and bicycle traffic to dedicated corridors, while still allowing people to experience natural areas. Trails can also support cleaner air and water by reducing short car trips and offering nearby, nature-based recreation opportunities.1 Regional partners like the Eno River Association and Triangle Land Conservancy–which conserves tens of thousands of acres of land and hosts a large number of preserve visitors each year– demonstrate that access and environmental protection go hand-in-hand.4 The Trails Plan presents an opportunity to develop a highly connected trail system across Orange County, which brings a variety of benefits to the local community. The proposed network (detailed in Section 04: Evaluation & Recommendations) aims to improve residents’ health, strengthen the local economy, enhance multi-modal transportation, and preserve the natural resources that set Orange County apart as a desirable place to live, work, and visit. HEALTH & WELLBEING Trails can play a key role in improving both physical health and wellbeing, reducing stress and improving quality of life by providing places to exercise and engage with nature. Communities that have access to safe, accessible routes between parks and recreation facilities tend to have higher physical activity levels and better health outcomes.1, 2 With a connected county trail network, these opportunities can be extended more broadly to residents of all ages and abilities. SOURCES 1 | CDC Healthy Places - Parks, Trails, and Health 2 | CDC Active People, Healthy Nation 3 | Orange County - Strategic Plan - Multi-Modal Transportation Goals 4 | Triangle Land Conservancy 5 | North Carolina Outdoor Economy Office 6 | NC State ITRE - ‘Bridging the Gap’ American Tobacco Trail Economic Impact Study 7 | Visit Chapel Hill - 2024 Visitors Spending in Orange County, NC Pictured: Brumley Forest Nature Preserve 144 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 11 Improves health and wellbeing by expanding safe, accessible places to be active Strengthens the county tax base through tourism and outdoor recreation Connects people with nature while protecting sensitive ecosystems Offers safe, low‑ cost, multi‑modal transportation for residents across rural and town areas Supports local economy through increased trail use and visitor spending Benefits at a Glance ECONOMIC VITALITY Trails contribute directly to the local economy by supporting small businesses, attracting spending, and creating jobs. In North Carolina, outdoor recreation generated $16.2 billion in value and supported more than 145,000 jobs in 2023.5 Local studies have shown that completing missing links in trail systems can significantly increase use and visitor spending–in the case of the American Tobacco Trail, connecting the corridor via a bridge led to a 133% increase in annual trail use and $3.7 million in new local spending.6 A connected network in Orange County positions local businesses to benefit from similar activity. LOCAL TOURISM By connecting visitors to parks, preserves, towns, and cultural destinations, trails can enhance the tourist experience in Orange County. In 2024, visitors spent $280.04 million locally, supporting approximately 2,039 jobs and generating $19.25 million in state and local tax revenue.7 Strengthening the county’s trail system can help reinforce Orange County’s appeal as a place to visit and explore outdoor amenities year-round. 145 12 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Existing Conditions 02 Understanding the landscape, infrastructure, and planning context of Orange County is critical in shaping a trail network that is meaningful and achievable. The county’s mix of rural, natural, and town environments creates unique opportunities and constraints that influence how trails can be connected and designed to serve residents best. This section provides a high‑level overview of the conditions that inform the Trails Plan, bringing together early field observations and insights gathered through research of past and ongoing planning efforts. These factors helped clarify where trails are feasible today, where gaps remain, and where new connections can offer the greatest benefit. 146 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 13Pictured: Gold Park 147 14 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Site Visit Observations Field work across Orange County revealed a landscape defined by rural areas, wooded waterway corridors, and the more developed towns like Hillsborough, Mebane, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill. Long distances between key parks and recreation destinations–along with limited safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure–highlight the need for a more connected county trail system. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER Much of the county maintains a distinctly rural feel, characterized by open farmland, rolling topography, and narrow two-lane roads. Residential development in these rural areas is predominantly large-lot, very low-density, and relatively scattered compared to the more compact patterns found in the municipal and urban areas that are served by public water and sewer utilities. Town centers provide destinations and existing trailheads, but they are separated by rural areas that require careful planning to connect. NATURAL ASSETS Orange County contains abundant waterways, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs– including the Eno River and Seven Mile Creek–which anchor several beloved trails today and present opportunities for expansion. These waterways provide scenic value and important natural habitats. Proposed trails should be designed to protect these areas and respect the topographic and hydrologic conditions. RECREATION & PARK SYSTEM Parks are geographically distributed throughout the county in alignment with the adopted 2030 Parks & Recreation Master Plan, with plans for new parks underway. These existing and planned parks create a strong foundation for a connected trail system. TRAIL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES • Natural & Transportation Corridors: The county’s hydrology and roadway network provide natural cross- county alignments for trail routing. These include creek corridors, reservoirs, and major east-west and north- south state roads. • Publicly Owned or Held Land: Orange County already owns or holds easements on several parcels and actively coordinates with partners such as OWASA, Eno River Association, and Triangle Land Conservancy, opening doors for trail development and connections. • Linking Parks & Nature Preserves: Opportunities exist to connect areas like Little River Regional Park, Cedar Grove Park, and the Hillsborough Riverwalk–among many others–through nature trails or road routes. KEY CONSTRAINTS • Private Property: Large stretches of potential corridors pass adjacent to or through private land, requiring careful coordination and a community- centered design process. • Community Support: Some residents may have concerns about proximity, privacy, or corridor alignment. To ensure community support, engagement should be frequent and transparent as trail development progresses. • NCDOT Right‑of‑Way: Road-adjacent trail segments must comply with NCDOT right-of-ways widths, access controls, and roadside design standards. This will influence feasibility and design along state-maintained roads. • Infrastructure Gaps: Limited parking and restroom facilities, along with site constraints near reservoirs (e.g., Cane Creek) pose near-term challenges. • Distance Between Destinations: Long distances between destinations, combined with limited crossing or amenity options and road safety issues, can make connections challenging. 148 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 15 2 Days of Exploration To ground Trails Plan recommendations in existing conditions, the team conducted two days of field visits organized around the following four priority corridors: Chapel Hill to Hillsborough West to East MST entrances Little River to Cedar Grove Eno River State Park to Future Park Day 1 focused south of I-40/I-85, with travel from Chapel Hill toward Hillsborough. Day 2 focused north of I-40/I-85, covering Mebane, Cedar Grove, and the Eno River State Park. The four priority paths visited during the site assessments illustrate how the team evaluated conditions along key corridors in northern and southern Orange County. 149 16 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Previous Plans & Initiatives RELATED STUDY RELEVANT FINDINGS FOR THE TRAILS PLAN • The plan identifies multiple park and public open space projects, some of which have not yet been developed as of 2025 (e.g., Northeast District Park, McGowan Creek Access Area, Millhouse Road Park, Twin Creeks Park, Bingham District Park) that should be considered when aligning proposed trail segments. • Community survey results showed that walking/hiking/nature trails and greenways are among the most desired future recreation facilities in Orange County. • The plan establishes a framework of stream corridors, man-made corridors, and connector trails as the foundation for a complete, inter-linked greenway system; it also emphasizes sidewalks and bike lanes as essential connectors when trails cannot be linked together off-road. • There are ~28 miles of suitable corridors for trails within ~38 miles of protected open space, positioned as ideal spaces for long-term regional and local connectivity. • Corridor recommendations prioritize the Bolin, Booker, Morgan/ Fan, Little, Dry, North, and Carolina North systems as Chapel Hill’s principal cross-town and cross-jurisdictional connectors, requiring boardwalks, underpasses, or easements for continuity. • The plan outlines regional linkage opportunities to Carrboro, Orange County, Durham, UNC/downtown Chapel Hill, and the American Tobacco Trail as part of a larger regional and statewide network. • There is a clear prioritization framework (including connectivity, transportation function, equity, school access, and regional links) and list of critical roadways where grade separation and enhanced crossing are essential for creating a safe and continuous trail system. Orange County Parks & Recreation Master Plan 2030 Adopted November 2014 Chapel Hill Greenways Master Plan Adopted May 2013 The Trails Plan aggregates insights from a variety of previous plans and aligns with ongoing initiatives across Orange County to ensure consistency and reflection of community input and planning efforts that paved the way for this study. The table below summarizes the relevant findings from key studies, including the corridors that have been envisioned, destinations that should be linked, and the expectations for access and design that have already been established. 150 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 17 RELEVANT FINDINGS FOR THE TRAILS PLAN • The plan commits to equitable multi-modal access, expanding safe walking, biking, and transit opportunities with priority for BIPOC, lower-income, and differently-abled residents. • A priority corridors map targets near-term improvements like protected lanes, crossings, and traffic-calming strategies on several main Carrboro roads including Estes Drive, Hillsborough Road, Jones Ferry Road, NC-54, N. and S. Greensboro Roads, among many others. • Orange County has an approved, adopted MST route map that the Trails Plan should reflect. • The approved MST route runs southwest to northeast from the Haw River near Saxaphahaw (Alamance County) to Seven Mile Creek Nature Area, to Hillsborough Riverwalk, to Eno River State Park before entering Durham County. • Completed sections of the MST in Orange County include 3.2 miles on the Hillsborough Riverwalk, 3.9 miles within Eno River State Park, and a section in the Seven Mile Creek Natural Area with the Friends of MST providing interim road-route connections for through-hikers. • The County maintains an MST hub page with the adopted map and progress reports to guide alignment and coordination. Carrboro Connects Comprehensive Plan Adopted June 2022 Orange County Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) Adopted January 2018 • One of the plan’s major recommendations is to build additional trails and create connections between parks, preserves, and open spaces including potential links to Duke Forest and Eno River State Park along with existing municipal greenway systems, which could be made possible through joint funding opportunities. • The plan encourages a detailed master plan for the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) to identify a route across the county and ensure it does not become a gap in the statewide trail system. • Public input in focus groups encourages opening some future planned park properties for limited interim use (such as nature trails with signage) before full park development occurs. • Trail design guidance emphasizes sustainable construction practices, clear wayfinding, appropriate trailhead amenities, and equitable access for all residents. RELATED STUDY 151 18 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan RELEVANT FINDINGS FOR THE TRAILS PLAN • The Town of Carrboro’s priorities include protecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, encouraging responsible development, and providing citizens with access to nature. • Greenways (especially along Jones Creek and Morgan Creek) are identified as core network elements to close connectivity gaps and deliver stormwater and climate benefits. • Land use and mobility are linked by compact density nodes and mixed-use spaces along key corridors to create 15-minute neighborhoods and reduce vehicle reliance. RELATED STUDY • The project’s core vision is to 1) cultivate sustainable development by protecting critical watersheds, open spaces, and working lands, 2) expand attainable housing and employment, and 3) implement sustainable transportation systems that include greenways and bicycle/pedestrian connectivity. Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 2023-2026, Ongoing • The plan defines a statewide shared-use path network connecting all 100 counties to major destinations for transportation, recreation, health, tourism, and economic prosperity. • There are five network planning principles–coherence, attractiveness, directness, safety, and comfort–with user-oriented design guiding prioritization where trade-offs may be required. • Proposed segments, alternates, and gaps make up the entire Great Trails State network; in the draft state, there are 580 existing miles, 3,645 miles proposed, 1,471 miles of alternates, and 851 miles of gaps intended to be refined or closed locally. • Long-distance systems like the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) and East Coast Greenway, along with regional plans, are key inputs for route selection and coordination. • A “no new deficiencies” policy is proposed to ensure the Great Trails State network can be used safely and reliably by all NC trail users, with a consistent and predictable experience regardless of new projects and developments. • The combination of public support (demonstrated through 11,000+ survey responses) and projected economic returns position trails to be a catalyst for North Carolina’s outdoor recreation economy. NCDOT Great Trails State Plan 2022 152 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 19 RELEVANT FINDINGS FOR THE TRAILS PLAN • A multi-channel engagement approach including in-person workshops and digital feedback opportunities has been successful for capturing a wide range of perspectives. • Community engagement findings consistently emphasize access to parks, open spaces, and greenways as a top countywide priority; there is also significant community interest in balancing increased access with preservation of environmentally-sensitive areas and multi-modal connectivity. • Multiple growth patterns were tested through the project, identifying opportunities to cluster growth in nodes/crossroads, preserve waterway and habitat corridors, and use greenways to connect mixed-use areas with rural community hubs. • Trail investment is reinforced as a tool for conservation, mobility choice, and equitable access in rural and urban areas. • As the plan continues to evolve through ongoing engagement and move toward adoption, the Trails Plan recommendations should remain aligned. RELATED STUDY • The County identifies Environmental Protection and Climate Action as a strategic priority, placing particular emphasis on the protection of natural resources and climate-responsive investments; this directly supports greenway corridors that preserve open space and reduce carbon emissions. • The Healthy Community priority calls for expanded access to physical activity and the outdoors for all ages and abilities, with the goal of improving wellbeing and recreation opportunities. • The Multi-modal Transportation priority seeks a safe network of connectivity for walking, biking, rollerskating, and public transit–where greenways and trails can play a key role in a non- motorized mobility network. • By investing in assets that strengthen community vitality, including trails that can increase jobs and support tourism in the area, the County is looking for a diverse and vibrant economy. • The Strategic Plan’s guiding principles–which include communication and awareness, inclusivity and engagement, and partnership and collaboration (among others)–reinforce the importance of equitable, community-driven trail development. Orange County Strategic Plan FY2025‑FY2029 Adopted 2024 153 20 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan RELEVANT FINDINGS FOR THE TRAILS PLAN • The current draft Bike/Ped plan builds upon the 2024 Multi- modal Transportation Plan and establishes the County’s first comprehensive vision for a safer, more equitable walking and rolling network focused on health, safety, and accessibility across all communities. • It identifies a countywide transportation network and recommends connections within and between communities, which the Trails Plan can use to target corridors that complement on-road links where demand and safety needs are highest. • Projects, programs, and policies are all prioritized to guide near- term and long-term improvements, signaling where investment is most feasible for trail corridors to align with key nodes. • The public engagement approach, which includes workshops, an online survey, and a digital map tool, is designed to pinpoint location-specific gaps for people traveling by bike or foot; the Trails Plan can use this to validate priority trail segments and trailhead locations. • The Bike/Ped plan intends to integrate bicycle and pedestrian priorities into regional planning efforts and county decision- making to create consistency in connectivity. NOTE: To ensure alignment between the two plans and avoid mixed messaging, the Trails Plan team met multiple times with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan team to compare draft networks, share maps, and confirm which nature trail and road routes complement one another. Representatives of the Bike/Ped Plan also attended the Trails Plan workshop on September 24, 2025 so participants could see how the two plans relate and reinforce one another. RELATED STUDY • E2E plans over 25 miles of transportation greenway to give 57% of residents access to a greenway within 1/4-mile of where they live. • A USDOT RAISE grant is funding a two-year feasibility study to analyze routes and alternatives, produce segment-level cost estimates, and deliver an implementation plan. • E2E is a pillar of the Chapel Hill Complete Community Strategy, connecting homes to daily destinations and integrating with local transit and planned development. Chapel Hill Everywhere‑ to‑Everywhere (E2E) Greenways Feasibility Study 2025-2026, Ongoing Orange County Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan 2024-2026, Ongoing 154 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 21 RELEVANT FINDINGS FOR THE TRAILS PLAN • The study evaluates converting approximately 10.8 miles of the active J Branch (UNC CoGen) rail line into a multi-modal corridor, assessing feasibility for a multi-use greenway and whether an adjacent transit component is appropriate. • The corridor would link downtown Carrboro through the western portion of Chapel Hill and on to east-central Orange County, building on existing bicycle/pedestrian routes, transit, and streets to provide additional travel and recreation options. • This is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional initiative to proactively plan for the corridor’s highest and best reuse as UNC transitions away from coal. NOTE: The CoGen/J Branch corridor is included as a proposed segment in the Trails Plan (more details are available in Section 04: Evaluation & Recommendations). The Trails Plan will track this feasibility study’s route and public input to align recommendations. RELATED STUDY J Branch Rail Corridor Feasibility Study 2025-2026, Ongoing In addition to the ten plans/studies summarized in-depth, the Trails Plan acknowledges several other local initiatives that inform connectivity, safety, land use, and implementation. These were not studied in detail, but they were reviewed and remain part of the broader planning context: • Orange County Climate Action Plan (2023) • NC Moves 2050 - Long Range Transportation Plan (2018-2021) • Orange County State of the Environment (2019) • Orange County Transit Plan (2022) • Orange County Master Aging Plan (2022) • Blackwood Farm Park Master Plan (2023) • Little River Regional Park & Natural Area Master Plan (2021) • Town of Hillsborough Comprehensive Sustainability Plan 2030 (2023) • Town of Chapel Hill 2013-2022 Comprehensive Parks Plan (2013) • Town of Chapel Hill Map of Bike Facilities & Greenways (2019) • Town of Carrboro Recreation & Parks Comprehensive Master Plan (2006) • Bolin Creek Greenway Master Plan (2009) • Morgan Creek Greenway Master Plan (2010) • City of Mebane Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (2024) • City of Mebane 2014-2024 Recreation & Parks Comprehensive Master Plan View of the J Branch Rail Corridor tracks and landscape, observed during the Trails Plan fieldwork 155 22 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Public Engagement 03 The public voice sits at the core of the Orange County Trails Plan, which recognizes community members as subject‑matter experts of their lived experience. Since trails are used by residents across the county on a daily basis, their insights–what they value, where they go today, what they need to feel safe walking and biking, and what they hope trails can offer in the future–directly informed a connected county trail network that reflects what is top of mind for users. This section summarizes the engagement process, tools and touchpoints used to reach the community, and themes that emerged across a mix of in‑person and digital strategies designed for all residents to participate regardless of schedule, mobility, or internet access. It illustrates how the community shaped the vision, guiding principles, draft trail network, and priorities reflected later in the plan. 156 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 23Pictured: Visioning Workshop - Community Input Board 157 24 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Engagement & Outreach Overview PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Bringing communities together through a thoughtful, inclusive engagement process is a critical ingredient for success in any planning process. This approach ensures that the voices, needs, and aspirations of residents across Orange County are reflected directly in the planning outcomes. It allows residents to actively play a part in shaping the future of their community, ultimately giving future generations access to an improved, equitable, and resilient trail system that can be used and enjoyed for decades to come. To understand residents’ hopes for the future of trail connectivity, a public engagement and outreach effort for the Trails Plan was launched in January 2025. The intent of this engagement process was to inform, educate, and invite community members to collaborate on a vision for the Trails Plan, provide input on priorities, and share feedback every step of the way. The project provided opportunities for both in-person and virtual participation (described on page 25) to allow the community to contribute in whatever format was most accessible to them. The following pages detail the findings from each engagement activity, and additional documentation and meeting notes are included in Appendix C. MULTI-CHANNEL OUTREACH Public engagement was accompanied by a multi- channel outreach approach designed to get the word out to as many Orange County residents as possible, including: • Informational project web page with Trails Plan details, a roadmap, FAQs, and other resources • Trails Plan e-newsletters sharing project updates, engagement recaps, and upcoming events; distributed to an email list of 123 community subscribers • Social media campaign (Instagram, Facebook, and X) • Promotional workshop graphics on digital displays around county facilities • Printed flyers posted at Orange County parks, community centers (Cedar Grove, Efland Cheeks, and RENA/Rogers Road), and other key points of interest; also distributed through Chapel Hill Carrboro City School System (CHCCS) • Digital advertisements in existing Orange County publications/newsletters Examples of promotional materials developed to advertise workshops through multiple outreach channels Orange County Trails Plan Community Workshops Scan the QR code or visit orangecountync.gov/trailsplan to register for the workshops and learn more about the project. Share your voice. What? Two open house style workshops designed to gather community feedback on the draft Orange County Trails Plan. Who? If you utilize any Orange County trails, greenways, parks, open spaces, or community spaces, we would love to hear from you! When & Where? Join us for the event that works best with your schedule. You may come and go at any time during the workshop hours. Orange County Solid Waste Center 1207 Eubanks Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Bonnie B. Davis Environment & Agricultural Center 1020 US-70, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Wednesday, September 24 | 6:00 - 8:00 PM Sunday, September 28 | 2:00 - 4:00 PM Join us! Wednesday, Sept. 24 6:00 - 8:00 PM Sunday, Sept. 28 2:00 - 4:00 PM and 158 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 25 Steering Committee Meetings4 Strategic conversations with the Parks and Recreation Council (PRC) to refine the engagement process, seek feedback on outreach methods, and provide updates on project progress March, April, June, September Vision Survey Respondents72 Online survey replicating vision workshop activities to broaden participation in the development of the project goals, priorities, and countywide vision for trail connectivity July 15 - August 22 Pop-Up Event Participants76 Tabling events at the County Roadshow and Soccer.com Center to bring Draft Network Workshop content out into the community for residents who may not have been able to attend the workshops October 12 & 16 Vision Workshop Attendees 62 Two hands-on sessions in May with interactive activities including community points of interest boards, current use mapping, priority connection drawing, aspirational design input, and vision statement mad-libs May 18 & 21 Draft Network Workshop Attendees 18 Two open-house style sessions inviting the community to review and provide feedback on the guiding principles, proposed trail network, and trail segment prioritization September 24 & 28 Draft Network Survey Respondents 65 Web-based survey replicating the Draft Network Workshop content to provide a virtual alternative to the in-person workshops and ensure residents could provide feedback on the proposed trail network and priority rankings October 13 - November 9 159 26 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Visioning Process Community members gathered at the Orange County Solid Waste Center on May 18 and the Bonnie B. Davis Environment & Agricultural Center on May 21 to share their perspectives on the Trails Plan vision through a variety of interactive exercises. The vision workshops were then replicated as an anonymous online survey to reach as many residents as possible; this survey was open from July 15 to August 22. Since these engagements asked the same questions, they were synthesized together into the following key findings. WHO WE REACHED Orange County Residents 96% of the workshop and survey participants were Orange County residents, with 4% living outside the county limits. Non-residents expressed interest in the Trails Plan because they utilize Orange County’s parks, trails, and open spaces. HILLSBOROUGH45% CHAPEL HILL27% BINGHAM9% ENO8% CEDAR GROVE5% CHEEKS3% LITTLE RIVER3% Townships Represented Residents from all seven townships participated in the visioning process, with the top three townships being Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and Bingham. < 1 yr 1-2 yrs 2-5 yrs 5-7 yrs 7-10 yrs 10-20 yrs 20+ yrs Whole life 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 NUMBER OF RESPONSES Length of Residency The majority of participants reported they have lived in Orange County for 10 to 20 years or longer, but there was representation across the entire spectrum from new to lifelong residents. ““We heard... Local trails are the single most important recreational opportunity for attending to my physical and mental health, ordering my daily routine, communing with my dog, and connecting to nature. –Survey Participant Workshop participants draw the priority connections that align with their goals for the Trails Plan. 107 RESIDENTS 160 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 27 CONNECTING POINTS OF INTEREST Creating a trail network that connects key points of interest was identified as a main project goal at the beginning of the planning process. To understand which public spaces the community considers “points of interest,” workshop and survey participants were asked to identify nature and outdoor spaces, organizations and institutions, and gathering spaces in Orange County that they are most proud of. A wide variety of responses were provided and are mapped on the right, with the top five answers in each category listed below. Nature and Outdoor Spaces • Hillsborough Riverwalk (64 votes) • Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area (31 votes) • Blackwood Farm Park (29 votes) • Brumley Nature Preserve (29 votes) • Eno River State Park (29 votes) Organizations and Institutions • Orange County Public Library (47 votes) • Triangle Land Conservancy (40 votes) • Chapel Hill Public Library (28 votes) • Eno River Farmers Market (25 votes) • Orange County Sportsplex (23 votes) Gathering Spaces • Weaver Street Market (65 votes) • Eno River Brewing (26 votes) • Wooden Nickel Pub (20 votes) • Cup-a-Joe, Hillsborough (20 votes) • Hillsborough BBQ Company (19 votes) Many of the nature and outdoor spaces were also identified as locations for future improvements. Participants noted that updated facilities or amenities and increased connectivity to these locations could enhance the user experience. Completing the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) route in Orange County was also mentioned frequently. Finally, participants identified the top organizations, institutions, and gathering spaces they would like to reach by trail network in the future; local restaurants, markets, schools, recreation facilities, and libraries were among the top responses. PRIORITY CONNECTIONS At the workshops, participants drew lines on a map of Orange County to represent the connections that would bring their vision and goals for the Trails Plan to life. These drawings were overlaid with one another to create a composite map of priority connections, shown in the map below. Popular routes indicate a desire to increase connectivity between densely populated towns– which also contain many points of interest identified by the community–with significant overlapping of connections between Mebane, Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. Other drawings show desired connections to nature and outdoor spaces in more rural parts of the county. The MST segment in Orange County was highlighted by many participants as well, confirming the connection as a Trails Plan priority. The community’s points of interest are shown on the county map using color-coded markers; priority connections drawn by the community are represented by a navy blue composite overlay. 161 28 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Visioning Process (cont.) ““We heard... As the area continues to develop, it is so important to keep adding to the natural and wild land that is protected for public use. –Survey Participant CURRENT USE OF PARKS & TRAILS The project team was interested in understanding the current use of parks and trails, including which spaces are being used and what types of activities are occurring at each. Visioning participants mapped their current use by first identifying the Orange County parks and trails they visit today, then voting on the activities they do there, which were sorted into four categories: recreation and fitness, relaxation and reflection, socializing and gathering, and connecting with nature. A total of 522 votes were received across the four activity categories; the breakdown is provided below. 36% Recreation & Fitness • Walking (73 votes) • Hiking (60 votes) • Biking (26 votes) • Sports (20 votes) • Other activity or unspecified (67 votes) 25% Socializing & Gathering • Meet-ups with friends (57 votes) • Family outings (38 votes) • Community events (30 votes) • Playing (19 votes) • Other activity or unspecified (25 votes) 20% Connecting with Nature • Wildlife observation (50 votes) • Birdwatching (31 votes) • Clean-up events (10 votes) • Gardening (3 votes) • Other activity or unspecified (42 votes) 19% Relaxation & Reflection • Sitting quietly / enjoying nature (51 votes) • Picnics (30 votes) • Reading or journaling (16 votes) • Yoga or meditation (10 votes) • Other activity or unspecified (19 votes) Hot spots emerged at Hillsborough Riverwalk, Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area, Historic Occoneechee Speedway Trail, Gold Park, Eno River State Park, Little River Regional Park, Confluence Natural Area, Brumley Nature Preserve, Blackwood Farm Park, and Carolina North Forest among many other highly-utilized parks and trails. A workshop participant reviews the map of current use of parks and trails, indicated by color-coded dots and sticky notes. Usage reported through the survey was tracked by the project team digitally. 162 The key findings presented on pages 26 to 29–along with the top five responses to “Vision Mad-Lib” prompts below about goals, audiences or users, key themes, and project outcomes–were used as the basis for creating the Trails Plan vision statement and guiding principles. TOP GOALS 1. Create more parks, trails, open spaces 2. Connect points of interest (work, home, school, etc.) throughout the county 3. Increase access to outdoor spaces for a broader population 4. Complete the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) in Orange County 5. Connect communities (rural, urban, suburban) throughout the county PRIORITY AUDIENCES 1. All ages, from youth to seniors 2. Pedestrians 3. Bikers 4. Rural residents 5. Public transit users KEY THEMES FOR THE TRAILS PLAN 1. Network of connectivity 2. Connection to nature 3. Safety 4. Healthy movement 5. Inclusive design IDEAL OUTCOMES 1. Preservation of natural beauty 2. Safer experience for bikers and pedestrians 3. Reduced dependency on vehicles 4. Healthier community (physical and mental wellbeing) 5. Support for a sustainable future Building a Foundation Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 29 ASPIRATIONAL DESIGN FEATURES The final visioning exercise presented participants with a set of 40 parks, trails, and transportation images from around the Piedmont region; community members each selected 1-2 images that best represented their aspirational vision for the future of the county trail network and explained why the image(s) stood out to them. Themes of user safety, mobility, natural beauty, and accessibility quickly became apparent. According to participants’ explanations, the most popular images were selected because they represented the following features: • Clear separation between car, bike, and pedestrian lanes • Lighting, signage and markings for safety and wayfinding purposes • Use of trails for transportation/commuting • A mix of unpaved surfaces for hiking in forested areas and accessible, paved trails and bridges for pedestrians and cyclists • Inclusive furniture and/or shelter in more urban areas to rest, reflect, and appreciate natural surroundings • Integration with the existing landscape • Protection of native plants and wildlife Choosing from a pre-selected set of aspirational imagery, workshop participants visualize their hopes and goals for the Trails Plan. 163 Workshop participants engage with a series of posters about the draft trail network. 30 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Draft Trail Network Engagement After refining the Trails Plan vision, goals, guiding principles (described on page 38), and draft trail network based on the visioning process, two open-house workshops were hosted to invite community feedback. Participants attended in-person at the Bonnie B. Davis Environment & Agricultural Center on September 24 and the Orange County Solid Waste Center on September 28 to evaluate the guiding principles, react to the proposed connected county trail network, and vote in a segment prioritization exercise. To reach additional residents throughout the county, project leadership from DEAPR shared selected materials at two October pop-up events and created an online survey to replicate the activities. Because all three engagement formats asked the same questions, the results were synthesized together into the following key findings. POP-UP EVENTS48% ONLINE SURVEY41% WORKSHOPS11% WHO WE REACHED Participation by Format Providing the second round of public engagement in three formats–workshops, survey, and pop-up events–proved to be effective in capturing a range of voices across Orange County. Collectively, these formats provided a fuller picture of countywide priorities than any single method could have done on its own. Out of 159 total participants, 94 shared their feedback in-person (18 across the two workshop sessions and 76 at the pop-ups), while 65 participated virtually through the survey. 159 PARTICIPANTS GUIDING PRINCIPLES EVALUATION Community members began by reviewing each of the six draft guiding principles in two ways: 1) assessing how well the proposed network reflects each principle and 2) selecting the one segment that best represents it. Participants generally agreed that the nature trail segments best aligned with wellness, access, and local character while road routes require intentional design features to meet safety expectations. The majority of respondents felt the proposed trail network reflects all six guiding principles, with particularly high alignment for Cultivate Community Wellness, Expand Travel Options, and Reflect Local Character. Lower alignment scores mainly reflected concerns about safety on routes near roadways and questions about equitable access across the county. Scores are represented in the chart below. Design for Longevity 9%36%55% Expand Travel Options 7%34%59% Cultivate Community Wellness 7%21%71% Prioritize User Safety 17%50%33% Advance Access & Equity 61%10%29% Reflect Local Character 48%50% NETWORK DOES NOT REFLECT THE PRINCIPLES PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS NETWORK SOMEWHAT REFLECTS THE PRINCIPLES NETWORK STRONGLY REFLECTS THE PRINCIPLES 164 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 31 DRAFT TRAIL NETWORK FEEDBACK Participants also had the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed draft trail network, which was shown on a map during the workshops, at pop up events, and in the survey. Feedback centered on the following three themes: What Excited People • Strong support for MST continuity and completing the missing links • Enthusiasm for town connectivity, especially Chapel Hill and Carrboro to Hillsborough • Interest in longer, quiet, nature-based routes • Appreciation for linking existing community points of interest Common Questions • Will road routes be side paths, bike lanes, or separated greenways? • Will the network coordinate with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan and neighboring county plans? • How will safety be handled on active rail corridors, major roadways, and crossings? • What surface materials, lighting, and wayfinding strategies will be used? Key Concerns • Safety on roads without separation from traffic • Potential impacts to creeks and native plants • Privacy and proximity concerns along certain corridors • Long-term trail maintenance needs Themes for each principle, along with the top- aligned segments selected by participants, are summarized below. Reflect Local Character Top segment: Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) • Rural landscapes, creek corridors, preserves • Conservation and protected natural areas • Sensitivity near private rural homes and creeks Advance Access & Equity Top segment: UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) • Convenient access for rural residents • Connections to historically underserved areas • Inclusive for all ages and abilities Prioritize User Safety Top segment: UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) • Separation from traffic / no shoulder-walking • Protected crossings • Lighting, call boxes, and visibility • Etiquette, rules, or shared-use norms Expand Travel Options Top segment: Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) • Town-to-town connectivity • Low stress, non-motorized mobility options • Emphasis on separated, comfortable routes Cultivate Community Wellness Top segment: Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) • Immersion in nature and quiet settings • Mental health and stress-reduction benefits • Preference for nature trails over road routes • Support for walking, running, and gathering Design for Longevity Top segment: Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) • Drainage, flooding, and erosion concerns • Durable materials and sustainable maintenance ““We heard... Being able to travel on foot or bicycle from Hillsborough to Chapel Hill would be a game changer. –Survey Participant 165 32 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Draft Trail Network Engagement (cont.) TRAIL SEGMENT PRIORITIZATION Based on input gathered to date–including conversations with the steering committee, site visit findings, discussions with project leadership, feedback on the countywide vision, and five key initial evaluation criteria–the Trails Plan project team placed each of the trail segments in a draft order of priority in preparation for this round of engagement. Dot voting results from in-person participants who shared their priorities for the 12 proposed segments At the workshops and pop-up events, participants used color-coded dots to vote on whether segments should be higher (green dot), lower (red dot), or remain in place (blue dot) on the draft priority list. In the online survey, respondents dragged segments into a 1-12 ranking. Because the engagement sessions used the same activity, the combined results offer a clear picture of which segments are valued most by the community. The following results represent a strong preference for nature trails over road routes, a desire for safe and separated routes on higher-speed roads, and support for improving regional connectivity and completing MST gaps. Qualities of Top Ranking Trails • MST connections • Rail to trail concept • Long, continuous nature trails Qualities of Low Ranking Trails • Road-adjacent routes • Perceived as less scenic • Unclear separation from traffic Chapel Hill to Hillsborough (Road route via NC 86 & Waterstone Dr) MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) MST - Eno River State Park to Durham (Nature trail) Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park (Nature Trail via Eno River) Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US-70 to West Hill Ave/Occoneechee Mtn) MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Road route) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Nature trail via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Road route via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Nature Preserve (Road route via Lebanon Rd) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AVERAGE SEGMENT RANKING (SURVEY) 4.26 4.28 4.48 4.81 5.03 6.11 6.17 7.17 7.83 7.87 9.59 10.38 Top priority Lowest priority 166 Applying Key Takeaways Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 33 ““We heard... Connecting the MST and Eno Trails using nature routes is essential to preserving the intent and spirit of those trail systems for generations to come. –Survey Participant Workshop participants discuss their perspectives on the draft order of segment priorities. While reviewing the proposed network, two residents share their feedback to guide refinement. This second round of public engagement provided the clarity the project team needed to transform a broader vision and draft network concept into a more solidified recommendation for a connected county trail network, as well as understand what it should deliver in order to be successful. Community members helped confirm the types of connections that are most meaningful in their day-to-day lives, highlight where design decisions will likely matter most for meeting user expectations, and offered valuable insights about comfort, safety, visibility, and access based on their lived experiences. This input allowed the proposed network and evaluation process to be refined into an ideal experience for trail users across Orange County. PLAN ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK • Added a new alternate nature trail option between Mebane to Hillsborough along the Duke Energy transmission easement to align with community preferences for quiet, scenic routes • Re-numbered the trail segments for clarity in the number of proposed trails and distinction between alternates • Refined primary segment priorities to reflect all three sources: initial order of priority developed by the project team, workshop and pop-up dot voting results, and survey rankings • Provided clearer expectations for separation and crossings on road routes • Included recommendations for lighting and wayfinding strategies that would enhance user safety 167 Steering Committee Meetings The existing Orange County Parks and Recreation Council was leveraged as the Trails Plan steering committee. In these monthly meetings, the group offered guidance for the engagement and outreach process and provided feedback on project progress. For detailed notes from these meetings, see Appendix C. MEETING #1 Project Kick‑off March 5, 2025 The first steering committee meeting introduced committee members to the Trails Plan project and the role the council would play throughout. Prior to the meeting, a short survey was distributed to the committee with the following prompts: • What are the main opportunities presented by the Orange County Trails Plan project? • What challenges might we anticipate as part of this project? • Please share goals you have for the Trails Plan. The team facilitated a discussion about the opportunities, challenges, and goals gathered through the survey. They also shared key takeaways from community engagement research, the project roadmap, and an initial agenda for the vision workshops. MEETING #2 Vision Workshop Planning April 2, 2025 After a brief summary of the site visits to parks, open spaces, and trails throughout the county, the steering committee and project team built upon a draft outline of the May Vision Workshops and brainstormed activities for visioning stations, questions for arrival posters, and questions for the exit feedback survey. MEETING #3 Engagement Findings Report‑Out June 4, 2025 The third meeting focused on findings from the engagement process to date, particularly from the vision workshops, and the steering committee shared recommendations for future engagement events. A look ahead to the remainder of the year was also reviewed. MEETING #4 Draft Plan Review & Workshop Planning September 3, 2025 At the fourth meeting, the team reported on recent progress–including the vision survey, coordination with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, and draft language for the vision, goals, and guiding principles. They then reviewed the proposed Trails Plan report contents and the steering committee provided input on the September workshop format. 34 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Selected presentation slides from the four steering committee meetings 168 How Public Input Shaped the Plan Public input played a central role in shaping the Trails Plan. Insights from the visioning process–especially the recurring themes of safety, access to nature, connectivity between towns, and accessibility for all ages–were translated directly into the plan’s vision statement and guiding principles, which now serve as the foundation for evaluating proposed trail segments and the implementation approach. The priority connections drawn by visioning participants, paired with the key community destinations they identified, created clear clusters of parks, preserves, facilities, and gathering spaces, and informed how the proposed connected county trail network is organized to make connections meaningful. Feedback gathered during the fall open houses and draft network survey guided refinements to trail segments and helped confirm which corridors had the most community support. The survey also provided the most comprehensive dataset for prioritization; its rankings were weighted most heavily in the segment scoring framework, ensuring that top projects reflect both public preference and technical feasibility (see Section 04: Evaluation & Recommendations for more details on this scoring process. Together, the draft network, guiding principles, and prioritized segment list represent a comprehensive synthesis of what residents said they value and what existing conditions make possible, creating an Orange County Trails Plan grounded in the community vision. Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 35 Inputs What we heard Insights What it means & why it matters Insights What it means & why it matters Inputs What we heard Inputs What we heard Inputs What we heard Trails Plan What it looks like Guiding Principles How it connects 169 36 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Evaluation & Recommendations 04 Turning community priorities and existing conditions into a functional trail network requires a clear framework for decision‑making. Evaluation helps translate values (e.g., safety, access, local character) into criteria that guide how the network is formed and which segments should advance into implementation first. This section introduces the guiding principles for the Trails Plan, presents the proposed county trail network, and outlines the segment‑ level considerations that emerged through engagement and analysis. It also dives into the prioritization approach that informed how individual projects can be sequenced in the near term to begin making progress. 170 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 37Pictured: Visioning Workshop - Current Use Map 171 38 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Guiding Principles These six guiding principles for the Orange County Trails Plan reflect recurring themes that arose during public engagement, discussions with the steering committee, and alignment with project leadership. REFLECT LOCAL CHARACTER Trails should seamlessly integrate into the surrounding landscape and reflect the unique identity of each community they pass through– from rural to urban and everything in between–to foster a stronger sense of identity and place across Orange County. CULTIVATE COMMUNITY WELLNESS The trail network should help build a happier, healthier community by supporting physical activity, mental health, and social well-being through opportunities for recreation, relaxation, and connection with nature. DESIGN FOR LONGEVITY Tr ails should be designed and constructed using best practices that promote long-term resilience, ease of maintenance, and adaptability, allowing the network to evolve as the county grows and community priorities change over time. EXPAND TRAVEL OPTIONS To be effective, the trail network should provide viable alternatives to vehicle transportation and encourage more active modes of travel, like biking or walking, by connecting key points of interest across the county. PRIORITIZE USER SAFETY Safety is essential for encouraging trail use. Thoughtful trail design with universal access, adequate visibility, clear wayfinding, and safe crossings should be at the forefront to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe and comfortable. ADVANCE ACCESS & EQUITY All Orange County residents–regardless of age, ability, income, or location–deserve safe and convenient access to outdoor exploration. The trail network should prioritize connectivity to historically underserved areas, promote inclusion, and ensure diverse community needs are met. 172 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 39 As Orange County advances its vision for a connected trail network, it is important to understand these recommendations within the broader context of the systems that surround and shape it. At the statewide level, North Carolina’s State Trails System (as shown in the map below) links various landscapes through a network of 14 trails, each of which is composed of multiple segments that are managed by federal, state, or local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or private landowners.8 The Mountains to Sea Trail is part of this system, spanning west to east across Orange County, making it a critical priority for many community members and a significant component of the Trails Plan. At the regional scale, government councils and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) across the Piedmont region are working with the NC Trails Program to expand greenways and multi-modal corridors across the county. These statewide and regional efforts provide the momentum and context for the proposed Orange County Trails Plan, which is designed to respond to local community needs. Statewide & Regional Context SOURCES: 8 | North Carolina State Parks - State Trails System 173 40 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Proposed Trail Network The proposed trail network, mapped on page 41, represents the synthesis of community priorities, feasibility analysis, and the guiding principles established earlier in this section. It includes a balanced system of nature trails, rail-to-trail opportunities, and shared-use paths along roads that link parks, preserves, towns, schools, natural areas, and regional trail systems. These segments create the foundation of a connected county mobility network that expands access, strengthens town-to-town connectivity, and advances completion of the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST). Some corridors include both primary and alternate alignment options. Primary routes reflect the most feasible and publicly supported concepts based on current conditions. Alternate routes offer additional connectivity options–such as quieter nature-based alignments or different road-adjacent pathways–that may become viable through future partnerships, easements, or development changes. Multiple segments of the network directly support completion of the MST, reflecting one of the strongest community priorities that emerged throughout the planning process. The following pages describe each trail segment in more detail including context, trail type, and alignment considerations. PROPOSED SEGMENTS WITH ALTERNATES UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) Chapel Hill to Hillsborough (Road route via NC 86 & Waterstone Dr to Cates Creek Park) Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) MST ‑ Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Road route) MST ‑ Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) MST ‑ Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US-70) Mebane to Kings Highway Park (Nature trail via Duke Energy transmission easement) Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Natural Area (Road route via Lebanon Rd) Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park (Nature Trail via Eno River) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Nature trail via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Road route via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) MST ‑ Eno River State Park to Durham (Nature trail) 1 2 3 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 6C 7 8A 8B 9 A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH Implementing shared-use paths alongside state-maintained roads will require a new, collaborative partnership framework with NCDOT. While NCDOT regularly coordinates on roadway improvements, sidepaths introduce additional considerations related to right-of-way, design standards, safety, and access management. The Orange County Trails Plan identifies these needs early so proposed segments can advance through coordinated feasibility and design. 174 *The green shading represents publicly owned or conservation-managed lands included in the County’s GIS datasets. Differences in shading are a result of mapping software complexities and do not represent any meaningful differences in the land. Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 41 Draft Orange County Trails Plan MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail See facing pages for segment- specific mileage and details. 175 42 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan UNC Campus to University Station Segment 1 anticipates future conversion of a portion of the J Branch (Co-Gen) rail corridor into a separated shared-use path linking UNC/central Chapel Hill to the University Station area. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location Along the J Branch rail corridor serving UNC’s cogeneration plant, extending from campus toward University Station; endpoints to be refined by the ongoing feasibility study and coordination with the railroad Key Connections • UNC academic/medical areas • Greene Tract • Blackwood Station • Brumley Forest Nature Preserve • University Station • Chapel Hill & Carrboro trail systems Total Length ~10.8 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Rail-to-trail shared-use path (paved, separated) and potential rail • 10 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN 1 GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Supports mode shift by replacing short vehicle trips with a fully separated rail-trail corridor Promotes daily walking/rolling access between UNC, neighborhoods, and transit Improves non-auto access between student housing, neighborhoods, jobs, and servicesIndirect Benefit Provides a high-value, low-stress route connecting UNC transit, greenways, and regional paths Links UNC campuses with community destinations through a safe, predictable corridor Strengthens access to activity centers and supports local spending by trail users Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Safer route between campus and transit that avoids high-speed roads • Direct access to jobs, classes, healthcare, and services • All-ages facility with frequent access points near neighborhoods • Potential mixed use node at terminus near Old NC 10 Required Structures & Crossings: • At-grade road crossings and upgraded signals • Short bridges/culverts at existing drainage structures • Signed neighborhood spur connections to reduce trespass pressure on rail property Potential Constructability Challenges: • Railroad ownership/operations and clearances • Narrow bench and embankment sections needing walls or fencing • Hydrology at low points; coordinating with UNC and NCRR on access control Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project 176 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 43 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail 177 44 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Chapel Hill to Hillsborough2 Segment 2 creates a separated sidepath along NC-86 and Waterstone Drive, linking Chapel Hill to the rail-trail corridor (Segment 1) and continuing north to tie into the Town of Hillsborough’s existing greenway system. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location Along NC-86 from the Chapel Hill area toward Hillsborough, connecting into town via Waterstone Drive; exact endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency coordination Key Connections • Cates Creek Park and Town of Hillsborough greenways system • Blackwood Farm Park • Schools, libraries, and community assets along the corridor • Links to local trail/greenway systems and regional routes Total Length ~5 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Shared-use path (paved, separated) • 10 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Enables car-free travel along a high-speed corridor with drainage considerations adjacent to streams Improves daily access to schools, parks, libraries, and town centers Serves a mix of rural homes and higher-density neighborhoods near Waterstone Creates a continuous town-to-town connection where walking/rolling is currently unsafe Enhances access to nearby schools, libraries, and learning destinations along NC-86 Improves visibility and access to small businesses on both ends of the corridor Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • High-speed corridor alternative with protected crossings • Reliable town-to-town route for daily trips • Safe access to schools and parks without shoulder-walking Required Structures & Crossings: • Enhanced crossings at Mt. Sinai, I-40 ramps, and Waterstone Dr. • Median refuges/curb ramps where warranted • Ditch/drainage adjustments at steeper segments Potential Constructability Challenges: • Space constraints along segments with ditches/slopes and many driveways • Sight distance at curves/creek bottoms • Utility relocations in tight sections Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 178 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 45 179 46 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Carrboro to Hillsborough3 Segment 3 establishes a separated sidepath on Old NC-86 to improve safety and route legibility between Carrboro and Hillsborough. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location Along Old NC 86 from UNC Chapel Hill University Lake, through the Carrboro greenways system north toward Hillsborough; exact endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency coordination Key Connections • UNC Chapel Hill University Lake • Libba Cotten Bikeway and other Carrboro trails • Jones Creek Greenway/Bolin Creek Greenway • Cates Creek Park • Hillsborough Riverwalk (existing segment) Total Length ~16 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Shared-use path (paved, separated) • 10 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Reduces reliance on vehicle trips along a narrow rural roadway with limited shoulders Provides consistent separation for walkers/cyclists where roadway conditions currently limit activity Connects dispersed rural homes to Carrboro/ Hillsborough services without requiring a car Establishes a predictable, legible regional route for town-to-town connectivity Supports safer access to schools and libraries in both towns Links activity centers and supports local business visitation Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Shoulder-limited corridor replacement with consistent separation • Comfortable link for rural residents into town services • Lower-stress option than on-road riding/ walking Required Structures & Crossings: • At-grade road crossings with enhanced treatments at major intersections • Driveway tie-ins and drainage in ditch-lined segments • Spot walls/guardrail offsets on steep side slopes Potential Constructability Challenges: • Curvaceous roadway with limited roadside space, creating a tight potential sidepath corridor • High driveway density, mailbox clusters, and access management • Rolling grades with sidepath cross-slope/ retaining needs in spots Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 180 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 47 181 48 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area 4A Segment 4A (alternate 1 of 2) provides a road route corridor for the Mountains to Sea Trail between Alamance County and Seven Mile Creek Natural Area, using separation where feasible. This segment and 4B merge from Buckhorn Road south, consistent with the adopted MST route. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location Along local roads between the Alamance and Orange County line and Seven Mile Creek Natural Area, with some of the route off-road south of Buckhorn Road; alignment to be finalized with NCDOT/County/MST partners Key Connections • Alamance County/West MST entrance • Rural residential clusters • Seven Mile Creek Natural Area Total Length ~16 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Shared-use path (paved, separated) or natural surface trail (gravel/aggregate); TBD • 10 ft typical width; 3-4 ft width south of merge point ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Uses existing roadways to minimize disturbance where off-road routes are constrained Offers steady, predictable access for MST users and rural residents Provides a safe non-auto option in areas with limited amenities Maintains MST continuity across county lines via a legible roadside route Enhances access to local nature-based learning via MST signage and links Can direct MST users toward rural businesses and agritourism nodes Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Continuous wayfinding for through-hikers and local users • Safer shoulder-free segments • Daytime visibility improvements • Reliable MST routing until nature alignment is secured Required Structures & Crossings: • Driveway/ditch work on narrow two-lane roads • Enhanced crossings at county road nodes Potential Constructability Challenges: • Many rural owners who have varying comfort with roadside paths • Limited shade/exposure in farm stretches • Narrow shoulders along some of the roads Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 182 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 49 183 50 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area 4B Segment 4B (alternate 2 of 2) delivers a natural surface MST route from the Alamance County line to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area, focusing on quiet, waterway-adjacent landscapes where possible. This segment and 4A merge from Buckhorn Road south, consistent with the adopted MST route. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location From the Alamance and Orange County line to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area via creek and stream corridors and large parcels; this route was adopted in 2018 as the official MST route through this area. Key Connections • Alamance County/West MST entrance • Seven Mile Creek • Large private holdings and parcels Total Length ~16 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 8 ft typical width; 3-4 ft width south of merge point ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Follows creek and conservation corridors with low-impact tread and stewardship practices Provides restorative, quiet MST access away from major roads Connects rural homes to conserved lands without requiring car travel Advances state-designated MST off-road continuity across the county Offers environmental learning opportunities through access to diverse habitats Attracts statewide trail users who support rural businesses and tourism Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Low-impact, nature-based MST experience away from traffic • Continuous wayfinding for through-hikers and local users • Access points that disperse parking/loading near private lands Required Structures & Crossings: • Multiple short boardwalks at wet areas • Simple trailheads with trail rules Potential Constructability Challenges: • Large consolidated ownerships (fewer but deeper negotiations) • OWASA groundwater parcels nearby - no trailheads on OWASA lands, need to use adjacent properties • Landowner concerns about the trail in some portions of the segment Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 184 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 51 185 52 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan MST - Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk 5 ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Uses a floodplain-appropriate nature trail design with raised tread where needed Enables quiet, nature-based access directly into Hillsborough’s greenway system Serves nearby rural homes with a non-auto option into town amenities Extends off-road connections into Hillsborough Riverwalk and downtown Supports environmental learning via creek-adjacent habitat access Draws visitors and residents into downtown Hillsborough and local businesses Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Segment 5 creates a natural-surface trail linking Seven Mile Creek Natural Area through the Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area, into the Hillsborough Riverwalk trail system. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location From Seven Mile Creek Natural Area east toward Riverwalk/Gold Park, following creek corridors and conserved landscapes Key Connections • Hillsborough Riverwalk • Gold Park • Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area • Downtown destinations • Nearby neighborhoods and open spaces Total Length ~3 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 8 ft typical width Relevant Community Needs: • Quiet approach to town for walkers, runners, and MST users alike • Alternative to roadway travel into downtown destinations Required Structures & Crossings: • Multiple elevated crossings/boardwalks at flood-prone spots • Wayfinding, rules, and stewardship signage at access points Potential Constructability Challenges: • Sensitive, thoughtful floodplain trail design • Adjacent private lands needing early coordination for access/privacy buffers • Limited parking capacity at some natural areas Indirect Benefit 186 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 53 187 54 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Mebane to Hillsborough6A Segment 6A (alternate 1 of 3) establishes a separated sidepath along portions of US-70 to connect Mebane and Hillsborough with a consistent corridor. This segment is envisioned to tie into the Mebane sidewalks system along US-70 (East Center Street). PROJECT OVERVIEW Location Along US-70 from Mebane east toward Hillsborough, tying into West Hill Ave / Occoneechee Mountain and Riverwalk; exact alignment and endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency and NCDOT coordination Key Connections • City of Mebane and Town of Hillsborough • Perry Hills Mini Park • Efland Cheeks Community Park • Hillsborough Riverwalk • Schools and commercial areas along US-70 Total Length ~9 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Shared-use path (paved, separated) or natural surface trail (gravel/aggregate); TBD • 10 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Shifts short highway trips to a separated sidepath on US-70 Supports daily walking/rolling along a high-visibility corridor Provides access from neighborhoods to jobs, schools, and parks Delivers a major city-to-town connection with safer intersection treatments Improves non-auto access to schools and library destinations Links Mebane/Hillsborough points of interest and supports local spending, potentially in two counties Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Reliable city-to-town connectivity • Safer mobility beside a high-speed roadway • Frequent, visible crossings to reach jobs, schools, services Required Structures & Crossings: • At-grade crossings with enhanced treatments at major intersections • Median refuges/curb ramps where warranted • Drainage and ditch modifications to maintain separation and accessibility Potential Constructability Challenges: • NCDOT coordination for sidepath within/ adjacent to US-70 right-of-way • Long distances between safe crossings • Space constraints due to utilities, slopes, and driveway frequency • Coordination with the Town of Hillsborough on internal connections to Riverwalk via roads and sidewalks Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 188 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 55 189 56 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Mebane to Kings Highway Park6B Segment 6B (alternate 2 of 3) delivers a natural-surface trail within/adjacent to the Duke Energy transmission easement, creating a quiet access between Mebane to Kings Highway Park. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location From Mebane toward the Town of Hillsborough's Kings Highway Park, along a Duke Energy transmission corridor and through wooded areas and open utility clearings adjacent to residential spaces; exact alignment and endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency and utility partner coordination Key Connections • Residential areas in the City of Mebane • Kings Highway Park Total Length ~8 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 8 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Reuses a utility corridor to reduce new land disturbance Provides quiet, restorative, off-road access to Kings Highway Park Serves nearby neighborhoods with a low-impact nature route Offers an off-road alternative parallel to regional roadways Supports informal learning through access to natural areas Encourages park visitation and local recreation- based spending Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Quiet, low-impact off-road option parallel to road network • Recreation facility access without a car • Predictable routing through a long, continuous utility corridor Required Structures & Crossings: • Localized boardwalks or elevated tread in low, wet areas (e.g., crossing at the Eno River) • Sightline management and vegetation clearing within the utility corridor • Wayfinding at access points and transitions into residential areas Potential Constructability Challenges: • Transmission clear-zone requirements and potential need for switchbacks • Privacy considerations near adjacent homes where the corridor narrows • Coordination with Duke Energy and approval on potential use of transmission line corridor • Compliance with utility owner conditions Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 190 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 57 191 58 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Natural Area 6C ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Reduces short car trips and encourages non-auto travel to parks and preserves Offers a family-friendly sidepath linking two key recreation spaces Expands access for residents along Lebanon Road to recreation and nature Provides predictable, separated travel where shoulders are narrow Supports outdoor learning at both Lake Michael and Panther Branch Strengthens recreation visitation that benefits local businesses Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Segment 6C (alternate 3 of 3) provides a separated sidepath along Lebanon Road, linking Lake Michael Park with the Eno River Association's Panther Branch Natural Area and nearby neighborhoods. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location Along Lebanon Rd between Lake Michael Park and Panther Branch Nature Preserve; exact endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency coordination Key Connections • Lake Michael Park • Panther Branch Natural Area • Residential neighborhoods along Lebanon Rd Total Length ~6 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Shared-use path (paved, separated) • 10 ft typical width Relevant Community Needs: • Safer, low-stress park-to-preserve access • Non-auto connections for nearby residents • Legible route on a corridor with limited shoulders and roadside constraints Required Structures & Crossings: • Enhanced at-grade crossings at key intersections • Culvert extensions and ditch regrading to maintain separation • Drainage improvements along roadside Potential Constructability Challenges: • NCDOT coordination adjacent to Lebanon Rd • Space constraints created by utilities, slopes, and driveway density • Drainage and floodplain considerations near small streams • Coordination with the City of Mebane on west terminus at Lake Michael Indirect Benefit 192 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 59 193 60 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park7 ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Follows wooded corridors near streams with low-impact tread Connects two park anchors with a shaded, restorative trail Improves access for rural residents to nearby recreation facilities Offers an off-road option where roadway expansion is limited Enables nature-based learning and park programming access Supports visitation to park facilities and community spaces near Cedar Grove Park Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Segment 7 creates a natural-surface trail linking Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park, following a mix of roadway and stream corridors near the Eno River to provide a quiet, natural connection between parks. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location From Cedar Grove Park west, then south toward Kings Highway Park, using waterways and wooded corridors near the West Fork Eno River and roadways near Cedar Grove Park; exact end points to be confirmed during design Key Connections • Cedar Grove Park • Kings Highway Park • West Fork of the Eno Reservoir • Confluence of the Eno Nature Preserve • Panther Branch Natural Area • Duke Forest • Rural neighborhoods along the corridor Total Length ~13 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 8 ft typical width Relevant Community Needs: • Access to parks for residents near Cedar Grove and eastern Cheeks Township • Off-road option where roadway expansion is not feasible • Shaded, restorative trail experience near the West Fork of the Eno Reservoir Required Structures & Crossings: • Boardwalks/elevated tread near wet areas or tributaries and reservoir • Drainage improvements and sustainable slopes in forested areas • Wayfinding to guide users between facilities Potential Constructability Challenges: • Waterway sensitivity and potential permitting • Limited parking capacity, especially at Kings Highway Park and reservoir • Multi-parcel easement needs across properties • Coordination with Duke Forest, Eno River Association, and Town of Hillsborough on access and connections Indirect Benefit 194 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 61 195 62 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park8A Segment 8A (alternate 1 of 2) creates a nature trail connecting Little River Regional Park and Natural Area to Cedar Grove Park, linking two key recreation anchors in northern Orange County. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location From Little River Regional Park and Natural Area south/southeast toward Cedar Grove Park, generally following wooded corridors, existing conservation lands, and connections near the County's future Northeast District Park and the WC Breeze Farm Incubator; exact end points to be confirmed during design Key Connections • Little River Regional Park and Natural Area • Cedar Grove Park • Breeze Farm and nearby rural neighborhoods • Future Northeast District Park Total Length ~14 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 8 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Respects strict conservation easements and sensitive creek corridors Provides a peaceful, off-road link between two recreation anchors Expands access for rural homes lacking nearby parks and recreation facilities Offers a nature-based alternative to longer roadside travel Connects users to varied forest and wetland habitats Supports local recreation-driven visitation to nearby community spaces Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Nature-based access between two parks • Conservation-aligned routing where paved options are inappropriate • Reliable off-road alternative to rural road travel Required Structures & Crossings: • Boardwalks/elevated tread at wet/stream areas • Sustainable grades in hilly or wooded sections • Wayfinding through forested/open-space transitions Potential Constructability Challenges: • Strict conservation easements at Little River; limited room for expansion or paved facilities • Park isolation, requiring careful access planning and trailhead placement • Multiple rural parcel negotiations and creek area permitting needs Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 196 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 63 197 64 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park8B Segment 8B (alternate 2 of 2) establishes a sidepath along existing roads between Little River Regional Park and Natural Area and Cedar Grove Park, offering connectivity where conservation limits off-road trails. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location Along roadway corridors linking Little River Regional Park and Cedar Grove Park, routed near Northeast Park and Breeze Farm; exact end points to be confirmed during design Key Connections • Little River Regional Park and Natural Area • Cedar Grove Park • Breeze Farm and nearby rural neighborhoods • Future Northeast District Park Total Length ~14 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Shared-use path (natural surface, separated) • 10 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Uses existing roads where off-road routes face conservation limits Expands predictable, year-round access to parks and community destinations Connects rural neighborhoods with local facilities without requiring a car Provides safer travel along narrow roads with limited shoulders Links to future Northeast District Park for learning and recreation Enhances access to local farms, venues, and community destinations Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Predictable, year-round travel route • Safer walking/rolling conditions along narrow rural roads • Access to parks and community destinations especially near Cedar Grove Park Required Structures & Crossings: • At-grade crossings at key intersections with enhanced safety treatments • Driveway/ditch modifications to maintain separation • Drainage improvements along roadside swales Potential Constructability Challenges: • Nature trail (Segment 8A) preference–which emerged through engagement–despite constraints near areas like Confluence of the Eno • Variable roadside conditions • Privacy considerations in rural residential segments • Likely to take many years to secure the needed trail corridor Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 198 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 65 199 66 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan MST - Eno River State Park to Durham9 Segment 9 extends the Mountains to Sea Trail east from new sections of Eno River State Park near Occoneechee Speedway toward Durham on a natural-surface alignment, using creek corridors and utility easements where feasible. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location From existing trails near Occoneechee Speedway east/northeast toward the Durham line, using creek alignments and feasible utility easements through Eno River State Park to create a continuous MST approach; exact alignment and endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency coordination Key Connections • Eno River State Park trailheads (Pleasant Green, Fews Ford) • Trails connecting to Hillsborough Riverwalk • Rural neighborhoods • Durham County MST system Total Length ~12 miles (planning length) Trail Type • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 3-5 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL ALIGNMENT NOTES Environmental Protection & Climate Action Reuses creek corridors and utility easements for low-impact MST routing Delivers a quiet, scenic MST experience for hikers, walkers, and runners Offers rural neighborhoods access to nature and nearby trailheads Extends MST across county lines, tying into regional trail planning Supports environmental education via state-park trailheads at Pleasant Green and Fews Ford Draws users from within and beyond Orange County who support recreation, parks, and local destinations Healthy Community Housing for All Multi-modal Transportation Public Education/ Learning Community Diverse & Vibrant Economy Relevant Community Needs: • Quiet MST experience away from roadways • Reliable off-road connection to Durham County • Clear wayfinding at dispersed access points Required Structures & Crossings: • Short boardwalks/elevated tread at flood-prone sections • Safety and wayfinding signage at trailheads • Vegetation management along utility corridors Potential Constructability Challenges: • Switchback needs on transmission corridor slopes • Flood-prone segments requiring careful design • Limited facilities at some trailheads • Privacy buffers near Pleasant Green residences • Pleasant Green Road bridge replacement NOTE: This trail will be located almost exclusively within Eno River State Park. NC State Parks and the Eno River Association will serve as lead entities for design and construction, with coordination and support from Friends of the MST. Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Created by Annisafrom Noun Project Indirect Benefit 200 MAP LEGEND County Line Parks Highways Interstates Streets Railroads Streams Lakes Wetlands Public & Conserved Land Towns/Cities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Colleges/Universities Existing Trail Segment Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 67 201 68 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan ANALYST SCORING Each segment was scored against five criteria on a scale from 1-5. • Local Need: Improves access for residents with the fewest existing options • Cost Efficiency: Value relative to planning-level cost • Connectivity to Existing Places: Links to parks, trails, schools, libraries, transit, etc. • Alignment with Guiding Principles: Safety, access & equity, wellness, local character, longevity, travel options • Level of Community Support: Strength of support or concern observed during engagement PUBLIC INPUT The community reacted to the draft order of priority (based on analyst scores) in two formats. • Dot Voting: Participants indicated whether each segment should move up (green dot), stay (blue dot), or move down (red dot) in the priority list. • Online Survey Ranking: Every respondent ranked all segments from highest to lowest priority. COMPARISON Because the three inputs used different scales, scores were normalized to a common 0–100 scale then weighted by depth and completeness of the data so no single source dominated. • Online Survey Rankings: 50% (most complete dataset; everyone ranked every segment) • Dot Voting: 30% (strong qualitative signal from engaged participants) • Initial Analyst Score: 20% (keeps feasibility and principles in view without overpowering community input) COMBINED PRIORITIZATION SCORE The weighted values were summed to create one Combined Prioritization Score per segment. That score was used to produce the final sequence for design and funding, detailed on page 69. Trail Segment Prioritization Prioritizing each of the segments (and their alternates, where applicable) helps Orange County turn a long wish list into a realistic, buildable first phase for implementation. Prioritization directs time and resources to the segments that deliver the most impact first by closing critical gaps (like MST links), strengthening connections to existing community destinations, and advancing projects that are most feasible to design and fund. A clear, data-driven ranking also builds trust as it allows the community to see how their input and How Priorities Were Set 01 02 03 04 The team combined professional research and analysis with community input to rank trail segments in a way that reflects what residents value and what can be delivered. Prioritization followed a four step process: considerations were combined to create a transparent, repeatable prioritized segment order. As new segments are added or existing segments receive new information (e.g., feasibility updates, new public input, funding awards), the same method can be re-run to update the ranking so decision-makers and the public can see how the order evolves. Additional information about the scoring process is available in Appendix D. 202 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 69 The list on the left represents the Combined Prioritization Score for all proposed trail segments. Please note that while there were no ties in the scores as of March 2026, any tied scores in the future should be broken first by higher local need, then by connectivity, and finally by cost efficiency. Priority Order of Segments MST ‑ Eno River State Park to Durham (Nature trail) Chapel Hill to Hillsborough (Road route via NC 86 & Waterstone Dr to Cates Creek Park) MST ‑ Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) MST ‑ Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park (Nature Trail via Eno River) Mebane to Kings Highway Park* (Nature trail via Duke Energy transmission easement) Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US- 70 to West Hill Ave/Occoneechee Mtn) MST ‑ Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Road route) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Nature trail via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Natural Area (Road route via Lebanon Rd) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Road route via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm)TOP PRIORITYLOWEST PRIORITY*One additional trail segment (6B) was introduced after the engagement period. It was evaluated using the same five-criteria analyst scoring criteria, then a neutral placeholder for its public input (the median of workshop and survey scores) was applied to produce a draft placement in the list. Public input scores can be incorporated as feedback is obtained moving forward, and this segment’s rank will be re-confirmed at that time to ensure consistency and fairness. 1 2 3 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 6C 7 8A 8B 9 203 70 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Implementation 05 A vision for trail connectivity in Orange County can only become reality if there is a practical path forward. Implementation bridges ideas with construction by first identifying partnerships and resources, then detailing the steps required to bring trail projects to life while maintaining coordination across jurisdictions and agencies. This section outlines how Orange County can advance the Trails Plan through phasing, collaboration, and funding strategies. It offers guidance for coordinated action so the County can deliver a safe and connected trail network over time. 204 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 71Pictured: Historic Occoneechee Speedway Trail 205 72 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Project Phasing Building a connected county trail network requires a phased approach that balances readiness, funding opportunities, and community impact. Since each corridor will require more detailed feasibility and funding coordination, the timeline for implementation may be extended. The framework described below provides a practical roadmap for advancing Orange County Trails Plan projects over time and reflects best practices from statewide and regional trail initiatives in North Carolina.9, 10 Orange County’s trail network can advance through three phases: near-term (1–5 years), mid-term (5–10 years), and long-term (10 years or more). These categories recognize that some segments can progress quickly through existing partnerships, partial connections, and data, while others require additional coordination, environmental review, and/or substantial landowner outreach. PHASE 1 Near‑Term Opportunities (1-5 years) In the early years, Orange County can focus on the projects that are most feasible in the short term due to existing partner relationships, simpler design needs, or strong community support. Phase 1 is also an opportunity to secure state and federal funding and build capacity for implementation.10, 11 The following activities are well-suited for Phase 1, especially for establishing consistent project delivery in future years: • Completing feasibility studies for the highest ranked segments on page 6911 • Initiating environmental studies, emergency access opportunities, and preliminary right-of way/easement conversations • Strengthening coordination with key partners (municipalities, NCDOT, OWASA, Triangle Land Conservancy, NC State Parks, Eno River Association, Duke Forest, Friends of the MST) • Beginning interdepartmental coordination with DEAPR, Planning, and the County Attorney’s Office on future processes for accepting and maintaining trail dedications associated with development approvals • Submitting applications to state and federal funding programs listed on page 76 • Constructing shorter, lower-complexity trail segments where design is straightforward • Enhancing existing facilities with wayfinding, signage, and small scale safety improvements PHASE 2 Mid‑Term Opportunities (5-10 years) Once early studies are complete and partnerships are in place, Orange County can begin advancing and delivering more complex trail projects. State and regional plans often use this middle window to deliver long connections, town-to-town segments, and projects involving multiple agencies or jurisdictions.9 The following work may be included in Phase 2. By the end of this phase, the County and community can expect to see meaningful improvements to connectivity and enhanced daily use. • Proceeding with full design and engineering for segments with established access or clear feasibility • Beginning construction of longer or more complex trail corridors that require coordination with multiple landowners or utility providers • Pursuing easements or land acquisition along waterways and proposed links in MST routes • Implementing segments that tie directly into roadway projects, utility upgrades, or regional transportation efforts • Building signature segments that anchor the evolving county network 206 First 12 Months: Recommended Actions To build early momentum, Orange County can begin with the following focused action items that lay the groundwork for design, coordination, and funding across the priority trail segments: • Confirm segment alignments for all Phase 1 corridors and create design standards through inter-agency coordination and with the BOCC. • Update planning-level cost estimates after any necessary network adjustments (based on feedback). • Launch feasibility studies for the top-ranked Phase 1 trail segments.11 • Initiate early landowner outreach along feasible nature trail and MST connections. • Convene quarterly coordination meetings with towns and key partners. • Prepare grant materials for competitive programs. 10 • Align trail timing with roadway resurfacing, utility work, and park expansion projects. 11 • Begin developing an operations and maintenance (O&M) approach for new trail segments. Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 73 PHASE 3 Long‑Term Opportunities (10 years or more) The final phase focuses on the trail segments that require the most time, coordination, and/ or funding to become a reality. Statewide trail projects frequently place these on the long-term timeline due to extensive permitting, thoughtful landowner engagement, or investments in infrastructure required.9 The following activities are realistic for Phase 3, with the goal of completing the broader Trails Plan vision of recreational and functional connectivity within Orange County. • Moving forward with trails in sensitive environmental areas where permitting, elevated structures, or floodplain solutions are needed • Coordinating on and delivering regional projects that connect Orange County to neighboring counties and larger-scale, statewide trail systems • Completing segments that are dependent on future development, roadway reconstruction, or major infrastructure improvements • Adding access points and trailhead enhancements that are best delivered once the foundational trail network is in place SOURCES 9 | NC State Parks - Planning 10 | North Carolina Trails Program - Annual Report 2024 11 | NCDOT - Multimodal Planning & Studies Tree-lined, paved surface trail at Gold Park, observed during Trails Plan fieldwork 207 74 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Project Phasing (cont.) # Segment Recommended Phase Rationale 1 Phase 2 2 Phase 2 3 Phase 2 4A Phase 1 4B 5 Phase 1 6A Phase 2 Phase 2* 6B Phase 3 6C Phase 2 7 Phase 2 8A Phase 3 8B Phase 2 9 Phase 1 UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) Rail permissions, crossings, and UNC energy decisions increase complexity Major road corridor needs coordinated design Many driveways and narrow roadway edges to resolve Road-based MST requires multi-party coordination Adopted MST route; feasible early segment Strong community support and clear connection High-speed roadway that needs safety upgrades Utility corridor constraints require longer timeline Conservation limits delay near- or mid-term work Feasible road route with manageable challenges High priority MST connection opportunity Straightforward roadside improvements expected Park-to-park link with moderate constraints Chapel Hill to Hillsborough (CoGen to Cates Creek Park via NC 86 & Waterstone Dr) Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) MST ‑ Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Road route) MST ‑ Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) MST ‑ Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US- 70 to West Hill Ave/Occoneechee Mtn) Mebane to Kings Highway Park (Nature trail via Duke Energy transmission easement) Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Natural Area (Road route via Lebanon Rd) Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park (Nature Trail via Eno River) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Nature trail via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Road route via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) MST ‑ Eno River State Park to Durham (Nature trail) The table below shows how each proposed segment fits into the near-, mid-, and long-term phases. *The portion of Segment 4B south of Buckhorn Road, where it merges with Segment 4A, will advance in Phase 1 due to ongoing MST development efforts. 208 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 75 COUNTY LEADERSHIP • Orange County DEAPR: Provides project management, stewardship of county resources, coordination with other departments, and operations and maintenance oversight. • Other County Departments: Transportation, Planning, and the County Attorney’s Office support development-related reviews and coordination. • Orange County Sheriff’s Office and Emergency Services: Support safety planning for crossings, access points, and emergency response considerations along trails. MUNICIPAL PARTNERS • Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and City of Mebane: Critical for town-to-town and greenway system connections, rights-of-way integration, and public engagement within town limits. STATE PARTNERS • NC State Parks / NC Trails Program: Provides guidance for natural-surface trails, MST routing, and state-level technical, funding, and implementation support.9,10 • NCDOT: Offers technical support, corridor planning, multi-modal guidance, and coordinates shared-use path feasibility within roadway rights-of-way.11 Discussions will be critical for coordinating potential road routes. REGIONAL & CONSERVATION PARTNERS • Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC): Coordinates access and alignment near conservation lands and supports nature-based trail stewardship. • OWASA : Manages water-supply lands where trailheads or access must be carefully sited; provides guidance for protection of sensitive water resources. • Duke Forest: Manages forest lands where coordination may be needed for trail interfaces or access points. • Eno River Association: Supports coordination for trails within the Eno River Basin. • Friends of the MST: Ensures alignment consistency, signage standards, and long-distance connectivity for statewide MST routing.9 UTILITY PARTNERS • Duke Energy: Manages transmission easements where trails may be feasible with design accommodations and clear-zone requirements. • Additional private utilities may assist with siting, relocations, or corridor coordination. Partnerships With a phased roadmap in place, the next step is understanding who can help advance projects and how they can be funded. The most effective trail systems are built through coordinated efforts between counties, municipalities, state agencies, regional conservancies, and utility partners–each contributing distinct capabilities, relationships, and resources.9, 10 In Orange County, partnerships support land access, stewardship, inter-agency coordination, and competitive funding while helping new trails integrate with parks, roadways, water resources, and conservation priorities across jurisdictional boundaries. The following partners will play key roles in delivering both near-term and long-term segments in the Orange County Trails Plan. Speeds up project delivery through coordinated efforts Boosts funding success with unified, multi‑partner applications Expands access options via shared land and easements Supports long‑term trail upkeep through shared stewardship Partnership Benefits 209 Natural surface trail and informational signage indicating arrival at Eno River State Park, observed during Trails Plan fieldwork 76 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Funding Opportunities Trail implementation relies on a mix of federal, state, local, and partnership-driven funding streams. North Carolina’s trail funding options include both dedicated statewide programs and competitive national grants administered through state agencies.10, 11 FEDERAL SOURCES • Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability & Equity (RAISE): Supports transformative multi-modal projects. • Transportation Alternatives (TA): Administered through NCDOT and MPOs to fund shared-use paths, trail crossings, and safety improvements. • Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ): Eligible for bicycle/pedestrian facilities that reduce vehicle emissions. STATE SOURCES • Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF): Supports park access, greenways, and recreation facilities across local governments. • Recreational Trails Program (RTP): Provides planning and construction grants for natural-surface and shared-use trails, administered by NC State Parks.10 • Complete the Trails Program (CTP): Supports state trail segments and connections to statewide trail corridors such as MST.10 LOCAL SOURCES • County capital improvement funding (CIP) • Municipal bond programs and greenway allocations • Public works or parks allocations tied to roadway or park expansion PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Other sources within the community, such as the examples listed below, may be able to provide sponsorship, land access, and/or volunteer labor to support trail development. • Conservancies • Non-profit partners • Corporate sponsors • Local businesses/employers • Healthcare institutions • Philanthropic foundations • Trails friends groups 210 Pictured: Little River Regional Park Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 77 211 78 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Implementation Plan The implementation plan outlines how Trails Plan segments can move forward from concept to construction. It builds on the phasing framework, prioritization process, and partnerships identified on page 75 to ensure investments are strategic, fundable, and aligned with statewide trail planning practices. Implementation in Orange County will be an iterative, multi-year process. Each step contributes to a consistent timeline of trail projects advancing through feasibility, environmental review, design, funding, and delivery.9, 10, 11 Trail implementation in North Carolina is also shaped by applicable state statutes governing public access, easements, liability, and greenway development. These statutes guide how local governments like Orange County acquire land rights and coordinate trail corridors, and will be foundational during future feasibility, design, and permitting phases. Together, the eight implementation steps provide a clear path to begin delivering a safe, connected trail network across Orange County. STEP 1 Maintain an Active Project Pipeline To ensure continuous progress is made, the County should keep multiple segments in various stages of development. This may include preparing segment-level feasibility studies for top priority corridors, evaluating emergency access and response considerations, advancing environmental studies and early engineering to minimize risk, and leveraging concurrent roadway or utility projects to incorporate sidepaths or crossings.10 STEP 2 Coordinate Across Departments & Jurisdictions Regular coordination meetings between Orange County DEAPR, Planning, Transportation, and public safety agencies, as well as municipal partners and NCDOT, will help align timelines, share data, and integrate trail work into capital projects and permitting windows. STEP 3 Continue Community Engagement Sustain concise, accessible engagement at key milestones (feasibility, design, pre-construction) to ensure segments reflect user needs, using a mix of in-person and virtual methods from Section 03 to prioritize rural residents and historically underserved communities. Engagement efforts should also be attentive to social justice and equity considerations, particularly around access, comfort, and safety for all trail users. STEP 4 Engage Landowners & Partners Early Secure relationships with landowners, TLC, OWASA, and private utilities to identify feasible alignments, reduce acquisition needs, and build trust. Early engagement helps avoid delays in the design, permitting, and construction processes. STEP 5 Strengthen Grant Readiness Federal and state trail programs increasingly reward projects that arrive with strong documentation, cost estimates, partnership 212 Issues for Further Study As trail segments move into feasibility and design, several topics will require deeper evaluation, policy development, and cross-departmental coordination: • Wayfinding & User Experience: Develop consistent standards for branding, signage, and navigation solutions–and potentially even digital integration–to improve comfort and clarity for county trail network users. • Sustainable Trail Design: Identify opportunities to incorporate design best practices for erosion control, material selection, and minimizing environmental impacts especially in sensitive waterway corridors. • Implementation Capacity: Assess staff roles, capacity, and any additional resources needed to support long-term Trails Plan project delivery and ongoing coordination. • Transit Connections: Explore ways to strengthen trail links to key transit stops and future mobility investments, supporting multi-modal access. • Accessibility Definition: Clarify how “universal access” applies to specific segments and determine where ADA-accessible trail design is appropriate/feasible. • BRT Coordination: Explore whether Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors create opportunities for shared-use paths or alternative trail connections. Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 79 agreements, and demonstrated community benefit. This may include maintaining updated planning-level cost estimates, preparing standard grant materials (maps, benefit narratives, letters of support), and aligning timing with various funding sources’ cycles.10 Most state and federal trail programs also require a local financial match, which should be planned for during early project budgeting. STEP 6 Integrate Trails into Capital & Development Cycles Some segments can advance more quickly when coordinated with other scheduled improvement projects like road resurfacing, water/sewer upgrades, park expansions, or new development.11 Coordination with other ongoing NCDOT planning efforts can also position road route segments to move forward when roadway projects are already slated for design or construction. Aligning these timelines can reduce costs and accelerate delivery. STEP 7 Build Long‑Term Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Capacity Trails require predictable and reliable stewardship. A long-term O&M framework may include shared maintenance agreements with municipalities, conservancies, and trail support organizations (e.g., Friends of the MST), as well as adoption programs, volunteer stewardship partnerships, and annual O&M budgeting for new trail connections. STEP 8 Monitor Progress & Update Priorities Implementation should adapt as new information becomes available. A short annual review between DEAPR, municipal partners, NCDOT, and the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council could be used to update phasing, incorporate new opportunities, and adjust priorities as conditions change. The Trails Plan itself should also be revisited periodically to reflect completed projects, emerging needs, and changes in local or regional priorities. 213 80 | Draft Orange County Trails Plan Appendix 06 | Types of Trails | Site Visit Notes | Public Engagement Documentation | Trail Segment Prioritization Documentation | Cost Estimate A B C D E 214 Draft Orange County Trails Plan | 81Pictured: Historic Occoneechee Speedway Trail 215 Planning Board Meeting July 2026 216 PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN •Formalize a cohesive and actionable strategy for multimodal design, development, and implementation for the unincorporated areas of Orange County •Align and integrate into regional transportation plans •MTP update – Triangle West TPO •MTP update – Burlington-Graham MPO •CTP update – Central Pines RPO ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN2 Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough Mebane 217 3 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANWhy Now? •Growth and Development: As Orange County grows, so does the need for roads and paths that work for everyone, not just drivers. •Safety Concerns: Some roads and crossings feel dangerous, especially in areas with high crash rates or no sidewalks or bike lanes. •Filling the Gaps: Some areas lack continuous connections between existing facilities and key destinations, making it more difficult to walk or bike safely. •Changing Habits: More people want to walk or bike as part of daily life – for health, convenience, or saving money. 218 4 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN219 Engagement Overview •600+ residents participated in nine distinct engagement activities, including an online survey, interactive map, stakeholder listening sessions, community events, and two public workshops. 5ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN220 6 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN221 7 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN222 What We Heard •High-speed corridors such as Route 54, NC 86, and Old Fayetteville Road were flagged repeatedly. People noted the lack of sidewalks, shoulders, and safe crossings. •Narrow roads with rumble strips, blind curves, or no shoulders were frequently mentioned as unsafefor biking. •Missing connections between neighborhoods, schools, and shops were common. Several people described how nearby destinations are functionally inaccessible. •Regional connectivity came up often. Residents want safer ways to travel between Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill, as well as improved access to parks and natural areas such as Brumley Forest and Duke Forest Korstian Division. •Participants also shared specific infrastructure ideas—such as roundabouts, separated paths and shoulder widening— especially along Old 86, Homestead Road, and Dairyland Road. 8ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN223 Where We Are 9ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANWhere We Want to Be224 Network Development •Data Inputs •Transportation Multimodal (2024) Project list •AADT Volumes •Speed Limits •Land use and/or nearby destinations •Refinement •Remove Greenway and Trail Projects •Upgrade/Downgrade facilities based on stakeholder input •Finalize Network •Facility Types specified per corridor •Informed by design guidance and stakeholder review 10 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNetwork Stakeholder Review Design Guidance Data 225 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANProposed Bicycle Network Facility Type Projects Total Mileage Bicycle Lanes 22 50.7 miles Paved Shoulder 61 215.9 miles Bicycle Laes: Improve on-road bicycle connectivity along corridors with appropriate roadway conditions. Paved Shoulders: Provide additional operating space for bicycle along rural roadways and support recreation and regional travel 226 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANProposed Pedestrian Network Facility Type Projects Total Mileage Shared Use Path 22 63.2 miles Sidewalks 28 23.2 miles Shared Use Path: Provides greater separation from traffic along higher- speed corridors and strengthens regional connectivity. Sidewalks: Improve short-distance walking access near schools, parks, transit stops, and community destinations 227 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANImplementation Realities •Most priority corridors fall under NCDOT jurisdiction •The current funding environment creates significant challenges for standalone bicycle and pedestrian investments. •Near-term progress will depend on aligning recommendations with planned roadway, safety, and infrastructure projects. 228 TMP Evaluation Methodology 14ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANStep 1 •Combine the weights obtained through survey Step 2 •Separate Projects Based on Types Step 3 •Finalize the parameters weightage for each project type Step 5 •Collect, clean, and organize data Step 5 •Calculate Metrics Parameter Measures Density Population and Employment within ½ mile School Access Number of schools within ½ mile Points of Interest (POI) Access Number of civic, commercial, community, cultural, institutional, retail and religious points within ½ mile Recreational Spaces Access Number of parks within ½ mile Access to Bus Stops Number of bus stops within ½ mile Network Gaps Ration of walk distance between the endpoints of the project before and after the build (for projects less than 1 mile) 229 15ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN230 16 Impact and Feasibility ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN•Framework helps distinguish near- term opportunities from longer-term investments. •ALL projects remain important long- term opportunities and should be revisited as conditions, partnerships, or funding evolve. •Intended to support strategic decision-making when time and resources are limited. 231 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANConcept Design 232 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANConcept Design 233 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANConcept Design 234 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPolicy Highlights •Align the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) with adopted transportation, trails, Complete Streets, and Vision Zero plans to support long-term network continuity. •Require new development to contribute on- site bicycle, pedestrian, and trail infrastructure that advances the countywide network. •Bundle projects strategically to improve competitiveness for state and federal funding opportunities. •Advocate for long-term structural funding reforms, including adjustments to North Carolina’s STI process and expanded regional representation. 235 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANFunding Highlights •Bicycle and pedestrian projects face significant funding constraints under current state and federal transportation programs. •Orange County will need to bundle projects strategically to improve competitiveness for programs such as Safe Streets for All, Safe Routes to School, and Transportation Alternatives. •Local funding sources will be critical to advancing implementation and providing matching funds for grants. •The plan identifies supplemental funding tools •Tourism-related bicycle and pedestrian investments may be eligible for occupancy tax funding where projects support visitor activity. 236 ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNext Steps Integrate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into future roadway, redevelopment, utility, and resurfacing projects. Preserve future multimodal corridors and connections as growth and development occur. Strengthen coordination among Orange County, municipalities, NCDOT, and regional partners. Continue building toward a safer, more connected, and more accessible countywide network over time. 237 PROJECT TEAM ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN23 Sarah Williamson, Interim Transportation Director sawilliamson@orangecountync.gov 919.245.20102 Madeline Galliano, Project Administrator mgalliano@dchcmpo.org 919.503.4120 Katy Shackelford, Project Manager Katy.Shackleford@stantec.com 540.835.7542 Daniel Rauh, Engagement Lead drauh@withersravenel.com 919.238.0416 238