Marion County commissioners and staff reviewed proposed revisions to the transportation element intended to strengthen access management, connectivity between developments and multimodal (pedestrian, bicycle and transit) provisions during a Jan. 9 workshop.

The board emphasized clearer language so the plan distinguishes what the county will provide from requirements placed on new development. Staff and consultants proposed separating policy language into two parts: county actions (for example, pedestrian connections to transit stops, neighborhood-level connectivity techniques and transit-route improvements) and developer requirements (on-site pedestrian circulation plans, cross-access easements and connections to planned pedestrian/bicycle networks).

County Engineer Stephen Kane advised simplifying one access policy and removing part of the first sentence as redundant with standard planning practice. Kane told the board, "I would recommend just striking that sentence in its entirety. That's something that we would typically already look at as a part of... planning as well as through the office of the County engineering review staff." The board directed staff to adopt Kane's recommended edits and to change mandatory language where appropriate to allow planning discretion.

The board also debated how to implement connectivity where existing private parcels resist cross-access. Commissioners noted that property owners sometimes object to overlay designations or required cross-access. County Attorney Minter described the legal trade-offs when counties pursue regional thoroughfares across private property: "When the public purpose is primarily for benefiting the broader public and not just a function of this subdivision development... the public should pay for that and not the individual property owner," and added, in a discussion of remedies, that acquiring a needed thoroughfare could require eminent domain if the county decides the public purpose warrants it.

Gated communities: Board members agreed to remove a line recommending the county "minimize gated communities" from the draft policy, calling that phrasing too prescriptive. One commissioner said the county should not preclude private developments that choose gated configurations; staff removed the phrase and noted policy will focus on connectivity where feasible.

Compact development and transit: Commissioners discussed a proposed "compact development" objective that encourages denser, multimodal development to support transit, reduce vehicle miles traveled and lower roadway demand. Staff recommended clarifying whether compact-development policies apply countywide or only inside the urban growth boundary and to add examples of existing compact development before finalizing language. The board asked staff to return with (1) split policy text that separates county versus developer responsibilities, (2) example projects or map-based illustrations of compact development and (3) recommended edits to the Land Development Code to align with the comprehensive plan.

Next steps: Staff will draft revised, split policy language and return with redlines showing which provisions would become county action items and which would be enforceable requirements for new development. The board asked for more detail on implementation and how the Land Development Code and project review processes will be used to achieve the stated connectivity goals.

No formal vote was taken; the workshop resulted in direction to staff for redrafting and further analysis.