Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-18-2001 - 9c AMENDED TO INCLUDE ATTACHMENTS 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Orange County/Hillsborough's EDD Task Force Further Authorization Request DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 Mission Statement Dianne Reid, ext. 2326 Draft Notes from 8/18/01 Work Group Meeting Map with Explanation TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To provide an update on Economic Development Districts (EDD) Task Force and EDD Joint Transportation Advisory Committee (JTAC) and suggest for consideration next steps in task force work topics and products. BACKGROUND: The original EDD Task Force was formed in February of 2000 by joint actions of Orange County and Hillsborough to evaluate the EDD districts and recommend changes to the process and land uses in the area to better address potential impacts. Those goals were achieved in April of 2001 by the adoption of new regulations. During that process, land use decisions was inextricably linked to the potential of transportation network. Therefore, another broader multi-stakeholder group was formed by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to continue examining transportation challenges in the Hillsborough area including the strong linkage to the EDD. Their mission statement is attached as well as the unadopted minutes of their charrette held on August 18. The original EDD Task Force of BOCC Chair Steven Halkiotis, BOCC Vice Chair Barry Jacobs, Hillsborough Town Commissioner Mark Sheridan, Hillsborough Town Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd, Economic Development Director Dianne Reid, Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict met on September 6, 2001 to discuss follow-up to JTAC and next steps of Orange County/Hillsborough coordination and cooperation. The following outline is attached for board discussion and consideration. Maps will be brought to the meeting for general orientation of project issues. AMENDED TO INCLUDE ATTACHMENTS 2 Orange County/Hillsborough Cooperative Projects I. Transportation Network A. Short Term 1. Joint Resolution of Orange County/Hillsborough to MPO regarding TIP 2. JTAC 8/18 Charrette roads discussion (see attachment) 3. Orange Grove Road capacity and improvements including development impacts 4. NC86/NC57/US70Improvements 5. West Hillsborough (Nash Street and Dimmocks Mill Road) B. Long Term 1. Orange County Thoroughfare/Functional Classification Plan 2. Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan 3. Hillsborough Internal Collector Street Enhancements 4. Park and Ride Opportunities II. Land Use A. 2010 Hillsborough Plan . B. Orange County Comprehensive Plan update C. Integration of both plans incorporating aspects of Water and Sewer Management Plan and Boundary Map D. Watershed Preservation E. Courtesy Review and Cooperative Agreements regarding land use, annexation and buffers III. Other Important Projects A. Fairview Park Expansion B. Justice Facility Expansion and River Park Recommendations include: Section I -A, 1 will be in the form of resolution to be brought to the Board in October. Section I-A, 2, 3, 4, 5 would be addressed by the existing EDD Task Force over the next few months. Section II could be addressed by a small workgroup of staff, Planning Board and JTAC appointees and elected body representatives, if suggested, to bring forth a work product and recommendation to a joint meeting of the BOCC and the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners in January, 2002. Section III topics could be separate workgroups, some of which are organized at this time. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides, specifically to address the work products noted in Section 1, A, 2, 3, 4, 5 at this time. 3 Joint Transportation Advisory Committee . Mission The Joint Transportation Advisory Committee is formed to create a formal and lasting communication conduit between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County to jointly and cooperatively study,request,and support transportation projects within each entity's jurisdiction. Initially,the committee members will inventory the needs as described in the transportation plans of the town and county,all necessary projects, and consider additional projects whose value may not have been evaluated yet. The members will work:cooperatively to prepare a joint list of priorities for referral back to the elected boards,NCAOT, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The members shall consider envwonmental economic development,social justice, and multi-modalism in creating their priorities. 4 Notes from Transportation Work Group retreat DRAFT Hillsborough House Inn August 18, 2001 The group worked primarily with flip charts and maps. The notes from the flip charts and the marked up maps provide the outputs from this meeting. Objectives for retreat Ideal: Identify and prioritize alternative roads and modes, and identify the relevant resources and actors Decide what to tell the DOT.about the Elizabeth Brady extension Decide upon transportation improvements needed to serve the Old 86 EDD At a minimum: Establish areas of agreement among work group members Identify issues for future consideration Identify further information needed Meeting ground rules Stay on task ➢ End on time (or early) ➢ Be explicit but brief ➢ Use all expertise in the room ➢ Rely on facts and shared beliefs One talk at a time(no side conversations) ➢ Classify statements—e.g., fact,belief ➢ Test assumptions with others ➢ Keep moving Profile of.group assembled for retreat (Dianne or Margaret: please code work group members with an asterisk...I went from my list) Name Care about... Have ea erience or expertise in... Hazel residents in Hampton area planning board Lunsford* Crai ..good"xrowth Transportation and land use lmka es Scott I Agreement with town Scott Full discussion of issues,and a Planning/transportation/economic development Radwa " supportable decision Mark Serious traffic problems and quality of Law;town council Sheridan* life in Hillsborough;economic 0 ortuni •land use along b 1 DRAFT 5 Jim Traffic problems,managing Public relations,economic development dcvelo went Scott Lawrence Rd.corridor Golf course Ken EDD and traffic issues Town council Margaret Future of Hillsborough Planning - Hauth George County and town worldng together; Builder/developer Horton* quaffty of life lanned growth John Lawrence Rd.residents Dianne Economic development that supports Economic development Reid opportunity for all residents,including through transportation Bryant Future of Hillsborough Longtime resident Warren* Bill Preservation of the Eno River and Carpenter,former member of town planning and Crowther* historic sites county commission Wendy Skepticism toward DOT solutions; Landscape architecture and transportation Olsen* supporting the southern EDD Hervey Wise growth,planned;addressing Conservation tr-Ansportation problems Barry Context of planning in Hillsborough County planning board,commission Jacobs* (cultural,political and environmental); strengthening town/county relations; quality of life in Hillsborough Holden Special sense of place Historic commission Richards* Holly Walking to school,alternatives to cars to Ecology,air quality,Eno River Reid* reduce congestion Karen Multimodal transportation,good Land use and transportation planning solutions Derek DOT,road maintenance Jim Historic preservation and economic Engineer,surveyor,contractor,site planner Parker* development •work group member Facts ➢ No decision to DOT means Hillsborough loses its priority in the Transportation Improvement Program ➢ DOT needs new priorities list by September '01 ➢ DOT will narrow down its options for Elizabeth Brady road or substitute by February '03,hold public hearings, and submit its final report in '04. The EDD is about 1000 acres and once developed will generate and draw traffic from surrounding region ➢ It takes 8 to 10 years to plan major roads ➢ The Town has already endorsed 1)the Elizabeth Brady road extension; and 2)the widening of Churton between south of the RR bridge to I-40. There is DOT money available for small improvements like turn lanes 2 6 DRAFT Shared beliefs ➢ The EDD should be supported with transportation and other infrastructure ➢ Any road(or none)will affect traffic issues in and around the EDDs ➢ Greater Hillsborough needs more roads and improvements to existing roads, including signals ➢ Greater Hillsborough needs an integrated transportation network to include pedestrian,bike, rail and transit infrastructure ➢ Any new road should minimize negative impacts on the environment,historical or cultural assets,existing neighborhoods, and the overall rural character of the area A Town and county must continue to coordinate their planning ➢ Transportation needs will increase over time ➢ Land use and transportation plans must be linked, and growth channeled to specified areas ➢ Development should not outpace the transportation system and other infrastructure ➢ Elizabeth Brady road extension(alone)will not significantly reduce traffic congestion on Churton St. ➢ Those who benefit from road improvements should help bear the cost of them Objectives for any new transportation project ➢ Improve traffic flow (reduce travel time,improve safety) Minimize negative impacts ➢ Be completed within reasonable time and cost Criteria for evaluating any road Effectiveness: Provides access to the EDDs Diverts through traffic from Churton.St., from I-40:to 70 bypass Improves traffic safety(including ped,bike) and flow Channels development where it is planned and wanted Feasibility: Reasonable cost, time, engineering, legality Town and county working together and agreeing Equity and Integzity: Minimizes negative impacts to: Existing houses,neighborhoods, or businesses Environmentally sensitive areas, including air and water,wildlife habitat Sites of historic or cultural value Town character as a whole Neighboring areas/towns 3 a DRAFT 7 Alternative roads From DOT's list In priority order by what is preferred by the work group: 1. Elizabeth Brady alignment 3,which does not cross the river, goes across ridge(IF this is the least impact to the river) 2. Elizabeth Brady alignment 2 (averts racetrack, crosses river) 3. (original)Elizabeth Brady alignment 1 4. Lawrence Road(with 86 connector)—but different function from above 5. Western bypass 6. No build 7. Widen Churton St. from 70 business to 70 bypass Other Proposed road projects Please review these carefully because I don't know these roads, and code to map ➢ Amended northwest bypass using existing wads Connector from Lawrence Rd. to 86 ➢ New interchange on 1-85 and road connecting 70 and New Hope Church Rd. ➢ Straighten(and widen?)Efland Cedar Grove Rd., and improve near 1-85 70A cross-connector to Orange Grove Road, over RR tracks ➢ Northeastern loop connector ➢ Entire perimeter of DOT study area, as a road ➢ East-west connector adjacent to Duke Forest ➢ East-west connector between 86 and Old 86 Widening of 70 bypass (in town plan but not in state TIP) Recommendations from group Expand the DOT study area to the entire 50-year water and sewer boundary from the town plan ➢ Have DOT continue with its existing list of options ➢ Consider DOT's current study area boundary as a road alignment, adjusted as needed and using existing roads where possible ➢ Design and build the Elizabeth Brady road extension to minimize the impact on the Eno River,even if it reduces mobility ➢ Treat Elizabeth Brady Rd. as a local road,not a bypass ➢ Treat Lawrence Rd. option as having a different function from Elizabeth Brady,to move through traffic around,not through, downtown ➢ Develop a new interchange of I-85 east of Lawrence Rd. ➢ Do other non-road fixes too Issues for another day Non-road improvements needed 4 UMM _ "" � ,aye p+ Vii_ �"ta' ma '� �` ► , �`�� Ar'�' e'„sin np � � ,r ��Sri. .:'��`•� /�� � � �x �� ��t �� �'� f ��g � is � �� �:■ ? � '��wi�� ��J.+ f �- i nyls s f tuay t v $ ����i i �� it 9 EXPLANATION OF MAP The area shown in white is the Courtesy Review Area, which also matches the Hillsborough 50-year Water/Sewer Service boundary. Projects outside the town's ETJ (solid gray line) but within the area above would be within the county's jurisdiction and the county would send certain threshold proposals to Hillsborough for courtesy review. Projects within Hillsborough's ETJ and town (solid black line), south of the Eno River, are accordingly within Hillsborough's jurisdiction and the town would send to Orange County for courtesy review. A color map will be available at the meeting. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Orange County/Hillsborough's EDD Task Force Further Authorization Request DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 Dianne Reid, ext. 2326 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To provide an update on Economic Development Districts (EDD) Task Force and EDD Joint Transportation Advisory.Committee (JTAC) and suggest for consideration next steps in task force work topics and products. BACKGROUND: The original EDD Task Force was formed in February of 2000 by joint actions of Orange County and Hillsborough to evaluate the EDD districts and recommend changes to the process and land uses in the area to better address potential impacts. Those goals were achieved in April of 2001 by the adoption of new regulations. During that process, land use decisions was inextricably linked to the potential of transportation network. Therefore, another broader multi-stakeholder group was formed by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)to continue examining transportation challenges in the Hillsborough area including the strong linkage to the EDD. Their mission statement is attached as well as the unadopted minutes of their charrette held on August 18. The original EDD Task Force of BOCC Chair Steven Halkiotis, BOCC Vice Chair Barry Jacobs, Hillsborough Town Commissioner Mark Sheridan, Hillsborough Town Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd, Economic Development Director Dianne Reid, Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict met on September 6, 2001 to discuss follow-up to JTAC and next steps of Orange County/Hillsborough coordination and cooperation. The following outline is attached for board discussion and consideration. Maps will be brought to the meeting for general orientation of project issues. 2 Orange County/Hillsborough Cooperative Projects 1. Transportation Network A. Short Term 1. Joint Resolution of Orange County/Hillsborough to MPO regarding TIP 2. JTAC 8/18 Charrette roads discussion (see attachment) 3. Orange Grove Road capacity and improvements including development impacts 4. NC86/NC57/US70 Improvements 5. West Hillsborough (Nash Street and Dimmocks Mill Road) B. Long Term 1. Orange County Thoroughfare/Functional Classification Plan 2. Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan 3. Hillsborough Internal Collector Street Enhancements 4. Park and Ride Opportunities 11. Land Use A. 2010 Hillsbor6ugh Plan B. Orange County Comprehensive Plan update C. Integration of both plans incorporating aspects of Water and Sewer Management Plan and Boundary Map D. Watershed Preservation E. Courtesy Review and Cooperative Agreements regarding land use, annexation and buffers Ill. Other Important Projects A. Fairview Park Expansion B. Justice Facility Expansion and River Park Recommendations include: Section I A 1 will be in the form of resolution to be brought to the Board in October. Section I-A, 2, 3, 4, 5 would be addressed by the existing EDD Task Force over the next few months. - Section 11 could be addressed by a small workgroup of staff, Planning Board and JTAC appointees and elected body representatives, if suggested, to bring forth a work product and recommendation to a joint meeting of the BOCC and the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners in January, 2002. Section Ill topics could be separate workgroups, some of which are organized at this time. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides, specifically to address the work products noted in Section 1, A, 2, 3, 4, 5 at this time.