The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 05-27-1997 - C2a(3) osy ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 27. 1997 Action Agenda Item#C 2a (3) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Economic Development Districts Design Manual Article 2.1 -Development Areas (I-85/Hwy. 70 EDD) Article 3.3 - Circulation and Parking(NC 751 Connector) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes–X—No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendment Mary Willis Extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to eliminate all references to an extension of NC 751 between U.S. 70 and I-85 in the Economic Development District Design Manual. BACKGROUND: On March 18, 1997, the Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution requesting deletion of the NC 751 connector between US 70 and I-85 from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The connector is referenced in maps and text pertaining to the I-85/U.S. Hwy. 70 Economic Development District (EDD). The proposed amendment eliminates all references to the NC 751 connector in the EDD Design Manual. RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance by either the public or the County from G70 the provisions of Article 20.3. In either case,though,the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's Recommendation. Zoning Q&er Recommendation Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 4, 1997. 0'71 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE Economic Development Districts Design Manual REFERENCE: Article 2.1 -Development Areas Article 3.3 - Circulation and Parking ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board X BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_X High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27. 1997 PURPOSE: To eliminate references to an extension of NC 751 between U.S. 70 and I-85 in the Economic Development Districts Design Manual. IMPACTS AND ISSUES: On March 18, 1997, the Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution requesting deletion of the NC 751 connector between US 70 and I-85 from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The connector is referenced in maps and text pertaining to the I-85/U.S. Hwy. 70 Economic Development District (EDD). The proposed amendment eliminates all references to the NC 751 connector in the EDD Design Manual. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 2.1 - Development Areas I-85/U.S.Highway 70 District The I-85/U.S. Highway 70 Economic Development District extends almost two miles along either side of I-85 and is located in the Lower Eno River Watershed........ Access to all sites is generally available from U.S. Highway 70, but steep slopes adjacent to some portions of the roadway may make access more difficult. However, with the realignment of Mount Herman Church Road as part of the I-85 widening project &ad the pfepesed exuasien ef Ene Dfive &9m Dwhm Ceuaty, accessibility 072 will be gr-eady improved. Potential transit access points are also possible, with locations designated north of the Southern Railroad and on the realigned Mount Herman Church Road near the I-85 interchange. Standards and design criteria for thoroughfare and transit systems are provided in section 3.3,Circulation&Parking.............. Insofar as recreational corridors are concerned, links between Duke Forest and the State Park have been designated along N.C. Highway 751 , in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer extending along I-85, along Old N.C. Highway 10 from N.C. 751 to Mount Herman Church Road, and along Mount Herman Church Road and Pleasant Green Road to the State Park access on the Eno River. These routes are not only reflective of the studies mentioned above but incorporate recommendations of the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties. Article 3.3- Circulation and Parking I-85/U.S.Highway 70 District (page 3.3.12) In the I-85/U.S. Highway 70 area, U.S. Highway 70 has been classified as an arterial road, and Old N.C. Highway 10, Mount Herman Church Road, Pleasant Green Road, and N.C. Highway 751 as collector roads. Specific deficiency analysis data is not available in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plan other than to note that U.S. Highway 70 will be over capacity by the year 2000. As noted in section 2.1, Development Areas, Mount Herman Church Road is being realigned as part of the 1-85 widening. A 24-foot pavement in a 60-foot right-of-way is proposed. However, Mount Herman Church Road has been recommended as a bicycle route in the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties. The addition of four feet to each side, resulting in a 32-foot pavement, will assure that bike lanes are provided as part of the improvements. The same condition exists with Old N.C. Highway 10 and Pleasant Green Road. Both roads have 20-foot pavements in 60-foot rights-of-way, and both roads are part of the bicycle system recommended in the Regional Bicycle Plan. The preferred cross- section for these roads is a 24-foot roadway with a four-foot bike lane on each side. As part of the I-85 widening project, improvements will be made to U.S. Highway 70 at the interchange; e.g., expansion to a four-lane divided facility, including two 12- foot travel lanes in either direction. Given the deficiency noted for U.S. Highway 70 by the year 2000 &Rd the pEepesed Ene Drive exuas , the preferred cross-section for that road is an extension of the four-lane divided facility. ex4easien f Dudiam. Alse k the N,,fth ems+ Loop, the set is ifitefl& pie wes efa tev:zmsaos_ of the fetif lane C ility eaid be M a new me ..hmg 4: 1 ►'7 i 1 �t •s fouf feet !&Res an the edge of ta4e etAside vehiele travel lane. in addifien, N.G. Highway 751 is anothef pr-ejeet is eiEteaded to U.S. Highway ;Q, d4e bike lanes afe te be em4eaded to eemee y4th these pfopesed fef N.C.. Highway ;6 1-. 074 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING DELETION OF THE NC 751 CONNECTOR FROM THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO URBAN AREA THOROUGHFARE PLAN WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan depicts the northward extension of NC 751 to connect US 70 with I-85; and WHEREAS, the State-Municipal Thoroughfare Plan mutually adopted by the City of Durham on November 18, 1991, and by the North Carolina Board of Transportation on January 10, 1992, for the Durham Thoroughfare Planning Area as required by North Carolina General Statute 136-66.2 likewise depicts the northward extension of NC 751 to connect US 70 with I-85; and WHEREAS, a proposal to construct an extension of NC 751 to connect US 70 and I-85, as well as an I-85 interchange, was discussed by NCDOT in early 1995 in conjunction with the discussions concerning the closure of I-85 exit 172; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 1995, the New Hope Creek Advisory Committee discussed the proposed I-85 interchange and connector road at NC 751 and identified as concerns the possible impacts on: 1) The NC 751 Scenic Road; 2) The Duke Forest research lands west of NC 751; 3) The New Hope Creek Corridor and tributaries including Mud Creek and Sandy Creek; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 1995, the Orange County Board of Commissioners in correspondence to Mr. H. Franklin Vick,North Carolina Department of Transportation, indicated that the Board would not support the extension of NC 751 and related projects until concerns regarding adverse environmental impacts on the New Hope Creek Corridor and the surrounding area were addressed to the Board's satisfaction; and WHEREAS, the Board continues to share the concerns articulated by the New Hope Creek Advisory Committee and others concerning adverse impacts to the environment if the NC 751 connector were to be constructed; and WHEREAS, the Board is responsible for developing both general and specific plans to promote the orderly growth and development of the area within Orange County; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Board, when overseeing the implementation of these plans and the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, to do so with foresight, thoughtfulness and sensitivity td the long-term quality of life of all of the citizens of Orange County; 7 b NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Orange County Board of Commissioners requests the removal of the NC 751 connector between US 70 and I-85 from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan that• was adopted on October 2, 1991 by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee. 2. The Orange County Board of Commissioners requests the removal of the NC 751 connector between US 70 and I-85 from the State-Municipal Thoroughfare Plan mutually adopted by the City of Durham on November 18, 1991 and by the North Carolina Board of Transportation on January 10, 1992. 3. The Orange County Board of Commissioners requests that the NC 751 connector between US 70 and I-85 be eliminated from consideration for any new or updated thoroughfare plans for the City of Durham or Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization. 4. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will forward a copy of this resolution to the Honorable James Hunt, Governor of the State of North Carolina, the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the members of the Orange Legislative Delegation, the Mayor of the City of Durham, and the Chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization. This, the 18th day of March, 1997. William L. Crowther, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners f Y o ,O o ,ct CTS Ul ~�,,,, +1 + GQ• .� j i .ham .. z t � s %6d t do 3 o f d 6• W �. o .r D lo. uj N LN kit so C13 rz NN. W to ` •� � .� �,� •� � W ' d ct d y m m �, •1 ado =Z � m SO a- ' a, it Ib '• '?� ass 3 °' c`� OF